First-Year Seminar Committee

Charge meeting: April 5, 2007

Committee Membership

Final Report, April 29, 2008

The University Faculty Senate at the January 30, 2007, meeting approved substitute recommendation two as shown below. President Spanier approved this recommendation on February 28, 2007.

Substitute Recommendation 2
The Chair of Faculty Senate, with input from University Administration, shall appoint an ad hoc committee to develop solutions to the shortcomings of the current seminar or offer a suitable alternative first-year experience. This ad hoc committee shall report back to Faculty Senate no later than the end of Spring 2008.

The first-year seminar (FYS) was established based on a revision of general education requirements in a report to the Senate on October 21, 1997. The overarching objectives of the FYS requirement were: 1. To engage students in learning and orient them to the scholarly community from the outset of their undergraduate studies in a way that will bridge to later experiences in their chosen majors. 2. To facilitate students’ adjustment to the high expectations, demanding workload, increased academic liberties, and other aspects of the transition to college life. They were intended to have academic content, be taught in small classes (N = 20) by experienced full-time faculty, be portable from one program and campus to another, and be taken in the first year.

There have been a number of reports on the effectiveness of the FYS requirement as it has been implemented across the University. They have noted that although there are examples of very successful seminars, there are also a number of problems with quality, consistency, and implementation. For example, there is wide variation in content and objectives, academic rigor, number of credits, class format, and the place of the seminar in the curriculum. Some seminars focus almost entirely on orientation activities and others on academic content while some attempt to do both. DUS students often have trouble accessing seminars relevant to their educational goals. In some cases, seminars are taught by staff or part-time faculty. Similar concerns were also noted in the 2005 report of the Middle States Accreditation Team visit to Penn State. At the current time, support for the mandatory credit-bearing first-year seminar model is mixed among faculty, students, and administrators across the University. At the Senate meeting in February 2007, almost half of the senators voted to eliminate the FYS as a University requirement and allow each unit the option to retain a seminar requirement for their own purposes.

The goal of the current committee is to study existing information about the effectiveness of the current FYS model in the context of students’ overall first-year experience at all locations of Penn State and to recommend creative solutions to the current stalemate. Can the current model of FYS as a credit-bearing academic experience at all locations be improved and retained, or

should there be an alternative model where some or all of the academic needs of first-year students are met outside of a credit-bearing requirement as part of a broader plan for the first-year experience?

Best practices may be identified by the committee by examining the models of other universities as well as individual units at Penn State. The committee is encouraged to consult a variety of “experts” including faculty and administration that have been involved in the development, teaching and assessment of the FYS across campuses, researchers in higher education, and student leaders.

To assist the committee, there is a great deal of information about the history of the FYS and the work of previous committees charged with assessing its effectiveness at

http://www.senate.psu.edu/agenda/2005-2006/apr25-06agn/fys.pdf and the results of a recent forensic session of the Senate on April 25, 2006 can be found at http://www.senate.psu.edu/record/record042506.htm#UE.

The committee's work will be guided by the consideration of the five charges below.

1. The committee should examine the elements of a successful first-year experience. What do first-year students need to be academically successful? Are the original goals of the FYS legislation written in 1997 still relevant to the needs of first-year students in 2007 given the reorganization and changing demographics of the campuses and colleges. In considering this question, it is important to consider that units at University Park and campus locations differ in size and student population. If the needs of Penn State students are not being met in the current framework, the committee may choose to recommend the clarification or modification of the goals of the FYS.
   
   
2. The objectives of the original legislation were deliberately broad in order to allow each unit to explore models that best meet the needs of their student populations; however this has lead to such wide variation in content, rigor, goals and delivery that students and faculty are seriously concerned about issues of quality and effectiveness. In addition, it is difficult to assess progress if the original objectives are not clear and measurable. The committee should recommend strategies to address this issue. Are the goals and objectives determined in Charge 1 clear enough so that short-term and long-term outcomes can be assessed? If so what are some examples of these outcomes.
   
   
3. The committee should review (based on previous data and reports) the many models and best practices in the offering of the first-year seminar across Penn State and other universities. What are the elements of successful first-year seminars? Is there a single model (or small group of models) relating to number of credits, place in the curriculum, content, and structure that might better meet the needs of the University as a whole?
   
   
4. One of the questions that the committee must address is whether the needs of students in their first year at Penn State are better met in a University-wide credit bearing academic first-year seminar or should those needs be better met in part, or in whole, in a noncredit format? Any recommendations for a new format should include consideration of current curricular requirements and curricular procedures and policies, as well as the resources that would be required to implement any new program.
   
   
5. Any successful academic initiative requires regular oversight and an assessment plan to maintain quality as the needs of students change across time. The administration and Faculty Senate would need to work together to ensure a quality first-year experience for our students. Therefore, the committee should develop recommendations to ensure that there is oversight and support for any new or continuing academic initiatives, as well as an assessment plan that includes the regular reporting of results to the Faculty Senate.

Return to Senate Committees