4.6
College of the Redwoods
CURRICULUM PROPOSAL
1. Course ID and Number: PHIL 1 C‐ID Descriptor (if applicable): 2. Course Title: Critical Thinking 3. Check one of the following: New Course (If the course constitutes a new learning experience for CR students, the course is new). Required ‐ Justification for Need (Provide a brief description of the background and rationale for the course. This might include a description of a degree or certificate for which the course is required or the relationship of this course to other courses in the same or other disciplines. To see examples of such descriptions, consult pages 10‐11 of The Course Outline of Record: A Curriculum Reference Guide. Updated/Revised Course If curriculum has been offered under a different discipline and/or name, identify the former course: Should another course be inactivated? No Yes Inactivation date: Title of course to be inactivated: (If yes, complete a Course Inactivation Form found on the Curriculum Website.) 4. If this is an update/revision of an existing course, provide explanation of and justification for changes to this course. Be sure to explain the reasons for any changes to class size, unit value, and prerequisites/corequisites. After reviewing course outlines for equivalent courses at CSUs, UCs, and dozens of other California community colleges, the philosophy faculty are changing the prerequisite from ENGL 1A to ENGL 150 or ENGL 102 in order to bring our course into alignment with our peer and transfer institutions and to increase student access. We have also reviewed the course outcomes and methods of instruction to affirm their appropriateness, and we have updated the example textbooks. We have also indicated that this course is included as a restricted elective for the ADT: PHIL. 5. List the faculty with which you consulted in the development and/or revision of this course outline. Faculty Member Name(s) and Discipline(s): Phil Freneau (PHIL/ECE‐DN); David Owren (PHIL‐EKA); Elizabeth Leach (PHIL‐KT); Sam Savage (PHIL‐EKA); Jeff Sellars (PHIL‐EKA). 6. If any of the features listed below have been modified in the new proposal, indicate the “old” (current) information and “new” (proposed) changes. If a feature is not changing, leave both the “old” and “new” fields blank. FEATURES OLD NEW Course Title TOPS/CIPS Code Catalog Description (Please include complete text of old and new catalog descriptions.) Grading Standard Select Select Total Units Lecture Units Lab Units Prerequisites ENGL 1A ENGL 150 or ENGL 102 Corequisites Recommended Preparation Curriculum Proposal: Revised 04.25.14; 09.09.14 Academic Senate Approved: 05.02.14
Page 1 of 9 Maximum Class Size Repeatability— Maximum Enrollments Select Select Other 1. DATE: August 19, 2015 2. DIVISION: Arts and Humanities 3. [CB04] COURSE CREDIT STATUS: D Credit‐Degree Applicable 4. [CB01] COURSE ID AND NUMBER: PHIL 1 5. [CB02] COURSE TITLE: Critical Thinking (Course title appears in Catalog and schedule of classes.) 6. SHORT TITLE: Critical Thinking (Short title appears on student transcripts and is limited to 30 characters, including spaces.) 7. [CB03] LOCAL ID (TOPs code): 1509.00 Taxonomy of Program Codes 8. NATIONAL ID (CIP code): 38.0101 Classification of Instructional Program Codes 9. DISCIPLINE(S): Philosophy Select from Minimum Qualifications for Faculty Course may fit more than one discipline; identify all that apply: 10. FIRST TERM NEW OR REVISED COURSE MAY BE OFFERED: Spring 2015 11. COURSE UNITS (Note: 1 lecture unit requires 18 hours in‐class/36 hours out‐of‐class; 1 lab unit requires 54 in‐class hours) TOTAL UNITS: TOTAL HOURS: [CB07] [CB06] 3 3 min. units max. units 54 54 min. hours max. hours Lecture Units: 3 Lab Units: 0 Lecture Hours: 54 11. MAXIMUM CLASS SIZE: 35 12. WILL THIS COURSE HAVE AN INSTRUCTIONAL MATERIALS FEE? No Lab Hours: 0 Yes Fee: $ If yes, attach a completed Instructional Materials Fee Request Form found on the Curriculum Website. GRADING STANDARD Letter Grade Only Pass/No Pass Only Grade‐Pass/No Pass Option [CB12] Is this course a repeatable lab course? No Yes If yes, how many total enrollments? Select Is this course to be offered as part of the Honors Program? No Yes If yes, explain how honors sections of the course are different from standard sections. Honors sections will require additional assignment(s) and contact with the instructor outside of class. Additional assignments may include but are not limited to 1. a study of one additional full‐length work or of a substantial group of related readings and one additional piece of writing; 2. development of a web‐based course resource; 3. class presentations of research. CATALOG DESCRIPTION ‐ The catalog description should clearly describe for students the scope of the course, its level, and what kinds of student goals the course is designed to fulfill. The catalog description should begin with a sentence fragment. A study of thinking and its qualities with a focus on effective decision making and practical reasoning skills. Students will practice evaluating arguments and gathering and analyzing information and reasoning to justify a conclusion. Curriculum Proposal: Revised 04.25.14; 09.09.14 Academic Senate Approved: 05.02.14
