ASSESSMENT REPORT
PHILOSOPHY DEPARTMENT
June 1998
Department Mission and Goals
The following mission statement was developed and approved by the Philosophy Department during the 1996-97 academic year.
Within the context of the College of Arts & Sciences and Ohio University, the Philosophy Department seeks
[1] a variety of courses that serve curricular needs of diverse academic units throughout the university;
[2] clusters of courses that serve the needs of Tier I, Tier II and Tier III of the general education program;
[3] an undergraduate major, comprising all the principal subfields of philosophy, that will provide students with the core of a liberal arts education as well as the foundation for graduate studies in philosophy;
[4] an M.A. program in philosophy that provides students with the foundation for either doctoral studies in philosophy or other careers where logic, critical thinking and values clarification are prized (e.g. law);
[5] an interdisciplinary Ph.D. in applied and professional ethics in journalism that prepares journalists either for enhanced careers as professionals in the field or for teaching positions in schools of journalism;
[1] projects such as those supported by the Institute for Applied and Professional Ethics, Women’s Studies, Environmental Studies, southeast Asian Studies, and the Program in Political Communication;
[2] serving on thesis and dissertation committees in related fields: Comparative Arts, INCO, Journalism, etc;
[1] the pursuit of internal and external funding sources; and
[2] the planning of faculty teaching loads to facilitate research.
Initiatives Pursued in AY 1997-98
In order to promote its mission and in accordance with the plans described in its June 1997 Assessment Report, the Philosophy Department focused its assessment energy in the 1997-98 academic year on four initiatives.
Questionnaires were designed for Phil. 101, 120 and 130 and were distributed to all sections of these courses in one selected quarter. A detailed report of this initiative appears in Appendix A.
Entrance and exit tests were designed for this course and administered to two sections of the course as it was taught during the same quarter on the Athens and Chillicothe campuses. A detailed report of this initiative appears in Appendix B.
The Senior Seminar was initiated in the 1997-98 academic year with the purpose of providing a culminating experience for our majors by surveying selected subfields of philosophy and by providing them with an opportunity to prepare a philosophy paper for conference presentation and defense.
The Senior Seminar became a requirement for all our majors in their senior year during the 1997-98 academic year except for those majors who were exempted from this requirement by their catalog of entry. Only one student was required to take the Seminar during AY 97-98. He was tutored on an individual basis and we are pleased to report that his paper "Islam’s Transcendence of Natural Cycles" was accepted for presentation at the 1997-98 Annual Meeting of the Ohio Academy of Religion.
The fact that we needed to serve only one student in the Seminar during AY 97-98 allowed the Department time to prepare in detail for the offering of the Seminar in AY 98-99 to a cluster of students. A New Course Approval Form for the Senior Seminar was completed and submitted to the University’s curricular process for review. The proposal passed the Arts & Sciences Curriculum Committee, and we have been informed that it also passed the review process of the University Curriculum Council. Please refer to Appendix C for a copy of the New Course Approval Form for the Seminar as well as a copy of the provisional syllabus for the Seminar that accompanied our New Course Approval Form.
After much discussion, the Department decided to eliminate the comprehensive examinations option for the M.A. degree and to require all of our graduate students to write and defend a thesis. Two reasons guided the Department in its decision. First, the preparation and defense of a thesis is a rigorous learning experience that provides a clear indication of student learning outcomes. Second, for students wishing to go on to doctoral programs in philosophy the thesis option is a much stronger preparation and a more competitive credential.
Initiatives Planned for AY 1998-99
While the Department is pleased with the positive results of its assessment of its one hundred level introductory philosophy courses and one of its Tier III courses as reported in Appendices A and B, nevertheless these reports also note concerns that must be addressed in department-wide meetings to be held during AY 1998-99. In addition, because the Senior Seminar will be offered in the upcoming Fall Quarter , the Department will have an opportunity to assess the success of the Seminar during AY 98-99 and modify it as seems fitting before it is offered in again in AY 99-00.
In addition, during the Summer of 1998, the Department will be mailing a questionnaire to its alums and friends to solicit their comments about the Department’s impact on their lives.
