邢唷��>� ���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������欹�g� ��pbjbj坻坻 >箤r\箤r\枚%�������| | | | | ����� � � 8� �t t� 63R� � "
� � � �1�1�1�1�1�1�1$�6�>9�2�| k-� � k-k-2| |
��2{0{0{0k-X|
|
�1{0k-�1{0{0{0
����怰譇]咴�����-`{0�13063{0�9#/��9{0{0J�9| �0� ��#j{0'��)�� � � 22�/�� � � 63k-k-k-k-���������������������������������������������������������������������9� � � � � � � � � > B: Gaining and Sustaining Support for the First-Year Experience Course:
Countering Objections with Sound Reasoning & Compelling Arguments
Joe Cuseo
jcuseo@earthlink.net
Introduction
It is almost an academic truism that trying to produce change in higher education is 揾arder than trying to move a graveyard� (Fife, 1982, p. xv). The former president of the University of Chicago once claimed that 揺very advance in education is made over the dead bodies of 10,000 resisting professors� (Robert Hutchins, quoted in Seymour, 1988.)
Proponents of first-year seminars should expect to encounter institutional resistance because its content is unorthodox, unfamiliar, and does not fitting neatly into traditional conceptions or perceptions what an academic course should 搇ook like.� Consequently, attempts to introduce this 揻oreign body� into the traditional curriculum are likely to activate the institution抯 搊rganizational immune system,� triggering virulent attacks on the course in an attempt to reject it. This manuscript offers strategies for anticipating and countering common objections to the first-year seminar. As John Gardner, pioneer of the first-year experience movement has observed, 揝tarting a freshman seminar is not easy. Because academic credit is frequently involved, freshman seminars must clear the gauntlet of faculty curriculum-review bodies. I still receive frequent reports of strong faculty resistance, skepticism, and outright hostility to freshman seminar courses� (1989, pp. 238-239).
These hostile attacks are likely to be spearheaded by college faculty because they dominate the curriculum review process and have a long history of functioning as the tradition-guarding, 搃ntellectual veto group� for curricular change in higher education (Jencks & Riesman, 1968). (Faculty resistance to educational change can be so intense that it once prompted the former president of the University of Chicago to caustically claim that, 揈very advance in education is made over the dead bodies of 10,000 resisting professors� [Robert Hutchins, quoted in Seymour, 1988].)
PERSUASION THROUGH LOGIC & REASON:
THE CONCEPTUAL CASE FOR THE FIRST-YEAR SEMINAR
Anticipate and Counter Common Objections to the Course
When arguing for the academic credibility and creditability of the first-year seminar, it is important to anticipate common objections and be ready to debunk them in a rational, authoritative (and socially sensitive) manner. In the following sections of this manuscript, two of the most common arguments against the first-year seminar are cited and suggested counter-arguments are provided.
u� Common Objection #1. The first-year seminar is a remedial or developmental course,
therefore it should not carry college credit.
For critics who employ this argument, let them be reminded that research on the first-year seminar indicates that it benefits students of all levels of academic ability (See file title, 揊YS-empirical-evidence-16�). In fact, one institutional research study revealed that participation in the first-year seminar had more positive impact on the retention of students with higher SAT scores than course participants with lower SAT scores (Davis, 1992).
Students at all levels of academic preparedness benefit from grappling with such first-year seminar topics as, 搕he meaning and value of liberal education� because such information is neither covered in high school, nor is it explicitly covered anywhere in the undergraduate curriculum. (Or in the graduate curriculum, for that matter, resulting in the cruel irony that most college faculty are not conversant with this central goal of the undergraduate experience�
including the present author梪ntil he began teaching the topic in the first-year seminar!).
