Summary Report of the Nursing
Faculty Forum (PDF)
Faculty Comments:
anonymous:
These are my individual views. But I felt compelled to
tell you that I am pleased with and excited by the proposals of
the Task Force on Curricular Change. Sadly, there has already been
a lot of negative response from some of the professional schools,
and I fear my own will fight the changes as well. It is even more
disheartening that some of the arguments against the changes as
published in local media seem to be based on misreadings of the
proposals. But I want the committee to know that not all of the
people in the dissenting schools oppose these changes.
It is my firm belief that the University has a responsibility
to ground our students solidly in liberal studies, and I voiced
this strongly to Megan Seaholm in a meeting she held with the
Academic Counselors Association. The University experience should
be one that affords students the opportunity to expand their
horizons. They must be exposed to new ideas. Their views should
be challenged, and they should learn to engage in discourse.
They must learn to reflect on and question that which has been
familiar to them. This is all done by asking them to see material
from a range of perspectives, many of which are new and different,
by learning how to question, how to analyze arguments and how
to frame their own. This is as true for those desiring to enter
professions as for those who plan to pursue the liberal arts.
Indeed, as U.S. demographics shift and as we are increasingly
asked to engage in the global community, excellent critical thinking
skills and understanding of other cultures is more important
than ever. Indeed, the ability to communicate clearly across
media and using a range of technology is crucial. Two other opportunities
afforded by the task force recommendations that I strongly applaud
are an enhanced opportunity for all students to do interdisciplinary
study and the single portal of entrance (the University College)
which would allow for broader advising (across colleges). Both
are desperately needed. I would add that the latter (the University
College advising) should be tied to learning supports.
Off the record (and I do mean off the record), what I see at
my own School of Nursing is a downplaying of the importance of
the humanities and fine arts courses. The attitude is that students
simply get those courses out of they way, often at a community
college. There is no discussion of how literature and the arts
can be used in clinical practice. There is no discussion of the
fact that nurses must engage in the political process and thus
need to understand how it works. There is little discussion of
understanding other cultures. And exploration in courses not
in the degree plan is actively discouraged. The pre-professional
curriculum is narrow and the focus is almost exclusively on getting
admitted to the professional sequence of the program. There is
one pre-professional elective (fine arts). The coursework in
the professional sequence is also narrow, focusing in large measure
on pathophysiology and the development of technical skills, with
some work on management and community health nursing. Mental
health nursing is taught, but I am not certain that it is valued
by the School or the students as it should be. All patho and
technical skills are necessary, but this leaves the curriculum
wanting as a university education. Perhaps my views are pie-in-the-sky,
but someone has to be an idealist. Why not me?
Resolving the needs and desires of the various players will
be a difficult task. Students need to finish in a timely fashion.
Adding many new requirements will work against that. But I believe
that the task force has worked hard to establish a balance. Adding
the signature courses and seeking to expand the content of existing
courses seems quite workable. There is flexibility established
already in terms of allowing students to be pre-selected for
their requested majors, so I don't see that the University College
hurts anyone, and it will likely help many, many students. And,
maybe it is time for each professional school to question its
curriculum, and in some cases ask whether four years is a sufficient
amount of time for students to get what they need. (I'll probably
get shot for suggesting that!) I know there will be compromises
ahead. But I think this is a good direction for the University
and I am eager to see the work proceed.
Gayle Timmerman, associate professor
Instead of the signature courses which inherently have problems
related to large class size and adequate TA implementation of
smaller sections, I suggest that 2 additional flags be added.
One of those flags would be "interdisciplinary" signifying
courses that had 2 interdisciplinary faculty teaching. The other
flag would be "premier faculty" indicating courses
taught by UT finest faculty and scholars (criteria for who fits
that designation would need to be developed). As with the other
flags, one course could have multiple flags designated. This
would allow more variety in topics, yet accomplish the intent
to provide an interdisciplinary experience with the best UT faculty.