APPENDIX A
New Assessment of Introductory Philosophy Courses
I. Nature of Assessment
In an experimental attempt to gather some information concerning the basic effects students experienced in taking our 100 level courses, a questionnaire containing only one question tailored to the particular course was distributed in our 101 (Fundamentals of Philosophy), 120 (Principles of Reasoning), and 130 (Introduction to Ethics) sections at the end of the Spring ’98 quarter. The goal was to determine if the students perceived the material and issues discussed in these courses as having a general impact on their intellectual development or significance for their personal lives.
Student responses to the questions were read and categorized as "favorable," "not favorable," "neutral," and "non-responsive to the question". Particularly clear, telling, or representative responses, both positive and negative, were culled from each section and will be included below as well as shared with the entire department to promote discussion of the results.
II. Data Summary
Phil. 101 Fundamentals of Philosophy
Question: Has your study of philosophical questions and your introduction to philosophical strategies and arguments in this course improved the way you think about matters that have personal significance to you? If you answered "yes" explain or give an example of the course's effect. If you answered "no", why do you think the course was ineffective in this respect?
Favorable Not favorable Neutral Nonresponsive
Section 1: 71 29 1 2
Section 2: 24 3 1 1
Section 3: 19 13 1 0
Phil. 120 Principles of Reasoning
Question: Assess for yourself whether your study of the fundamentals of logic in this course has improved the way you think, e.g., by making you think more clearly or more critically. Do you think your abilities to assess the nature and strength of arguments has been improved? Yes, improved; No improvement.
Favorable Not favorable Neutral Nonresponsive
Section 1: 23 0 0 1
Section 2: 25 3 2 0
Section 3: 22 8 0 0
Section 4: 24 5 0 0
Section 5: 10 7 1 0
Phil. 130 Introduction to Ethics
Question: Assess for yourself whether your study of basic forms of ethical theories and your consideration of important ethical issues in this course has affected the way you think about ethical issues that might have personal significance for you. Do you think you can now analyze and think about these issues more clearly or more powerfully than you did before the course? Yes, improved; No improvement.
Favorable Not favorable Neutral Nonresponsive
Section 1: 19 17 3 1
Section 2: 9 8 1 0
Section 3: 16 7 2 2
******************************************************************
III. Sample Responses
Philosophy 101 Fundamentals of Philosophy
"Before I took this class I would hesitate to take part in arguments because I have always been kind of ineffective in my responses. I would not know how to go about defending an idea or belief I held, and would therefore drop the belief because I thought it was wrong. Now I have a foundation of knowledge and strategies that enable me to better analyze arguments and better organize and defend my position on a given matter."
"I can't really give a specific example of this course's effect, but I can say that it has affected my thinking. I have been able to shape my thoughts with some of the evidence given by philosophers. Who would have thought that guys in togas and sandals would be influencing my thought today?"
"By studying philosophical questions, strategies and arguments, this course has helped me expand my whole concept of thinking. This course has helped me look at one particular topic from as many different angles as possible."
"The course has caused me to examine my views in ways which never occurred to me before. One example is that it has made me think about my moral obligations and what I ought to do."
"The course has really made me rethink ideas or values I had and once thought were absolutely certain. It's really opened up new perspectives on everything for me especially about religion and ethics."
"I learned the way these philosophers thought about things, but I cannot ever see using these in a personal way. These arguments and style are not the way college students look at things. We don't sit around and contemplate these matters."
"The way I think about things is already set in my mind. There was nothing wrong with the course; it just would have been nearly impossible to change my way of thinking."
"I really don't agree with many of the philosophical questions or answers. I already have very strong opinions and belief on certain topics. I don't need to question humanity or things of that nature cause it's already written out for me in the Bible."
"I think Philosophy is pointless. It seems to me that all these philosophers do is sit around and analyze what all others are too busy to care about. Philosophers have made no contribution to the world whatsoever. It wasn't the class that turned me to think this way, I've thought this way all along. I didn't take this course to enrich my mind, I did it because of the silly Tier requirement."
Philosophy 120 Principles of Reasoning
"I am going into journalism and I would want to be able to write a good argument that is valid in an editorial instead of an invalid one, so now I know how to tell."
"I'm not sure that it improved my everyday ability to judge arguments, but I felt that it stimulated my analytical reasoning. In fact I wish that I would have taken this class before taking the GRE. This class could greatly improve a GRE score."
"I can now look at an argument and decide whether or not it will hold up. This class has helped me in my own arguments by looking at how my argument is structured."
"Before taking this class, I had never done anything like this before. I think this kind of training has been helpful for me because it teaches a new way of thinking and analyzing."