Also, academically well-prepared freshmen profit from exposure to strategies for coping with college-related social and emotional adjustments that may otherwise interfere with their academic performance. It is interesting to note that three major topics covered in the first-year seminar, self-awareness, social and emotional adjustment are often perceived as affective or non-intellectual (搕ouchy-feely�) subjects; yet, research and theory on human cognition refers to these very same concepts as forms of human intelligence: 搃ntrapersonal intelligence�, "interpersonal intelligence� (Gardner, 1993, 1999), and 揺motional intelligence� (Goleman, 1995; Goleman, Boyatzis, & McKee, 2013. There are also 搖ndecided� students among the academically well-prepared who still need to sort out the complex relationships among college majors, future careers, and personal interests, aptitudes, and values. Even honors students report significant stress related to time-management adjustments during their first year of college (Stephens & Eison, 1986-1987)
John Gardner (1989) eloquently sums up the major counter-arguments to the charge that the first-year seminar is a remedial or developmental course:
The argument that freshman seminars are developmental or remedial is easily refuted. They
are offered at many institutions so select in their admission practices that teaching such
courses could not possibly be considered developmental or remedial. Even more important, it
must be argued that the purpose and content of freshman seminars focus on the nature of the
college experience, most of which cannot be taught before students reach college. Freshmen
cannot learn to cope with college professors before they get there. High school teachers are
different from college teachers, and freshmen cannot possibly become oriented to an
institution before they arrive. They cannot learn how to take college lecture notes if they have
not been lectured to in high school. Finally it should be noted that all education and course
work are developmental in the sense that they develop the student's intellectual and personal
capacities. All college work should be regarded as remedial, for it is remedying existing
levels of ignorance and lack of knowledge (p. 245).
u� Common Objection #2. The first-year seminar lacks rigor.
The term rigor is bandied about a lot without any clear and consensual definition of what "rigor" actually is. As the word rigorous suggests, it involves strenuous activity (as opposed to rigor mortis). Thus, academic rigor should refer to the nature of the mental action or cognitive process爏tudents engage in with respect to what they抮e learning, i.e., a rigorous learning experience rests on how燼ctively or vigorously students process the content and what mental operations they perform on it梕.g., writing about it,爀valuating it, and applying it (versus simply memorizing it at a surface level). A substantive educational experience depends as much, or more, on how the learner works on or engages with the subject matter than it does on what the subject matter happens to be. For example, a first-year seminar which encourages a small class of students to actively reflect on, and think deeply about its subject through focused discussions and writing assignments may constitute a more rigorous educational experience than a required introductory course that is taught exclusively via lectures delivered to large groups of students梬ho 搇earn� by listening passively in class梐nd demonstrate their learning on multiple-choice exams requiring nothing more than rote recall of 揳cademic� terms and factual information.
Thus, a爎igorous爈earning experience depends as much, or more, on the nature of the mental actions爐hat the learner performs during the experience than on the particular燾ontent or subject matter on which those actions are performed. For example, a first-year seminar which encourages a small class of students to actively reflect on, and think deeply about its subject through thought-provoking discussions and writing assignments may constitute a more rigorous learning experience than a required introductory course that is taught exclusively via lectures delivered to large groups of students梬ho 搇earn� by listening passively in class梐nd demonstrate their learning on multiple-choice exams requiring nothing more than rote recall of factual information. Furthermore, rigor is not ensured by inflated course names, polysyllabic terms, or sheer volume of content 揷overed� in class or pages of reading assigned that create 搃nformation overload� and encourage students to processed that information at a surface or shallow level (e.g., memorization for short-term recall). As two faculty members themselves observe: 揑t is common to hear professors boasting of assigning several hundred pages of reading a week. There抯 no way that much material can be absorbed in seven days. More will be retained from two carefully chosen articles� (Hacker & Dreifus, 2010, p. 91).
Faculty may again need to be reminded that an academic experience and燼n educational experience are not synonymous. The former tends to be associated with vicarious cognitive learning of traditional curricular content in a classroom setting. Education is a much broader term that includes active, experiential learning爐hat can take place in燼 variety of out-of-class settings and embraces cognitive and "non-cognitive" learning outcomes梥uch as social and emotional intelligence,爏elf-efficacy, character development, citizenship, etc.
Naturally, faculty definitions of what is 搑igorous� or 揳cademic� may often be nothing more than an 揳ppeal to tradition,� i.e., what is familiar or conventional.�(Naturally,爀lements of this dispute are not really rational in nature, but involve issues of territoriality, ownership, self-image, and resistance to change.)
u� Common Objection #3. The first-year seminar is an applied, not an academic course.
