Psychology 100G: Issue of Diversity in Developmental Psychology

Class info:[ Class menu | Calendar | Syllabus | 3 core questions | Goals, Expectations, & Responsibilities ]
Discussion:[ Contents | Search | Post Discussion Message ]
Feedback:[ Biweekly feedback on class | Reports on feedback | Questions & Comments ]

Syllabus
/developed by Dr. Eugene Matusov/

Psychology 100G: Issue of Diversity in Developmental Psychology
-- Fall 1996 --


Class Schedule

TIME OF CLASS: Tuesdays, Thursdays 8:00-9:45 a.m. PLACE: Soc. Sci. II Room 071

First class meeting: September 26 (Tue.) Last class meeting: December 5 (Thu.)

Instructor will be out of town for a conference: November 7 (Thu.) -- guest speaker will be announced.

[ Top of the page ]


Info about Instructor, Teaching Assistants, & Office Hours

INSTRUCTOR: Eugene Matusov, Ph. D. (postdoctoral fellow in psychology)
For more info about the Instructor see Eugene Matusov's Home Web Page
Office: Soc. Sci. II, Room#305 Phone: x5180 e-mail: ematusov@cats.ucsc.edu
Office hours: 10:30 - 11:30 a.m.

[ Top of the page ]


Overview: The core 3 questions

Traditionally, psychologists have studied human development as a universal phenomenon. Recently, however, it has become increasingly recognized that in order to understand human development, researchers cannot ignore the diverse ways in which humans function in various socio-cultural and historical contexts. The seminar examines how the issues of diversity (in comparison to universality) have been addressed and studied both in theoretical and empirical works in developmental psychology. The course is designed to encourage participants (i.e., each student and the instructor) to engage in critical thinking and discussions concerning diversity in understanding human development.

In examining the issues of diversity in human development, the course focuses on four topics: these include educational practice, cognition, gender, and language. We will examine the theories and research on these topics using the following three core questions:

1. What is treated or claimed as universal in the theory, conceptualization, research?
2. What is treated or claimed as
diverse in the theory, conceptualization, research?
3. What evidence is provided to support or dispute claims of universality and diversity?

We also will explore implications of each perspective (universality vs. diversity) on human development for creating or maintaining practices in various contexts of our lives (e.g., family, school, work place, inter-ethnic relations etc). In-class discussions will focus on identifying the key concepts for the weekly reading and presentations.

Active participation in class and web discussions and small group activities is crucial for learning in this course. Class participation also includes playing active roles in creating a supportive atmosphere in which every participant's learning will be fostered. This involves both building on or disagreeing with arguments made by others.

NOTE: Students are expected to attend every class meeting and those who miss more than three class meetings will be dropped from the course.

Each student is expected to participate as a responsible member of the class who is willing to contribute to one's own as well as others' learning. The course is designed as a seminar (as opposed to a lecture course) and involves extensive discussion and small group activities based on the readings and several films. Individuals and/or groups will work on and present projects during the quarter.

[ Top of the page ]


First week's assignment

Description of your interests. (1 single-spaced page, max.; DUE 10/4 Fri. by 7:00 p.m. via class Web)
Describe the reasons why you are taking the course and what you would like to get out of it. The following questions may guide your writing. Everyone should include the first question in your response. However, you may chose whether you want to respond to the remaining questions listed or to include other issues as you wish.

  1. How does the course relate to your interests (e.g., personal, professional, political etc.)?
  2. What are you expecting to learn from participating in the course ( e.g., in general, in contrast to other psychology courses you have taken, etc.)?
  3. How do you think you can make contributions to your own and others' learning in this course?
  4. How is the goal of the course, as you understand it now, related to your learning goals?

The purpose of the assignment is to facilitate your thinking about your expectations, learning needs, and demands for the course in order to make your own learning more meaningful and self-directive and to make the class more productive for everybody. The assignment also will help to make and design your final evaluation (see Purposes & Expectations: Participating in development of the class evaluation Web page that may help you to think through the issues).

Please, use Post Discussion Message page for submitting your paper.

[ Top of the page ]


Readings
There is a required reader composed of primary source material. Two copies of the assigned papers are available at the UCSC McHenry Library Reserve (you can barrow a paper for 2 hours) and at my office. Each assigned reading is accompanied with info about:

I expect you to read minimal readings indicated in the parentheses below.