"Yes, I think it has improved because when I analyze my beliefs and my reasons for those beliefs, I think in a more logical manner. It has made me more thoughtful about issues I care about."
"It has helped me learn to think about abstract things, but nothing that will help me in real life."
"I do not think that this class has been beneficial to my thinking. It teaches you to breakdown and assess arguments, but in the world today, you have to listen, not analyze. I have always been a fairly clear thinker."
"This class has been a constant struggle and I haven't understood anything we've done. I could do it but I didn't know why."
"I feel that this class should focus more on the practical applications of evaluating arguments. Chapters 6 and 7 [symbolic logic] have been no help to my ability to assess arguments."
"I don't think in real life I'm going to have an argument with someone and then sit down and evaluate it with Philosophy. That's not how emotions are worked out unless you're Spock."
Philosophy 130 Introduction to Ethics
"I now look at all controversial issues and apply some of the ethical theories to them and some really make sense and in turn it has caused me to alter some of my viewpoints."
"I will now be able to think of the different theories that philosophers have used to judge the morality of a situation. Although I may not agree with all of these, I will be able to understand others' viewpoints."
"Now I always think twice about why I made the decisions I did. I wonder what my motivations were and how they altered my decisions."
"I have a somewhat different outlook on things such as what people strive for in life, etc., brought out through Aristotle and St. Thomas Aquinas."
"Although I feel I have taken some knowledge from this course on ethical theories, I don't feel it is knowledge I will use everyday. The ethical issues we discussed were interesting but not very helpful."
"I didn't really feel we discussed any important ethical issues - just the old time philosophers' take on ethics - not what I expected."
"I don't feel I have made any improvement in my critical thinking about today's ethical issues because we didn't discuss any current issues. The course was really not what I expected at all. I was looking to discuss more current topics or even a broader range of philosophers' theories.
"This course focused mainly on past issues. The things I have learned in the course have no bearing on current ethical issues."
IV. Evaluation of Results
The Department is pleased with the positive results that are indicated by the number of favorable responses recorded in each of the three courses. We appear to be reaching and affecting the preponderance of our students. The positive comments indicate that many students are experiencing the power of philosophy to open intellectual horizons and change and deepen their thought about fundamental matters. The argumentative strategies of philosophical thought improve and enrich students' general ability for critical thinking -- something of primary value. We seem to be succeeding generally in producing the sense of intellectual awakening and wonder that we strive for in every Philosophy course.
Although we realize that by its very nature no Philosophy course is going to be a hit with each and every student, some of the negative comments we have collected here are helpful in identifying a number of issues that require our thought and discussion:
Phil. 101
It is distressing to uncover a rather significant number of students manifesting a close-mindedness and an anti-intellectual streak. This is not just the rather predictable recoiling of some from the abstractness of Philosophy; it is a report that "their minds are already made up," "they can't change the way they think," and that they "don't think about things that much." They do not believe that Philosophy and philosophical thinking have any relevance to their life. How can we be pedagogically more successful in reaching such students and changing these attitudes? Do we need to discuss this anti-intellectualism directly in the course?
Phil. 120
Convincing students that intro logic has any practical cognitive benefit is a perennial and endemic problem for this course. Most logicians dismiss it as "unavoidable." It is clear that students see the benefit of studying the basic concepts surrounding arguments, and the relevance of being able to identify informal fallacies, but are rather lost about the value of systems of symbolization and natural deduction. This is, of course, no news to anyone who teaches this course, but it does, perhaps, give us reason to continue a discussion that has gone on sporadically for years in the department regarding the relative merits of a course in critical thinking versus one in introductory symbolic logic. No resolution has been forthcoming because changes in Phil 120 have College-wide implications, due to its Tier I Quantitative status.
Phil. 130
The most obvious issue here is whether enough is being done in these sections to apply the ethical theories discussed to pressing contemporary moral issues, ones that the students recognize as important and interesting. There is some indication that we need to do more to insure that "applied ethics" is a major component of this introductory course.
The very unsophisticated quality of numerous student responses was especially striking in the case of Phil 130. Perhaps we need to recognize more dearly that this course attracts a very mixed audience and its content should reflect this.
There also is an issue whether 130 overlaps too extensively with the ethics component of 101. This component is obviously essential to 101; hence any change that addresses this question of overlap should probably be made in 130.
