Breadth
Topic of Inquiry Breadth Requirements:
- Minimum 21 credits (e.g., seven 3-credit courses) in Topic of Inquiry designated courses;
- At least six distinct Subject Area Codes represented across Topic of Inquiry designated courses;
- At least one course in each Topic of Inquiry (some courses fulfill two).
Focus
Topic of Inquiry Focus Requirements:
- A student must fulfill at least three courses in a single Topic of Inquiry or all requirements of at least one Theme.
- The existing policy, whereby students may not fulfill general education requirements with two or more courses from the same department, remains in place. Exceptions to this rule are subject heading designations that group interdisciplinary studies through cross listing, such as LLAS, AFRA, WGSS, AAAS, URBN, ENVS, EVST, HRTS.
Integration
Integration Requirement:
At least one course should be an approved Integrative Experience.
Competency
Competency Requirements:
Quantitative (2 courses): Two Q courses, at least one in MATH or STAT, may be a Topics of Inquiry or Major course.
Writing (3 courses): All students must take either ENGL 1007 or 1010 or 1011. Students passing ENGL 2011 are considered to have met the ENGL 1007 or 1010 or 1011 requirement. Two additional W courses are required, at least one in the Major; may be Topics of Inquiry or Major courses.
Second Language: Students meet the minimum requirement if admitted to the University having passed the third-year level of a single second language in high school, or the equivalent. When the years of study have been split between high school and earlier grades, the requirement is met if students have successfully completed the third-year high school-level course. With anything less than that, students must pass the second course in the first-year sequence of college level study.
The remaining two competencies are infused within the six Topics of Inquiry
- Information, Digital, and Media Literacies
- Dialogue
For Faculty
A course may be designed to fulfill at most two Topics of Inquiry.
Prerequisites (if any) for a Topic of Inquiry course must also be approved Topic of Inquiry courses.
A Theme proposal must be approved by GEOC and be proposed by faculty from at least two distinct academic departments.
A Theme must use courses from at least two Topics of Inquiry.
Themes may require a specific set of courses, or have the flexibility of a certain number of courses from a particular list, etc., but must require at least three and at most five three-credit courses for fulfillment.
FAQ:
Q: Does the new curriculum require more credit hours to complete than the old system?
A: No. The task force resolved to make the new Topic of Inquiry (TOI) courses require no more credit hours to complete than the old Content Area (CA) courses. Both fulfill the same broad goal of what is sometimes called a distributive curriculum, to ensure that students learn from a robust variety of perspectives and subject areas across the university. Thus, exactly as with CAs in the old model, each student is explicitly required to complete at least 21 credit hours in TOI courses and with at least six distinct subject area codes represented. Beyond these TOIs total-credit requirements, credit hour requirements for competencies remain unchanged, and the integrative experience requirement course may be fulfilled within a TOI course or major-required course, resulting in a new system that does not require more credit hours of education than the legacy system.
Note that by retaining the same minimum total-credit requirements of the legacy system, we remain in compliance with NECHE accreditation standards for the entire university.
Q: In the current system, “double-dipping/triple-dipping” is confusing. Are we simplifying rules like these?
A: Yes. Breadth of student learning in the new system is supported by requiring courses that fulfill the learning objectives of six distinct Topics of Inquiry (TOIs). Any course may be designated to affirm that it fulfills up to two sets of TOI learning objectives, but not more. (This is shown here under rules “For Faculty.”)
Beyond this stipulation that occurs at the course-designation level (i.e., at the time of GEOC approval) there are no rules concerning “double-dipping” or prohibitions on the use of courses designated twice. This is a mild simplification from the current rule that a course may count for one or two Content Areas, or for three Content Areas if one of the three is Content Area 4.
Q: These rules are a bit abstract as presented here. How can they be made clearer to navigate in practice, for both students and advisors?
A: After the details of a new system become approved by the Senate, we envision the development of an easy to use visual tool for course planning, similar to Plans of Study tools currently in use in some schools for major requirements. The tool would present a grid of courses that satisfy core curriculum requirements, with rows for courses and columns for each requirement. Check boxes show which courses satisfy which requirements, and red highlights indicate rules that have not been satisfied. Ideally, this could be linked to catalog listings so a student or advisor could easily browse through available courses that fulfill a requirement not yet satisfied in the plan. A sample of a completed plan has been added above during Summer 2021, in response to initial proposal feedback. While removing some of the burden and confusion of navigating the curriculum, this tool would also aim to foster student intentionality and autonomy, as well as streamlining conversations among students and advisors.
Q: Why do the Topic of Inquiry courses include a Focus Requirement? Isn’t it a student’s major that provides “focus” to their college degree?
A: While it is true that each major curriculum provides one important type of educational focus, our research on student sentiment indicated that a lack of focus in the general education system itself has been a missed opportunity at UConn. Students expressed a hunger to make connections across their general education courses, but instead they typically felt that course selection was an exercise in disconnected “box-checking.” Our first task force spent a considerable amount of time reviewing educational best-practices, with research showing that “strands” or “pathways” models that make connections across core courses are a recognized high-impact practice. After considering several more-or-less restrictive implementation models, the second task force arrived at the current more flexible model. At minimum, this Focus Requirement will spur a discussion among students and advisors about how to get more meaning out of the core curriculum by choosing a TOI to explore in just a bit greater depth. But more importantly, the Theme format provides an opportunity for faculty across disciplines to curate an intensely meaningful pathway through the core curriculum. This is exactly that type of engagement that students expressed a desire for, that research shows works, and that has been designed with sufficient flexibility for a flagship public university.