Because I do not expect that you read all assigned papers, we are going to discuss reading in the three following phases in class:

  1. in small 4-6 people groups, which involve such a composition of students to cover all the assigned papers for the current week, there will be sharing among the students about the reading of the week guided by the questions below and your emerging questions;
  2. in class "circle," students who did not read a paper will be asked to share with the class what they have learned in small groups from their fellow students who read the paper; and, finally,
  3. in class "circle," there will be a general discussion of the all assigned papers guided by the questions below and your emerging questions.

Readings due October 3 (read at least one of the following papers)
Topic 1. Approaches to diversity and universality in the social sciences: Studying vs. constructing the object of the study.

Rationale for the topic: This topic will focus us on why considering similarities and differences in the study of people is important.

Cassirer, E. (1946). The structure of mythical thought. In The myth of the state (pp.3-15). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Due to: 10/3 (Th)
Eugene's proposed issues for discussions:
1. What do you think is Cassirer's dilemma in approaching to research on cross-cultural cognition in general and mythical thinking specifically?
2. What were two major tendencies that Cassirer found in the past research? What are their strengths and limitations from Cassirer's point of view? What do you think was his proposal for solution?
3. Have you noticed Cassirer's terms like "low races," "savages," "primitive" as referring to other (often traditional) cultures? How do you explain his choice of the terms?
4. Why do you think Ernst Cassirer wrote this chapter in the first part of the 1940s? What do you think was his driving issue?

Soros, G. (1995). The failed philosopher (interview with B. Wien). In G. Soros, B. Wien, & K. Koenen, Soros on Soros, (pp. 209-236). New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Due to: 10/3 (Th)
Eugene's proposed issues for discussions:
1. How do you think reflexive statements differ from true or false statements according to Soros (give your examples if it is possible)? Do you think that reflexive statements are arbitrary or if not what would put limits on the reflective statements?
2. What do you think is the main difference between "science" and "alchemy" according to Soros? Why does he think that the term "social sciences" is a misnomer and how does he suggest to approach to the field of social inquiries?
3. How do you understand Soros's "near-" and "far-from-equilibrium conditions"? Please, give your examples, if possible. How do you think these notions relate to the reflexive statements?
4. Do Soros's notions of "closed" and "open" societies make sense for you? What do you think Soros's agenda was in writing this chapter?
5. What do you think would be Soros's reaction on Cassirer's proposal to integrate diversity and universality in studying culturally different societies (and ways of thinking)?

Latour, B. (1993). We have never been modern. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Chapter 1, Crisis, pp.1-12. Due to: 10/3 (Th)
Eugene's proposed issues for discussions:
1. What are "hybrids" in Latour's term (please, give an example)? How do you think Latour's "hybrids" are similar to and different from Soros's "reflexive statements"? What do you think this has to do with the issues of diversity in developmental psychology?
2. What is the "great Divide" and "crisis" Latour is talking about? Why does he emphasize 1989 as a special year?
3. What do you think was Latour's agenda in writing this chapter? How do you think it relates to the dispute between cultural relativists and scientific positivists?
4. How do you think Latour's, Soros's, and Cassirer's positions on role and goal of social sciences are similar and different? Which of them suggests a more historical and cultural perspective?

Readings due October 8 (read at least one of the following papers)
Topic 2. Exploring diversity and universality in practices of different communities.

Rationale for the topic: This topic will focus us on why considering historical processes in producing continuity and discontinuity in developmental processes. Due to: 10/8 (Tu)

Heininger, M. (1984). Children, childhood, and change in America, 1820-1920. In M. Heininger, K. Calvert, B. Finkelstein, K. Vandell, A. MacLeod, and H. Green, (Eds.), A century of childhood: 1820-1920, (pp.1-32). Rochester, NY: The Margaret Woodbury Strong Museum.
Eugene's proposed issues for discussions:
1. Why do you think Heininger listed socio-economic forces in the United States in the nineteenth century – the early twentieth century that changed American family, childhood and adults' images of children?
2. It is interesting to describe and share different historical patterns of American family, childhood and adult images of children. Try to find as many patterns as possible in Heininger's chapter and mark approximate historical periods of the patterns.
3. How do you think Heininger explains the transitions from one pattern to another?
4. Do you think that statements about "childhood as it should be" are true, false, or reflexive (in Soros's terms)?
5. What type of children do you think Heininger left out from her analysis of American childhood 1820-1920 and why?