V. Planned Response to this Assessment
A department-wide meeting will take place to discuss both the results of this survey as well as possible revisions to it and plans for its future use.
APPENDIX B
New Assessment of Philosophy Tier III Course
I. Nature of Assessment
In an experimental attempt to gather information pertaining to student learning in one of our Tier III courses (Tier III - 414F: Stories and the Pursuit of Meaning), students were given brief entrance and exit tests in two different sections of this course. For comparison purposes, we administered the tests in a section taught on the Athens campus and in one taught on the Chillicothe campus. Both sections were taught by the same instructor. The entrance and exit tests focused on the same issue, namely, the difference, if any, between believing and knowing. The entrance tests were given at the beginning of the first day of class. The exit tests were included, unannounced, as part of the final examinations.
Each student’s entrance test was paired with his or her exit test. The entrance test was read first and compared with the exit test to determine if any change in perspective was identifiable in each set. In moving from the entrance test to the exit test, the reviewer asked the same question of each set, namely, "Is there evidence of greater sophistication in distinguishing belief from knowledge?" The reviewer answered this question with respect to each student’s set of tests, using one of four responses:
Increased sophistication in discerning the difference between belief and knowledge was judged to be an indicator of student learning in the course because a major goal of the course is to learn that the stories that humans tell which invest their lives with meaning harbor beliefs about the meaning of life that seldom have the epistemic warrant to raise those beliefs to the level of knowledge. Recognition of this situation can inspire epistemic humility about one’s meaning in life, which in turn can facilitate respect and appreciation for the views of others. In addition, such recognition can lead one to appreciate the use of pragmatic (rather than epistemic) grounds for adjudicating competing stories.
Tier III - 414F - Athens Campus
Question for students on both tests: Is there any difference between believing and knowing? If there is a difference, what is it?
Question for reviewer: In comparing a student’s entrance test with the exit test, is there evidence of greater sophistication in distinguishing belief from knowledge?
Reviewer’s Judgments:
(1) Yes. (2) No. (perspective unchanged) (3) No. (less sophistication) (4) Undetermined
13 2 1 4
Samples of Judgment (1) YES
Student # 1:
Entrance Test: "I am positive that there is a difference between believing and knowing. However I am not sure I know the difference between the two."
Exit Test: "There is a difference between believing and knowing. Each individual has a belief and if they can support that belief then it is knowledge to them. However I do not think that in this lifetime here on earth any one person can prove that they are all knowing. I believe that there is a life after death and possibly all the answers will come clear the."
Student # 2:
Entrance Test: "I don’t think there is a difference between believing and knowing. If you believe, then you know. Belief is a very strong emotion."
Exit Test: "Believing and knowing - they are different to most because one involves proof and one does not. However, we have already decided that there is no such proof, so they both can be described as a personal gut feeling that pertains to your life and helps you understand and move forward."
Student # 3:
Entrance Test: " There definitely is a difference between believing and knowing. If you know something it has been learned and proved to be correct. If you believe something then you think that it is true but can’t prove it. Things that you believe are often spiritual, but things that you know are factual.
Exit Test: "There is a difference between believing and knowing. Believing is what you think. And knowing is what you think you can prove. There may be no such thing as knowledge for some people. For me, there has to be though. I try to be a realist and lead a relatively simple life. If I doubted everything I would only make things difficult."
Student # 4:
Entrance Test: "There is a difference between believing and knowing. I believe that the world is round; I don’t know it. I know that lightening starts from the bottom and goes up, but because it looks the opposite, I don’t quite believe it wholeheartedly. Belief requires faith – in my senses, in what I’ve been told, and what I’ve learned. Knowledge, on knowing, requires little faith in anything. (Although this doesn’t work with my lightening example.)"
Exit Test: "As for the difference between believing and knowing, I have come to think it is purely a semantic one. As Hick’s Taxonomy of Stories pointed out, we are making a leap of faith in simply assuming there is an external world. So, we act as if we know. I know that if I drop my glasses out the window, they’ll fall, not fly. I believe in the concept of gravity. There’s really no difference."
Samples of Judgment (2) NO [Perspective Unchanged]
Student # 1: [Perspective Unchanged on both tests, but quite sophisticated throughout]
Entrance Test: "There is a difference between believing and knowing. To know something is to have concrete evidence --facts. To believe one doesn’t necessarily have facts. We rely on intuition and hopes."
