Common Reasons for Asking for Proposal Revisions

Faculty

There are many reasons that an ASEM course proposal would need further revisions. Here are some of the most common reasons.

 

  • The course is too specialized

    Sometimes faculty see “Advanced Seminar” and get excited about proposing a special topics courses in their discipline. However, ASEMs are designed to be open and accessible to undergraduates from any major in the university. Proposals that presume much prior knowledge or disciplinary background aren’t appropriate. We expect DU seniors to be able to take on ambitious new questions/topics—but as a consequence of their broad education over three or four years, not as a capstone in their fields. One approach is to propose an ASEM on a current topic or phenomenon that’s sufficiently complex to benefit from multiple perspectives, perhaps as developed in trade books rather than scholarly books. Take a wave/field approach to the topic rather than a particle approach. Also, take seriously the proposal question about how the course is interesting and accessible to students from a wide range of interests. Think of ASEM as giving students an opportunity to practice being an engaged, literate, responsible citizen on meaningful topics rather than trying to make undergrads into proto grad students.

  • The course doesn’t seem to include “multiple perspectives”

    As you can see from the question on the proposal form, we’ve left “multiple perspectives” fairly open. Commonly, faculty will include materials from two or more disciplines, or they have students approach the topic from two or more angles of vision. An ASEM on “Hate Groups” uses history, politics, sociology, and/or religion. An ASEM on “Mountains” uses geology, geography, adventure literature, economic development, and/or recreation. An ASEM on “Museums” uses politics, art, aesthetic theory/and or architecture. “Homelessness” uses history, politics, psychology, epidemiology, and/or literature.

  • The readings/materials in the course syllabus are unclear

    Often, the description in the proposal indicates multiple perspectives, but the syllabus is unclear because specific readings aren’t included. This happens frequently when, instead of a bibliography, the syllabus simply notes “Readings will be available through Canvas.” What readings? Including bibliography of specific books, articles, or other materials will help. If the course is using a couple anthologies or casebooks, provide sufficient chapter titles/ contents to help us understand the materials. You can always indicate “selections from” if you’re not including entire volumes. A week-by-week listing of topics and readings is sufficient; for the purposes of the ASEM committee, you don’t need to account for every minute of every class meeting! Similarly, we’re not especially interested in/concerned about multiple pages of legalistic fine print about course policies. We want to see the content of the course as it unfolds. Two other things we need: approximate due dates of various assignments and a statement of how the course will be grades. Let’s be honest. No one on the ASEM committee is going to confront you in Week 3 of your course, demanding to see your syllabus, and holding it against the syllabus you proposed and we approved! We expect the syllabus you teach will be similar in spirit and true to the nature of the syllabus you proposed, but we understand that faculty revise and refine things as they actually get close to teaching the course.

  • The proposal doesn’t address all four writing requirements

    ASEMs were designed as writing intensive. There are four requirements in terms of amount of writing and pedagogy. Address them all. If you have questions about how to do so, please contact Faculty Director of ASEMs, Rachael Liberman.

  • The stated course outcomes are not really outcomes

    Frequently, we see course outcomes in the form of what the instructor will do or what the course will cover. These aren’t outcomes. Instead focus on what students will be able to do as a result of the course, in visible, describable terms. Two or three key outcomes is plenty. Better a few well-framed outcomes than a long list of vague ones. An example might clarify:   

    Needs Revision

    • The course will cover issues regarding water usage.
    • Students will gain an appreciation of artistic representations of mountain landscapes.
    • The course will foster critical understanding of issues in public land usage.
    • The course will be writing intensive.

    Appropriate

    Students will demonstrate the ability to:

    • summarize historical, legal, and environmental positions regarding water rights.
    • apply interpretive techniques taught in the course to describe, analyze, and place in context specific new works of painting, photography, or music about mountain landscapes.
    • analyze and critique specific positions regarding the access to and use of public lands.
    • write effectively, using appropriate evidence and reasoning to support assertions.
  • The course description for the Bulletin is not really a course description for the Bulletin

    A description for the DU Bulletin is different from an advertisement to recruit students for your course. Please follow the directions for writing Bulletin copy: “Course descriptions should be written in present tense (avoid future tense terms such as "students will") and with the audience to include outside institutions, not just students. Include any prerequisites (unenforced or enforced) in the course description.” You’ll have other opportunities to write copy directed at prospective students; in this case, you’re writing for the official institutional record, carefully describing the content and scope of the course.