Hernandez, D. J. (1994). Children's changing access to resources: A historical perspective. Social Policy Report: Society for Research in Child Development, 8 (1), 1-23. Due to: 10/8 (Tu)
Eugene's proposed issues for discussions:
1. What historical patterns of childhood does Hernandez describe at what historical periods?
2. What events does Hernandez list as being responsible for the changes in childhood in the past 150 years? What were the driving forces for change according to the author? How does he explain the changes?
3. Why do you think Hernandez puts in quotation marks the word "normal" when he talks about new normal standards of living for families moved from farms to cities?
4. How do you think development of "typical" children in 1850, 1900, 1950, 1990 is different and similar?

Readings due October 15 (read at least one of the following papers).

Matusov, E. (1996). Intersubjectivity without agreement. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 3, 25-45. Due to: 10/15 (Tu)
Eugene's proposed issues for discussions:
1. What is intersubjectivity according to Matusov? Why is important to consider intersubjectivity? Do you agree with Matusov's definition of intersubjectivity?
2. How do you think the notion of intersubjectivity relates to the issues of diversity and universality?
3. What is the source for diversity (e.g., disagreement) and universality (e.g., agreement) among people according to: a) Matusov and b) you?
4. Can two people with very similar background and interests disagree with each other and why?
5. How, according to Matusov, people contribute in each other activities being disagree with each other? Think of your own examples?
6. What would happen if people were in absolute agreement with each other all the time?

Matusov, E. (1996). How does a community of learners maintain itself: Ecology of an innovative school. Submitted to Cognition and Instruction. Due to: 10/15 (Tu)
Eugene's proposed issues for discussions:
1. How , according to Matusov, communities differ from each other?
2. What is, according to Matusov, diversity between vs. within communities?
3. What are "filter," "funnel," "linear," and "ecological" models of how communities maintain themselves, according to Matusov? Think of your own examples of these models.
4. What is "philosophy of practice"? Why do you think it is important to consider this notion? How the notion of "philosophy of practice" relevant to the issues of diversity and universality? How do you think Matusov's notion of "philosophy of practice" relate to Soros's notion of "reflexivity"?
5. How, according to Matusov, people learn new philosophies of practice? Do you agree with him? What his idea of dealing with diverse philosophies of practice?
6. What are different ways of becoming a new member of a community? Which way do you prefer yourself?
7. How does Matusov discusses relationship of diversity and ecology in his paper? Why, according to Matusov, diversity is some cases can jeopardize the community ecology? Think of your own examples. What his suggestion for solutions? Do you agree with him?

Readings due October 17 (choose one of the options)
Topic 3: Diversity and universality in cognition

Rationale for the topic: This topic will focus us on different approaches to studying people's thinking especially when thinking of different people is different.

Cole & Cole (1993). The development of children. New York: Scientific American Books. [p.160-168; 186-194; 216-222; 337-341] (option I); or [317-329; 448-465; 487-493; 574-575] (option II).Due to: 10/17 (Tue.)

Readings due October 22 (choose any two chapters)
Rogoff, B., & Lave, J. (1984). Everyday cognition: Its development in social context. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. (options: any two chapters). Due to: 10/22 (Tue.) Advice: start reading Gilligan (the book has 174pp.!)

Readings due October 24 (read at least one of the following papers).
Luria, A. (1976). Cognitive development: its cultural and social foundations. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Chapters 1 (pp. 3-19) and 5 (pp. 117-134). Due to: 10/24 (Th)
Eugene's proposed issues for discussions:
1. Why do you think Luria went to remote villages to study people from traditional cultures? What was his agenda?
2. What did Luria call reasoning? Do you agree with his definition? Would people from traditional cultures agree with him?
3. How did Luria describe the observed patterns of thinking in literate and illiterate participants? What were his implications for the relationship between thinking of children and illiterate people from traditional cultures?
4. What is "advanced" in thinking of adults from Western cultures according to Luria?
5. How could formal reasoning be used in traditional illiterate cultures?
6. How do schooling and literacy relate to mastery of solving syllogisms according to Luria?