Exit Test: "I still think that a belief is something that is not necessarily checkupable or verifiable, but we still believe to be true like the existence of God. Knowledge is just the opposite like the sum of a triangle always equals 180 degrees."
Student # 2: [Perspective Unchanged on both tests, and rather unsophisticated throughout]:
Entrance Test: "Some people claim they know and others say they believe. I am unsure, but I do believe that it does exist. I would love to know, but that would probably defeat the purpose of human life. Believing is hoping and knowing is a stronger sense of conviction."
Exit Test: "Yes, I do believe there is a difference between knowing and believing. I feel that for everyone it is different. Some people are stronger in their convictions than others although I do no know what makes them so strong."
Sample of Judgment (3) NO [Perspective on Exit Test less sophisticated or more confused than view on Entrance Test]
Student # 1:
Entrance Test: "The difference between believing and knowing is a difference in how one views discovery. If it can be said to discover is to know and to presume is to believe, then it can be said there is a difference. It can also be said, however, that things discovered can only be believed, in which a difference would only be found in language."
Exit Test: "As far as believing vs. knowing… It seems that if you believe something you think that it is a valid, true entity. I feel belief is knowledge of something which may be different for each person - knowledge itself is what we know to be true and belief is a kind of subset of knowledge which is more personalized and perhaps more closely held."
Tier III - 414F - Chillicothe Campus
Question for students on both tests: Is there any difference between believing and knowing? If there is a difference, what is it?
Question for reviewer: In comparing a student’s entrance test with the exit test, is there evidence of greater sophistication in distinguishing belief from knowledge?
Reviewer’s Judgments:
(1) Yes. (2) No. (perspective unchanged) (3) No. (less sophistication) (4) Undetermined
19 4 2 5
Samples of Judgment (1) YES
Student # 1:
Entrance Test: "The difference between believing and knowing is that of faith vs. evidence. To believe in something means to have faith that it exists beyond what you can prove. Knowledge is simply fact based information and does not require an additional prerequisite of faith."
Exit Test: "Belief is a component of knowledge. A belief is that attitude that an individual adopts toward something/anything. When many individuals get together and establish a consensus of their beliefs so that not just faith, but truth, acceptance, justification, and no false basis permits belief to graduate to the level of knowledge. In short, knowledge is shared beliefs or values that are true, justified, accepted and valid (no false basis)."
Student # 2:
Entrance Test: "I don’t think there is a difference between knowing and believing when it comes to life, because I know that I am going to reach my goal someday and receive my reward."
Exit Test: "Belief is someone’s feelings on a certain subject and knowledge is the true justified belief. In other words, it’s the belief that has been justified through facts."
Student # 3:
Entrance Test: "There is a difference between believing in life’s meaning and knowing it. These are learned with age and time."
Exit Test: "Belief is a faith that one holds onto. Knowledge is gained when a belief is experienced and justified."
Student # 4:
Entrance Test: "Yes, there is a difference. Knowing is for sure, but believing is hoping we know."
Exit Test: "A belief is an individual’s idea or thought about something that this individual trusts to be truthful in most aspects. Knowledge is a true, justified belief that is confirmed (or accepted) by at least one individual."
Samples of Judgment (2) NO [Perspective Unchanged]
Student # 1: [Perspective Unchanged on both tests, but somewhat sophisticated throughout]
Entrance Test: "There is no difference between knowing something and believing it. If I know something, I believe that I know it although I may not believe in what I know."
Exit Test: "I may have knowledge of something such as Buddhism but I have no belief in it. I may have knowledge about a person or event but have no belief about it."
Student # 2: [Perspective Unchanged on both tests, and rather unsophisticated throughout]
Entrance Test: "I really do not think anyone knows the meaning of life but if he or she believes they know—then isn’t that good enough?"
Exit Test: "There is no difference. If I believe I know then I do."
Sample of Judgment (3) NO [Perspective on Exit Test less sophisticated or more confused than view on Entrance Test]
Student # 1:
Entrance Test: "There is, I feel, a difference in believing and in knowing. To believe comes from within the heart and soul telling the mind that something is so. To know something comes from a source or influence other than yourself that tells your mind it is so!"
Exit Test: "What is the difference between knowledge and belief? None, you can believe you know even without proof! I know I am 38 years old. I believe I passed this class, but I don’t know it. Yet, I believe I know I passed or failed this class. I believe the class has helped me to see a bigger picture and I know just how big the picture is."