Page 2 of 9 The course examines the uses of language, formal and informal fallacies, argument forms, deductive and inductive logic, and methods for evaluating arguments. Special Notes or Advisories (e.g. Field Trips Required, Prior Admission to Special Program Required, etc.): PREREQUISITE COURSE(S) No Yes Course(s): ENGL 150 or ENGL 102 Rationale for Prerequisite: PHIL 1 is a focused study of argument and assumes students are compentent in the evaluation of claims and evidence and can respond critically in writing to arguments (see ENGL 150 and ENGL 102 outcomes #1 & #2). Describe representative skills without which the student would be highly unlikely to succeed. Students must be able to read complex texts and identify arguments and support. Students must also be able to develop and defend orally and in writing their own arguments. COREQUISITE COURSE(S) No Yes Rationale for Corequisite: Course(s): RECOMMENDED PREPARATION No Yes Course(s): Rationale for Recommended Preparation: COURSE LEARNING OUTCOMES –This section answers the question “what will students be able to do as a result of taking this course?” State some of the outcomes in terms of specific, measurable student actions (e.g. discuss, identify, describe, analyze, construct, compare, compose, display, report, select, etc.). For a more complete list of outcome verbs please see Public Folders>Curriculum>Help Folder>SLO Language Chart. Each outcome should be numbered. 1. Analyze and evaluate complex arguments from a variety of oral and written sources. 2. Distinguish fact from inference and knowledge from belief. 3. Construct a logical, coherent argument with a justified conclusion. COURSE OBJECTIVES ‐ This section describes the objectives the course addresses through the course content. Objectives can include specific disciplinary questions or goals that are central to the course subject matter and are meant to address what the various intents of the course are. Each objective should be numbered. METHODS OF INSTRUCTION – Clear methods by which instructor will facilitate acquisition of objectives. Include here descriptions, NOT lists. Course outline must clearly articulate how these methods of instruction are related to, and help student work towards, achieving the objectives and student learning outcomes. Instructional methodologies will be consistent with, but will not be limited to, the following types orexamples. The instructor will provide lectures on the differences between rhetorical strategies for persuasion and standards of logical argumentation. The instructor will facilitate classroom discussion of contemporaray arguments as well as primary philosophical texts in order to help students learn to develop logically defensible interpretations of the meanings of and problems in these texts. Students will deliver presentations that critically analyze and critique the logical structure and consistency of an argument. Outside of class, students will produce reading responses that allow them to practice summarizing and critiquing philosophical writing in order to analyze the logical structure and consistency of an argument. Outside of class, students will develop a formal essay that offers and defends a claim in order to practice critical evaluation of texts and philosophical argumentation. COURSE CONTENT–This section describes what the course is “about”‐i.e. what it covers and what knowledge students will acquire. Concepts: What terms and ideas will students need to understand and be conversant with as they demonstrate course outcomes? Each concept should be numbered. Curriculum Proposal: Revised 04.25.14; 09.09.14 Academic Senate Approved: 05.02.14
Page 3 of 9 1. Critical thinking. 2. Argument. 3. Analysis. 4. Assumption. 5. Claim. 6. Reason. 7. Evidence. 8. Reasoning. 9. Ethos. 10. Pathos. 11. Logos. 12. Fact. 13. Inference. 14. Interpretation. 15. Opinion. 16. Doubt. 17. Certainty. 18. Generalization. 19. Defintion. 20. Vagueness. 21. Ambiguity. 22. Bias. 23. Metaphor. 24. Analogy. 25. Euphemism. 26. Dysphemism. 27. Premise. 28. Conclusion. 29. Induction. 30. Deduction. 31. Soundness. 32. Cogency. 33. Validity. 34. Logical fallacies (e.g. hasty generalization, ad hominem, etc.). 35. Categorical logic. 36. Propositional logic. 37. Causation. 38. Verifiability Issues: What primary tensions or problems inherent in the subject matter of the course will students engage? Each issue should be numbered. 1. Egocentrism. 2. Sociocentrism. 3. Wishful thinking. 4. Cultural relativism. 5. Knowledge vs belief. 6. Fact vs. opinion. 7. Reasons for believing vs. reasons for doubting. 8. Perception, subjective experience, and objective material reality. 9. Intellect vs. emotion. 10. Certainty. 11. Probability Themes: What motifs, if any, are threaded throughout the course? Each theme should be numbered. Curriculum Proposal: Revised 04.25.14; 09.09.14 Academic Senate Approved: 05.02.14