Latour, B. (1987). Science in action: How to follow scientists and engineers through society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Chapter 5 (pp. 179-213). Due to: 10/24 (Th)
Eugene's proposed issues for discussions:
1. How does Latour explain illogical thinking in different cultures? Do you agree with him?
2. Try to construct your own example from our culture that can be seen as illogical from another culture.
3. What does Latour seem to recommend to do if one is faced with illogical behavior of people in another culture?
4. Do you think that Latour implies that illogical thinking and behavior does not exist? How does Latour explain the Western idea of "illogical" thinking? Do you agree with him?
5. Why do many people from traditional cultures fail to solve syllogisms according to Latour? Do you agree with him?
6. How do schooling and literacy relate to mastery of solving syllogisms according to Latour?

Scribner, S. (1977). Modes of thinking and ways of speaking: Culture and logic reconsidered. In P. N. Johnson-Laird & P. C. Wason (Eds.), Thinking. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Due to: 10/24 (Th)
Eugene's proposed issues for discussions:
1. What evidence did Scribner cite to demonstrate that people from traditional cultures use formal reasoning similar to syllogisms?
2. How did Scribner explain differences in reasoning between people from traditional and Western cultures? What makes these differences?
3. What did Scribner see as similar and different between people from traditional and Western cultures?
4. What are "theoretical" and "empirical" types of reasoning?
5. How do schooling and literacy relate to mastery of solving syllogisms according to Scribner?

Readings due October 29 (read all).
Topic 4. Gender / Moral Development / Language

Rationale for the topic: This topic will focus us on different approaches to studying people's moral judgment and gender differences. We will consider the approach according to which different means deficient and contrast it with the approach according to which difference is checked by functionality and ecology of people's activity and environment.

Kohlberg, L. (1976). Moral stages and moralization: The cognitive-developmental approach. In J.Lickona (Ed.), Moral development behavior: Theory, research and social issues (pp.31-53) New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Due to: 10/29 (Tu)
Eugene's proposed issues for discussions:
1. What do you think the relationship between cognitive and moral development for Kohlberg and why?
2. What do you think for Kohlberg is various and what is universal in moral reasoning (and behavior)? How do you think Kohlberg would address diversity between and within different cultures?
3. Do you agree with Kohlberg that moral behavior always follows moral reasoning and never leads it? If you disagree, elaborate, please, and give an example if possible. Do you think that Gilligan would agree with that? Why do you think both Kohlberg and Gilligan so much focused on moral judgments in contrast with moral behavior (it is also interesting to think how much their reasons were the same and how much they were different)?
4. Trying to make sense of Kohlberg's three levels of moral development, I guess it is helpful to consider a case.
In the famous (1970) movie by Japanese director Akira Kurosawa's, "Does 'ka-den," an adolescent girl who had lost her parents became a servant in house of her well-to-do uncle. The girl was highly exploited by her uncle. She did not have friends except a post boy with whom she could talk freely and share her feelings. The boy was very nice to the girl and their relationship was highly friendly and intimate (but apparently not romantic). Once the girl was raped by her uncle. Some time after the rape, the girl met her friend and stabbed him with a knife that she intentionally brought for the meeting (fortunately, not for death). After the boy recovered, he asked the girl why she had stabbed him. The girl answered that she had wanted to commit suicide.
Given this example, which one of Kohlberg's levels (i.e., preconventional, conventional, or postconventional) do you think the girl's moral behavior and reasoning demonstrated and why? [By asking this question, my intent is not to test your knowledge of Kohlberg's levels of moral development (there might not be a right answer) but to deepen the discussion on Kohlberg's theory by sharing my inquiry.] Also how do you think Gilligan would analyze the girl's moral judgment?
5. What do you think for Kohlberg and what do you think for Gilligan is the driving force for moral development?
6. Who were the participants of the studies (and the examples), Kohlberg referred to, in terms of their gender, socio-economic status, cultural ethnicity, education, age, life circumstances, sexual orientation, nationality, historic time (you can add your own categories)? Whom do you think they represent?