Analysis of the Entrance and Exit Tests suggests that the majority of the students in this course at both the Athens and Chillicothe campuses became more sophisticated in their understanding of the distinction between belief and knowledge. A small number of students at both campuses entered the course with either a high or low level of sophistication on this issue and remained basically unchanged. A very small number of students on both campuses exhibited a deterioration of sophistication. The fact that this assessment was conducted at two different campuses with two significantly different age groups (Athens: students in their early twenties; Chillicothe: students ranging from early twenties to early fifties) enhances the our confidence in the results.
While it is not certain that the growth in sophistication regarding the difference between belief and knowledge is indicative of important student growth regarding the pursuit of meaning in life, nevertheless this evidenced growth in sophistication corresponds to the instructor’s opinion that student learning was taking place as both sections of the course unfolded. The instructor’s opinion is an informed opinion derived from the pedagogical strategy employed in this course. Approximately 25 percent of the class sessions is devoted to lecture/discussion. The remaining 75 percent is devoted to the so-called "Test First" strategy in which students are given a 10 question true/false test on the reading assignment for that day at the beginning of the class session. These tests are collected, the class is divided into small working groups, and each group is given the same true/false test to answer as a group. When the group response is completed and collected, the instructor reviews the correct answers with the students who have an extra copy of the exam to follow. Debate over the correct answer is frequent and vigorous. Occasionally credit is given for either "true" or "false" on a particular question. After the testing session is completed, each group is given a thought question to answer. The groups may now use their assigned reading materials. Each group’s response is written on an overhead transparency which is collected and projected on a screen for class discussion. This strategy allows the instructor to observe and to record the growing sophistication of student groups as they wrestle with the pursuit of meaning in human life.
The Department is pleased with the results of the assessment of this Tier III course.
A department-wide meeting will take place to discuss the results of this assessment and to discuss ways to
improve the assessment either through additional or alternative measures.
APPENDIX C
Proposed New Course: Philosophy 490 - Senior Seminar
Response to Curricular Questions
(1) and (2.a) The Purpose and Outline of the Course
The Senior Seminar
[a] The Seminar will be inaugurated Fall Quarter 1998-99 to provide philosophy majors in their senior year with a culminating philosophical activity that enables them to grasp an overview of the major subfields of philosophy as well as to fine tune their philosophical research, writing and presentation techniques.
[b] The Seminar will be conducted by one faculty member who will receive one course credit on his or her teaching load. The faculty member in charge will be assisted by a team composed of the Chair and Assistant Chair.
[c] Students will be asked to rework a written assignment that they had submitted in a philosophy course at the 300 level or above during their studies at Ohio University. The reworking of the paper will take into account (1) current developments in the subfield of philosophy into which the paper fits; and (2) some of the most recent journal articles relevant to the topic of the paper.
[d] If possible, faculty to whom the papers were originally submitted will serve as resource persons for the reworking of the papers.
[e] The Seminar will meet at the beginning of the quarter for planning purposes and will meet regularly thereafter so that students may discuss the progress of their projects with their peers.
[f] The faculty seminar leader will plan and convene a "mock" conference at the end of the quarter during which students will present their completed papers for critique by designated reactors and the public in attendance.
[g] Attempts will be made to have the best students papers accepted for presentation at the student section at the annual meetings of the Ohio Philosophical Association and/or the Ohio Academy of Religion.
(2.b) Students will be assigned selected readings that give overviews of the major subfields in philosophy such as appropriate articles from The Encyclopedia of Philosophy:Supplement.
(2.c) The course does not involve a lab.
(2.d) A student's grade will be based on the quality of his or her paper presented in the "mock" conference and the quality of his or her comments on another student's paper also presented at the "mock" conference.
(2.e) The course is not double-listed.
(3) The use of diverse resource materials in the presentation of a student's paper will depend on the topic and inclinations of a particular student presenter.
(4) This course does not replace an existing course. It duplicates no course offered by another department. Since it is discipline specific, there are no relevant curricular units in the university that seem appropriate to consult.