Page 4 of 9 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Intellectual habits of a careful, critical thinker. Rationality. Analysis. Doubt. Justification. Precision. Clarity of thought and expression Survival Skills: What abilities must students have in order to demonstrate course outcomes? (E.g. write clearly, use a scientific calculator, read college‐level texts, create a field notebook, safely use power tools, etc). Each skill should be numbered. 1. Read and annotate complex texts closely and critically. 2. Recall factual and theoretical information to respond to quizzes and writing prompts. 3. Develop written and verbal responses to questions at issue. 4. Separate justified conclusions from opinions or beliefs. 5. Separate rational and emotional responses. 6. Evaluate the quality of an argument's reasoning. 7. Write essays that articulate and support positions on relevant issues. REPRESENTATIVE LEARNING ACTIVITIES –This section provides examples of things students may do to engage the course content (e.g., listening to lectures, participating in discussions and/or group activities, attending a field trip). These activities should relate directly to the Course Learning Outcomes. Each activity should be numbered. 1. Listening to lectures about key concepts and analytic methods. 2. Participating in class discussions by posing and responding to questions about assigned readings. 3. Writing analyses of oral or written arguments. 4. Writing a paper about making a decision by defining an issue, gathering information, identifying biases, consulting experts, and giving reasons for conclusions. 5. Applying the Venn Diagram Method for testing the validity of an argument. ASSESSMENT TASKS –This section describes assessments instructors may use to allow students opportunities to provide evidence of achieving the Course Learning Outcomes. Each assessment should be numbered. Representative Assessment Tasks (These are examples of assessments instructors could use.): 1. Participation in class discussions. 2. Examinations. 3. Essay that presents a cogent argument in support of a position and gives evidence of acquired knowledge. 4. Essays that evaluate the quality of reasoning in an assigned reading. Required Assessments for All Sections (These are assessments that are required of all instructors of all sections at all campuses/sites. Not all courses will have required assessments. Do not list here assessments that are listed as representative assessments above.): 1. At least one formal essay that requires students to apply problem solving methodologies and to develop a justified conclusion. EXAMPLES OF APPROPRIATE TEXTS OR OTHER READINGS –This section lists example texts, not required texts. Author, Title, and Date Fields are required Author Chaffee Title Thinking Critically 11th ed. Date 2014 Author Moore & Parker Title Critical Thinking 11th ed. Date 2014 Author Wright Title Critical Thinking: An Introduction to Analytical Reading & Reasoning 2nd ed. Date 2012 Author Vaughn Title The Power of Critical Thinking 4th ed. Date 2012 Curriculum Proposal: Revised 04.25.14; 09.09.14 Academic Senate Approved: 05.02.14
Page 5 of 9 Other Appropriate Readings: Novels that explore the rational and irrational and the search for patterns and meaning (such as Voltaire's Candide and Thomas Pynchon's The Crying of Lot 49) COURSE TYPES 1. Is the course part of a Chancellor’s Office approved CR Associate Degree? No Yes If yes, specify all program codes that apply. (Codes can be found in Outlook/Public Folders/All Public Folders/ Curriculum/Degree and Certificate Programs/choose appropriate catalog year): Required course for degree(s) Restricted elective for degree (s) AAT.PHIL; HUM.LA Restricted electives are courses specifically listed (i.e. by name and number) as optional courses from which students may choose to complete a specific number of units required for an approved degree. 2. Is the course part of a Chancellor’s Office approved CR Certificate of Achievement? No Yes If yes, specify all program codes that apply. (Codes can be found in Outlook/Public Folders/All Public Folders/ Curriculum/Degree and Certificate Programs/choose appropriate catalog year): Required course for certificate(s) Restricted elective for certificate(s) Restricted electives are courses specifically listed (i.e. by name and number) as optional courses from which students may choose to complete a specific number of units required for an approved certificate. 