Gilligan, C. (1982). In a different voice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Due to: 10/29 (Tue) (part I, pp. 1-63)
Eugene's proposed issues for discussions:
1. I have noticed that people who read Carol Gilligan's book often provide rather different descriptions of what they see as Gilligan's patterns of moral judgments for men and women. That is why I think it can be interesting to share our impressions about how Gilligan describes the two general patterns of difference for men and women. What are similarities and what are differences?
2. How do you think Gilligan described moral development in women? Can you depict Gilligan's phases of moral development for women? Do you think it is possible to depict developmental stages of moral development for Gilligan's theory without much distortion of the theory's spirit?
3. How has moral development been measured in the research presented by Gilligan? Do you think this research fully reflects moral development and/or moral judgment in both men and women?
4. What do you think was Gilligan's goal for writing the book? Do you think she is biased against men's pattern of moral judgment and development? What do you think constitutes unbiased research for Carol Gilligan?
5. What is the evidence on which Gilligan grounds her conceptual ideas? Who were the participants of the studies (and the examples), she referred to, in terms of their gender, socio-economic status, cultural ethnicity, education, age, life circumstances, sexual orientation, nationality, historic time (you can add your own categories)? Whom do you think they represent?
6. What do you think is Gilligan's explanation for what makes male and female development different and/or similar? How do you think she would explain (hypothetical) evidence of the female pattern of moral judgment in a man or the male pattern in a woman? Do you think this case is possible? What would be your and (expected) Gilligan's predictions about gays' and lesbians' patterns of moral development? Some historians believe that some human societies were ruled by women (matriarchate) -- what would you expect to be moral development for women and men in a matriarchal society from yours and Gilligan's point of view?
7. Do you think it was a coincidence that gender difference has been so strongly manifested in consideration of moral development rather than in cognitive, language, emotional, or other development? Why do you think the turning point occurred at the end of 70s – the beginning of 80s, and why in the US (not in France, or Japan, or England, or USSR, or China, or Egypt, or Brazil)?
8. What similarities and differences have you noticed in Kohlberg's and Gilligan's goals for, approach to, description of , and presentation styles for considering moral development? How do you think these similarities and differences can be explained? Do you feel that Kohlberg and Gilligan used to work together in past?
9. Do you think there has been influence or change of moral development in our society at large (or some local communities) after writings by Kohlberg and Gilligan? If so, please, try to describe them.

Readings due October 31 (read all).
Gilligan, C. (1982). In a different voice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Due to: 10/31 (Th) (part II, pp.64-174) (required)
Eugene's proposed issues for discussions: (see above)

Cole & Cole (1993). The development of children. New York: Scientific American Books. [p.629-632] (required). Due to: 10/31 (Th.)

Readings due November 5 (read all).
Cole & Cole (1993). The development of children. New York: Scientific American Books. [p.276-308] (required). Due to: 11/5 (Tu.)

Readings due November 11 (read at least one of the following papers).
Topic 5. Cultural ethnicity / Language

Rationale for the topic: This topic will focus us on differences and similarities in organization of discourse in ethnically different cultures..

Michaels, S., & Cazden, C. B. (1986). Teacher/child collaboration as oral preparation for literacy. In B. B. Schieffelin & P. Gilmore (Eds.), The acquisition of literacy: Ethnographic perspectives. Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Due to: 11/12 (Tue.)
Eugene's proposed issues for discussions:
1. What are the discourse patterns of black and white children described by Michaels and Cazden?
2. Who were the black and white children described by the authors? How much generalization can we comfortably make?
3. What judgments of sophistication and maturity were made by 1) teachers, 2) white parents, and 3) black parents regarding white and black children's discourse patterns? What are their criteria for "good" discourse? How are these criteria different and similar?
4. Why do the discourse patterns different in the black and white communities?
5. What are "ideal" developmental trajectories for white and black children from the point of view of 1) children's own local communities, 2) school, 3) mainstream society, and 4) federal government?
6. What do you think would be an ideal, harmonious relationship between the black community described by the authors and school?

Heath, S.B. (1982). What no bedtime story means: Narrative skills at home and school. Language in Society, 11, 49-77. Due to: 11/12 (Tue.)
Eugene's proposed issues for discussions:
1. What is the definition of literacy and "literacy events," according to Heath? How literacy relates to oral practice?
2. What are the three patterns of literacy described by Heath? How these patterns relate to ways of talking and doing in the three communities? What do you think cultural beliefs about truth and lie in these communities?
3. What are similar and different in ways of using books in these three communities?
4. What strengths and weaknesses do the community ways of literacy bring to a traditional US school, according to Heath? Do you agree with Heath about her description of a traditional US school?
5. What kind of literacy prevails in our class, in the UCSC in general?

Please, let me know if the order and the content of the topics meet your needs, so I can adjust them as we go and/or change for the next time I teach this class (see Purposes & Expectations: Reading the assigned literature).