(5.a-b) This course is required for philosophy majors and is open only to philosophy majors. The "majors only" limitation is appropriate because [1] the level of discourse in the seminar and in the paper presentations will presuppose considerable prior work in philosophy, [2] students will be required to rework a previous upper level philosophy paper by enhancing the paper with additional material from current philosophical journals and by subjecting their papers to individual and group critical scrutiny, and [3] the goal of the seminar is presentation and defense of the enhanced paper first before a group of philosophy majors and faculty in a "mock" conference and, if possible, before a group of professional philosophers in a student section at the annual meeting of the Ohio Philosophical Association or the Ohio Academy of Religion.
(6) This course is not intended to fulfill a General Education requirement.
OHIO UNIVERSITY
Department of Philosophy
Philosophy 490 - Senior Seminar
Fall Quarter, 1998
CalI No. XXXX
7:10p.m. - 10:00p.m. T; RTEC 201
Instructors:
Professor James Petrik (Teacher of Record) <jpetrikl @ohiou.edu>
Professor Donald M. Borchert (Assistant) <dborchertl@ohiou.edu>
Professor George Weckman (Assistant) <gweckman1~ohiou.edu>
Department Telephone: 740-593-4588
OBJECTIVE OF THE COURSE
The objective of this course is to provide philosophy majors in their senior year with a culminating philosophical activity that (1) enables them to grasp an overview of the major subfields of philosophy, and (2) to fine tune their philosophical research, writing and presentation techniques.
TEXTBOOK
The Encyclopedia of Philosophy: Supplement, ed. Donald M. Borchert. New ork:
Macmillan Reference USA, 1996.
COURSE OVERVIEW
At the first class session students will select a term paper that they had submitted in a philosophy course at the 300 level or above during their studies at Ohio University. The selected term paper will be reworked by the student during the quarter taking into account (1) current developments in the subfield of philosophy into which the paper fits, and (2) some of the most recent journal articles relevant to the topic of the paper.
To assist students in this writing project, each student will be assigned to a small student work group of 3 to 4 students. Students in a work group will exchange copies of their papers with each other and will consult with each other about the reworking of their papers. During the quarter, parts of three class sessions will be devoted to students consulting each other in their work groups. The instructor of record and the assisting faculty team will assist students in the reworking of their papers. In addition, students are encouraged to consult with the faculty member to whom they submitted their papers originally.
At each class meeting, with the exception of the first session, one of the subfields of philosophy will be examined with the assistance of a guest faculty discussant whose area of specialization lies within that subfield.
The culminating activity of the course will be a mock conference to be held at the end of the quarter during which time students will present their papers in a conference style venue. Presentations will be clustered in several group sessions that will be chaired either by philosophy honors tutorial students or by philosophy graduate students. The reactor to a student's paper will be selected from a work group other than the one that assisted the student in paper revision throughout the quarter.
Students will be encouraged to submit their finished papers to the program committees of the Ohio Philosophical Association and/or the Ohio Academy of Religion for presentation at the annual meetings of these societies. Students whose papers are accepted for presentation will receive financial assistance from the Philosophy Department for travel expenses.
PROVISIONAL OUTLINE OF THE COURSE
Tuesday, September 8th
Introduction
Selection of papers to be reworked
Assignment of students to work groups
Discussion: The Nature of Philosophy
Assigned Reading: "Philosophy" by Paul K. Moser in The Encyclopedia of Philosophy: Supplement, and appropriate cross-referenced articles.
Tuesday, September 15th
Discussion: The Subfield of Epistemology
Faculty Discussant: Professor Bender
Assigned Reading: "Epistemology" by Richard Feldman and Earl Conee in The Encyclopedia of Philosophy: Supplement, and appropriate cross-referenced articles.
Tuesday, September 22nd
Discussion: The Subfield of Metaphysics Faculty Discussant: Professor Bender
Assigned Reading: "Metaphysics" by Michael Jubien in The Encyclopedia of Philosophy: Supplement, and appropriate cross-referenced articles
Students Consult in their Work Groups
Tuesday, September 29th
Discussion: The Subfield of Philosophy of Mind
Faculty Discussant: Professor Zucker
Assigned Reading: "Philosophy of Mind" by John Heil in The Encyclopedia of Philosophy: Supplement, and appropriate cross-referenced articles.
Tuesday, October 6th
Discussion: The Subfield of Philosophy of Science
Faculty Discussant: Professor Ehrlich or Professor Mosley or Professor Carson
Assigned Reading: "Philosophy of Science" by Joseph C. Pitt in The Encyclopedia of Philosophy: Supplement, and appropriate cross-referenced articles.