3. [CB24] Is the course Stand Alone? No Yes (If “No” is checked for BOTH #1 & #2 above, the course is stand alone.) 4. [CB08] Basic Skills: NBS Not Basic Skills 5. [CB10] Work Experience: NWE Not Coop Work Experience 6. [CB22] Noncredit Category: Credit course, not applicable 7. Course eligible Career Technical Education funding (applies to vocational and tech‐prep courses only): No Yes 8. [CB23] Course developed using a Chancellor’s Office Economic Development Grant: No Yes 9. [CB11] Purpose: Y Credit Course Course Classification Status 10. Accounting Method: W Weekly Census 11. [CB13] Disability Status: N Not a Special Class 12. [CB09] Course SAM Priority Code: E Not Occupational Definitions of SAM Priority Codes COURSE TRANSFERABILITY 1. [CB05] Current Transferability Status: A Transferable to both UC and CSU 2. [CB21] Course Prior to Transfer Level: Y Not Applicable Definitions of Course Prior to Transfer Levels CURRENT TRANSFERABILITY STATUS (Check at least one box below): This course is currently transferable to: Neither CSU nor UC CSU as general elective credit CSU as a specific course equivalent (see below) If the course transfers as a specific course equivalent give course number(s)/ title(s) of one or more currently‐active, equivalent lower division courses from CSU. 1. Course PHIL 200: Critical Reasoning, Campus CSU Northridge 2. Course PHIL 170: Critical Reasoning, Campus CSU Long Beach UC as general elective credit Curriculum Proposal: Revised 04.25.14; 09.09.14 Academic Senate Approved: 05.02.14
Page 6 of 9 UC as specific course equivalent If the course transfers as a specific course equivalent give course number(s)/ title(s) of one or more currently‐active, equivalent lower division courses from UC. 1. Course PHIL 5: Critical Reasoning, Campus UC Davis 2. Course PHIL 7: Critical Reasoning, Campus UC Riverside PROPOSED CSU TRANSFERABILITY (Check at least one of the boxes below): No Proposal Remove as General Education Propose as General Elective Credit Propose as a Specific Course Equivalent (see below) If specific course equivalent credit is proposed, give course number(s)/ title(s) of one or more currently‐active, equivalent lower division courses from CSU. 1. Course , Campus 2. Course , Campus PROPOSED UC TRANSFERABILITY (Check one of the boxes below): No Proposal Remove as General Education Propose as General Elective Credit OR Specific Course Equivalent (fill in information below) If “General Elective Credit OR Specific Course Equivalent” box above is checked, give course number(s)/ title(s) of one or more currently‐active, equivalent lower division courses from UC. 1. Course , Campus 2. Course , Campus CURRENTLY APPROVED GENERAL EDUCATION (Check at least one box below): Not currently approved CR GE Category(‐ies): Area C: Humanities, Secondary GE Category (if applicable) CR CSU GE Category: A3 CSU IGETC Category: IGETC PROPOSED CR GENERAL EDUCATION (Check at least one box below): No Proposal Remove as General Education Review to maintain CR GE Status New GE Proposal ____ _Approved as CR GE by Curriculum Committee: _______ _
(DATE) ____ _ Not Approved ____ _ Approved to remove CR GE status CR GE Outcomes GE learning outcomes in Effective Communication, Critical Thinking, and Global Awareness must be addressed in all general education courses. o Effective Communications: Explain how the proposed GE course fulfills at least one of the CR GE outcomes in this category. Philosophy 1 is a focused study of the relationships among language, thought, and logic and requires students to both pracitice and evaluate effective communication in order to demonstrate successful achievement of the course outcomes. Throughout the semester, students respond verbally in class discussion and in essays they write to complex arguments, paying particular attention to the ways logical coherency and precision of language impacts communication. To be successful in PHIL 1, students do all of the following: 1) communicate complex ideas and the nature of thinking and the qualities of thought 2) generate and communicate ideas clearly, orally and in writing, 3) read with comprehension, and 4) listen with comprehension. o Critical Thinking: Explain how the proposed GE course fulfills at least one of the CR GE outcomes in this category. As a course expressly focused on critical thinking, PHIL 1 fulfills virtually all of the GE outcomes in critical thinking (with perhaps the exception of applying mathematical concepts and the scientific method‐‐although one could argue that many of the rules of formal symbolic logic introduced in the course are mathematical in nature and that PHIL 1's study of the scientific method as a mode of analysis is close to an application of scientific reasoning). Specifically, students in PHIL 1 read a variety of visual, oral, and written arguments and analyze these arguments using formal methods of logical analysis. Successful students in PHIL 1 will be able to Curriculum Proposal: Revised 04.25.14; 09.09.14 Academic Senate Approved: 05.02.14