[ Top of the page ]


Group project
Paper and class presentation. (2-3 single-spaced pages; the final draft DUE 11/26 Tu. by 5:00 pm. via class Web)
Choose one of the topics we discussed in the course and develop your arguments both for and against a diversity perspective. Discuss what you take to be the practical implication of the diversity perspective for one aspect of your lives (e.g., family, school, work place, social program, etc.). The topics for the group project and its evaluation will be discussed in class meetings and laid out midway through the quarter. Group can vary from 3 to 8 people (hopefully, groups will emerge "naturally" by the mid of the quarter through discussions of the assigned readings).

What needs to be considered in the paper:

Working on group projects will take several steps:

  1. Dividing onto groups and writing a paragraph for the group project paper in class on November 5. Your group should think about main idea and what diversity and universality issue and practice you are going to discuss in your paper.
  2. Working on the first draft of the paper in class on November 12.
  3. First draft of the group project paper due November 14. You will bring your paper in class and exchange the papers between the groups to provide "peer" feedback for the first drafts. After getting feedback from another group, you will work on writing the second draft of the paper in class.
  4. Final draft of the group project paper due November 26 in class.
  5. November 26, December 3 and 5, there will be group presentation and class discussion of the group projects.

[ Top of the page ]


Final paper
(Option I: add 1-1.5 single-spaced pages to the group project; Option II: write a new paper from scratch, 1.5-2 single-spaced pages; the final draft DUE 12/13 Fri. by 7:00 p.m. via the Publishing Web for Students' Final Papers)

Option I involves integration and elaboration on some aspects of the group paper. You probably will change title and abstract of the paper. Also it may require you to make changes throughout the paper (do not expect simple addition of the text). Add one more new paper reference and two more Internet web references.

Option II involves selecting a new topic that is different from your group project. However, you can use references or some ideas from your (or other group) project. Add two more new paper references and two more Internet web references.

Note that the paper of Option II will be a bit longer because Option I involves an integration which may not be an easy task.

All other guidelines are the same as for group projects (see above). Do not forget to write an abstract.

Note: You are encouraged to read each other's papers and to provide feedback and comments for one another. This process is extremely valuable for your own learning and is a wonderful way to be helpful and participate in others' learning. I request that you include acknowledgments for those who read and commented on your paper. Such acknowledgments will show that you and your fellow students' learning involved an extended process and will be noted as a positive aspect in your narrative evaluation. I hope to see a lot of these acknowledgments!!!

Your final paper should be posted on the Publishing Web for Students' Final Papers on December 13 by 7:00 p.m. Keep in mind, please, that you are writing your papers for unknown readers, not knowing what kind of feedback they may give (if at all) -- which is, in my view, what publication is about. You should learn how to foresee interest of unknown readers and engage them in a dialog via your text.

For further requirements and formats see Purposes & Expectations: Writing the final papers.

[ Top of the page ]


Evaluation will be based on group and papers and each student's active participation in seminar and practicum activities.

There won't be a final exam.

The format and the content of evaluation will be discussed in class. This discussion is considered as a part of the learning curriculum. So far I suggest to include an abstract from your final paper, evaluation from your fellow group project members, self evaluation, and my evaluation. We will discuss these issues throughout class and finalize the narrative format, probably, on November 19 (see Purposes & Expectations: Participating in development of the class evaluation).

[ Top of the page ]


Feedback on the class
In addition to the traditional University evaluation at the end of the class, I really want your regular feedback on the class so we can improve it down the road. So I want to ask you to fill out biweekly feedback survey forms every even Saturday of the month. The reports of the feedback will be prepared timely and published on our class Web. I also plan to discuss them in the class. You are welcome to send your questions, comments, and/or suggestions via e-mail or raise them during the class or office hours. I appreciate your help and partnership in running the class and making it comfortable and meaningful for every member (see Purposes & Expectations: Filling out the biweekly feedback surveys).

[ Top of the page ]


Estimated class workload per week
Below is our rough estimation of students' workload per week (in hours) (I averaged time if work does not occur every week):

Type of students' engagementTime
Participating in Web discussions4.0

Reading for the class (40-50 pages per week)

4.0
Preparing for the final paper and group project (on "average")2.0

Attending classes (twice a week)

3.5
Visiting Instructor in his office hours (on "average")0.5
Total: 14.0

Your biweekly feedback will probably help us to correct some of these numbers.

According to the guidelines of UCSC CEP (Committee on Educational Policy), 5 credit hours represent 3-3.5 hours of classwork plus about 12 hours of preparation.. This totals about 15.5.

[ Top of the page ]


Last changed: May 30, 2005