Tuesday, October 13th
Discussion: The Subfield of Philosophy of Religion
Faculty Discussant: Professor Petrik or Professor Weckman or Professor Collins
Assigned Reading: "Philosophy of Religion" by Robert M. Adams in The Encyclopedia of Philosophy: Supplement, and appropriate cross-referenced articles.
Students Consult in their Work Groups
Tuesday, October 20th
Discussion: The Subfield of Ethics
Faculty Discussant: Professor Traxler
Assigned Reading: "Ethical Theory" by Stephen Darwell in The Encyclopedia of Philosophy: Supplement, and appropriate cross-referenced articles.
Tuesday, October 27th
Discussion: The Subfield of Social and Political Philosophy
Faculty Discussant: Professor Zurn
Assigned Reading: "Social and Political Philosophy" by James P. Sterba in The Encyclopedia of Philosophy: Supplement, and appropriate cross-referenced articles.
Students Consult in their Work Groups
Tuesday, November 3rd
Discussion: The Subfield of Continental Philosophy
Faculty Discussant: Professor Mickunas
Assigned Reading: Selected articles on contemporary continental philosophers in The Encyclopedia of Philosophy: Supplement, and appropriate cross-referenced articles.
Tuesday, November 10th
Final plans for the Mock Conference
Discussion topic for November 10th to be selected by the students in the seminar from the following possibilities.
Topic #1:
Discussion: The Subfield of Aesthetics
Faculty Discussant: Professor Blocker
Assigned Reading: "Aesthetics, History of’ and "Aesthetics, Problem of’ by Richard M. Shusterman in The Encyclopedia of Philosophy: Supplement, and appropriate cross-referenced articles.
Topic #2:
Discussion: The Subfield of Applied Ethics
Faculty Discussant: Professor Zucker
Assigned Reading: "Applied Ethics" by Tom L. Beauchamp in The Encyclopedia of Philosophy: Supplement, and appropriate cross-referenced articles.
Topic #3:
Discussion: The Subfield of Logic
Faculty Discussant: Professor Ehrlich
Assigned Reading: "Mathematical Logic" by John P. Burgess and "Philosophical Logic" by Vann McGee in The Encyclopedia of Philosophy: Supplement, and appropriate cross-referenced articles.
Topic #4
Discussion: The Subfield of Feminist Philosophy
Faculty Discussant: Professor Collins
Assigned Reading: "Feminist Philosophy" by Andrea Nye in The Encyclopedia of Philosophy: Supplement, and appropriate cross-referenced articles.
Saturday or Sunday, November 21st and 22nd
Mock Conference
ATTENDANCE POLICY
Class attendance is required. Excused absences are permitted. An excused absence is one with a reason for being absent that is universalizable and check-up-able. For every unexcused absence, student's earned grade in the course will be lowered by one-third of a letter grade. For example, if a student had one unexcused absence during the quarter, and if the student's earned grade for the course was an A-, then earned grade of an A- would be lowered to a B+.
COURSE REOUIREMENTS & BASIS FOR GRADING
(1) The major course requirement is the reworking and enriching of a previous upper level philosophy term paper by enhancing the paper with additional material from current philosophical journals and by subjecting the paper to individual and group critical scrutiny. The quality of the reworked paper will account for sixty percent of the student's grade for the course. The quality of the oral presentation and defense at the mock conference will account for twenty percent of the student's grade for the course,
(2) Each student will serve as a commentator and reactor to another student's paper at the mock conference. The quality of these comments and reactions will account for twenty percent of the student's grade for the course.
GRADING SCALE
A 90%-100%
B 80%-89%
C 70%-79%
D 60%-69%
F 59% and below
ACADEMIC HONESTY
Students and faculty at Ohio University prize academic honesty as a virtue essential to the academic process. If a student in this course violates The expectation of the academic community that its members will conduct themselves with honesty, that person will receive no credit for the work in which dishonesty is detected, and that person's name will be submitted to the university for appropriate disciplinary action.
In this course, it is permissible for students to get help from books, journals and from other persons as they prepare their papers and comments. But such assistance must be acknowledged in footnotes.
We assume that every member of our academic community is honest. All of us are surprised and disappointed when occasionally a member of the community engages in academic dishonesty. We are pleased to report that very, very few cases of academic dishonesty have been identified in our courses over the years.