KAS 4, SOC SCI 30, MIN STUD 1, SOC SCI 5, SOC SCI 2 (SSP) SYNTHESIS
The UP System GE Conversations for the Social Science and Philosophy domain was held last May 10, 2021 from 1:30-3 p.m. The team’s moderator was Associate Professor Mary Dorothy dL. Jose, with Assistant Professor Alvin Campomanes as assistant moderator. The session started with the moderator introducing the theme of the GE Conversations, its objectives, as well as the panelists before proceeding to the pre-recorded talks.
The first panelist was Dr. Ciencia from UP Baguio who shared his experiences in teaching Soc Sci 30 (Notions of Justice), a GE subject that discusses various theories of justice. He highlighted that due to the challenges caused by online learning, this new set-up pushes us in the direction of “more independent study” on the part of the student.
The second panelist, Prof. Millondaga from UP Mindanao talked about Mindanao Studies 1 (The Hitchhiker’s Guide to Mindanao) which tackles the peoples and cultures of Mindanao. She highlighted the difficulty for students from Luzon and Visayas to imagine the place as the most challenging aspect of teaching the course.
The third panelist was Dr. Badayos-Jover from UP Visayas who talked about her experience in teaching Soc Sci 5, a GE subject that discusses various concerns and perspectives on gender relations. She highlighted the importance of rubrics as assessment tools and showed some examples of rubrics and student output.
The fourth panelist shared his department’s experiences in teaching Social Science 2, or the Social Economic, and Political Thought under remote learning. Due to the wide scope of the topics, they recalibrated their course packs through printed materials and adjusted assessment tools, which were mostly weekly tasks and unit exams.
Last to present was Prof. Jose who shared her experiences in teaching Kasaysayan 4 (Ang Kababaihan sa Kasaysayan ng Pilipinas). She shared the same challenges faced by most faculty members and highlighted the need to exercise empathy and compassion to students in these trying times.
After the presentation of the panelists, the program proceeded with the Q&A part.
Some of the questions raised and answered were as follows:
1) On key ways of assessment and evaluation in consideration of the remote learning set-up, most panelists agreed that written output is the most commonly used assessment tool under remote learning.
2) On a standard way of teaching a particular GE course in the CU where it is being offered, most panelists agreed that there is no standard way of handling the course; even Soc Sci 2 in UP Diliman, which has a standard for those teaching the course, also depends on the faculty in terms of style of delivering the course; for UP Mindanao, the over-arching framework was that the style of delivering the course depends on the expertise of those teaching it.
3) On the use of rubrics in grading the written output and if it is being shared with the student, Prof. Gloria answered yes, but the details of the rubrics still depend on the faculty.
4) On managing course topics and requirements:
a. On the performance of Soc Sci 2 students given the wide scope of the topics, Prof. Gloria answered that some topics were combined based on themes and that hand-outs were given to students; readings were also streamlined and detailed guides were given to students.
b. On deciding which requirements to cut down,
Prof. Jose said that she reduced the number of requirements (e.g. from 2 film reviews to 1 film review).
Prof. Alvin said that he goes back to the learning objectives to determine which requirements could be eliminated. He also summarizes the readings and integrate them in his lectures.
Prof. Gloria shared that they adopt 2 strategies: one is to retain the high-stakes requirements and the other is to provide deadline extensions to weekly assignments.
5) On maintaining the distinction between essential and nice-to-know parts in our syllabi even after the pandemic:
Prof. Gloria said it is good to have that kind of distinction while Dr. Badayos-Jover shared that she is not comfortable with that since the value of the topics might be shortchanged. Meanwhile, Prof. Millondaga shared that she just puts the nice-to-know materials under supplementary readings.
6) On the use of wellness breaks to catch up on readings and other requirements and the possibility of going back to 18-week semesters:
Dr. Evangeline Amor volunteered to answer this and said that based on the program redesign exercise we had before the academic year started, academic load of students was considered, resulting to the current set-up where the first semester was shortened to 14 weeks and added a week to the second semester to give way to the reading break. Students’ academic load was also reduced to 12 units. She reiterated the importance of the academic unit’s role in these matters and concluded that after our learnings from this academic year, maybe we could envision the next AY.
As a follow-up question, Dr. Badayos-Jover asked if academic units will be sanctioned if they do not follow the guidelines? She cites the lecturers’ handling of GE subjects as an example. Dr. Amor answered that there are no sanctions but continuous communication for the sake of everyone.
7) On the tendencies for grade inflation or deflation as a result of reducing the number of requirements and practicing compassion, Dr. Badayos-Jover said that it was during the last semester that she gave the highest grades ever, but does not consider it as grade inflation. Meanwhile, Prof. Millondaga shared her surprise that upper class students got higher grades than her first year students.
Prepared by Prof. Mary Dorothy Jose