Page 7 of 9 do the following: 1) evaluate ideas presented in writing, media, speech or artistic representations; 2) Evaluate sources of information; 3) Analyze/interpret creative expressions, resources, data; 4) Make value judgments and ethical decisions; 5) Use problem‐solving skills effectively. o Global Awareness: Explain how the proposed GE course fulfills at least one of the CR GE outcomes in this category. Much of the focus of PHIL 1 is analyzing the relationships among experience, thought, and expression. Students examine the difference between fact and inference and study the ways individual perspective and cultural and historical contexts influence the creation of thoughts about the world and our experience of it. PHIL 1 students are required to locate unexamined assumptions (both their own and others) and to consider intellectual, aesthetic, and cultural values embedded in an argument. To succeed in this course students will need to be able to 1) analyze issues from multiple perspectives, 2) express an awareness of cultures in a diverse global community, 3) explain the relationships between humanity and the natural environment, and 4) analyze issues within their historical context. GE Criteria for Breadth and Generality GE courses should be broad and general in scope. Typically such courses are introductory‐‐ not advanced or specialized—and the content encompasses a broad spectrum of knowledge within a given field of study. Explain how the proposed GE course fulfills GE criteria for breadth and generality. PHIL 1 is an introductory overview of a variety of basic methods for philosophic analysis and argumentation. Students in the course explore a wide range of current and perennial issues and study the diversity of ways these issues have been and are being addressed. CR GE Area Designation Course Learning Outcomes and Course Content should provide evidence of appropriate GE Area Designation. Additional rationale for GE Area Designation (optional): Area A: Natural Science Area B: Social Science Area C: Humanities Area D: Language and Rationality D1: Writing D2: Oral Communications D3: Analytical Thinking Area E: Multicultural Understanding* *To be considered part of CR GE Area E, all courses must meet the following two conditions: 1. The course must also be (or be proposed) in one other CR GE area AND 2. The course must be articulated with HSU as meeting their lower‐division Diversity and Common Ground GE requirement. PROPOSED CSU GENERAL EDUCATION BREADTH (CSU GE) (Check at least one box below): NO PROPOSAL A. Communications and Critical Thinking A1 – Oral Communication A2 – Written Communication A3 – Critical Thinking B. Science and Math B1 – Physical Science B2 – Life Science B3 – Laboratory Activity B4 – Mathematics/Quantitative Reasoning C. Arts, Literature, Philosophy, and Foreign Language C1 – Arts (Art, Dance, Music, Theater) C2 – Humanities (Literature, Philosophy, Foreign Language) E. Lifelong Understanding and Self‐Development E1 – Lifelong Understanding D. Social, Political, and Economic Institutions D0 – Sociology and Criminology D1 – Anthropology and Archeology D2 – Economics D3 – Ethnic Studies D5 – Geography D6 – History D7 – Interdisciplinary Social or Behavioral Science D8 – Political Science, Government and Legal Institutions Curriculum Committee Approved: 04.25.14; 09.01.14
Academic Senate Approved: 05.02.14
Page 8 of 9
E2 – Self‐Development D9 – Psychology Rationale for inclusion in this General Education category: Same as above Proposed Intersegmental General Education Transfer Curriculum (IGETC) (Check at least one box below): NO PROPOSAL 1A – English Composition 1B – Critical Thinking‐English Composition 1C – Oral Communication (CSU requirement only) 2A – Math 3A – Arts 3B – Humanities 4A – Anthropology and Archaeology 4B – Economics 4E – Geography 4F – History 4G – Interdisciplinary, Social & Behavioral Sciences 4H – Political Science, Government & Legal Institutions 4I – Psychology 4J – Sociology & Criminology 5A – Physical Science 5B – Biological Science 6A – Languages Other Than English Rationale for inclusion in this General Education category: Same as Above Submitted By: John Johnston Tel. Ext.: 4375 Date: August 19, 2015 Dean/Director: Erin Wall Review Date: September 16, 2015 For Dean/Director only: Does this course change require a substantial or nonsubstantial change to a degree? Yes No CURRICULUM COMMITTEE USE ONLY Approved by Curriculum Committee: No Yes Date: Academic Senate Approval Date: Board of Trustees Approval Date: Curriculum Committee Approved: 04.25.14; 09.01.14
Academic Senate Approved: 05.02.14
Page 9 of 9