For critics who argue that college credit should not be awarded for the first-year seminar because its course content is too applied or non-academic in nature, let them be reminded that such criticism was once directed against science labs and modern languages when these courses were first introduced to the college curriculum (Rudolph, 1977), while at other major universities, similar charges were leveled against history, political science, sociology (Thelin, 1992), and American literature (Franklin, Huber, & Laurence, 1992). This suggests that higher education抯 definition of 揳cademic� is neither immutable nor indisputable; rather, it may often reflect the somewhat arbitrary norms of already-established departments or the narrowly-focused professional perspectives of academic specialists. (For an astute examination of the issue of what is academic or intellectual, see McGrath and Spear抯 [1991] critique of 揹isciplinary savants.�)
Critics should also be reminded of the fact that academic credit is now offered for other college courses that are patently 揳pplied� in nature (e.g., computer programming, physical education, and cardiopulmonary resuscitation). Academic purists are sometimes inclined to assume that an educational experience is synonymous with an academic experience, but the former is a much more inclusive concept that embraces learning experiences beyond those that equate to traditional content-centered, 揷halk-and-talk� lectures.
The latter type of learning experience is not untypical of many introductory, general education courses experienced during the first year which are commonly designed to provide cursory coverage of multiple topics (Spear, 1984), and which are delivered in impersonal large-class settings with little opportunity for active student involvement, writing, and personalized feedback. Moreover, there is extensive research indicating that even when factual information is 搇earned� by college students in this fashion, it is forgotten soon after course completion (Bligh, 2000; Blunt & Blizard, 1975; Brethower, 1977; Gustav, 1969; McLeish, 1968). Commenting on these findings in their comprehensive 20-year review of more than 2500 studies on how college affects students, Pascarella and Terenzini (1991) reached the following conclusion:
Abundant evidence suggests that much factual material is forgotten rather soon after it is
presented in educational settings. Thus, . . . beyond imparting specific subject matter
knowledge, claims for the enduring influence of postsecondary education on learning must be
based . . . on cognitive competencies and skills (p. 114).
It is these timeless, cross-situational lifelong learning skills (rather than time-bound college survival skills) that should be emphasized when rebutting the charge that the first-year seminar is 搕oo applied.� Furthermore, these highly transferable 搇ife skills� should be showcased as course objectives in the first-year seminar syllabus. Such evidence underscores the need for the college curriculum to counterbalance its heavy dose of 搃nformation-loaded� courses with courses designed to develop students' lifelong-learning skills (Cross, 1985). The first-year seminar represents such a course梠ne which focuses on the development of student competencies and skills that are likely to withstand the 搕est of time敆an oft-cited criterion used to assess the ultimate value of an educational experience (Cross, 1992). Applying this test-of-time criterion to the first-year seminar, Gordon and Grites (1984) argue eloquently for the course抯 credit-bearing value,
To determine the credit value of a freshman seminar course, ask yourself to identify an
undergraduate course you had that you are not using in your work today. If you can
identify only one, you are very fortunate. The skills, attitudes, and knowledge learned in a
freshman seminar usually outlive those learned in many other courses because they are used
daily (p. 317).
Similarly, Levine and Cureton (1998) argue that today抯 general education curriculum should be grounded in the life needs of students and integrate academe抯 traditional focus on intellectual inquiry with the practical skills that today s students need to be succeed in the twenty-first century.
u� Common Objection #4. The college cannot afford to add any more requirements to the
student's graduation total, because it may delay graduation.
If you're attempting to adopt the seminar as a required course, it is likely that you'll run into this argument. If you encounter it, be ready to counter-punch with the argument that the seminar's focus on educational planning major and career exploration/selection is likely to encourage earlier crystallization of these choices, and more accurate initial selection of a major. In the long run, this should serve to reduce time to graduation by reducing procrastination or prolonged indecisiveness about exploring majors, as well as the number of students who end-up changing爉ajors, both of which often result in longer time to graduation.
Understand Common Criteria Used by Faculty to Evaluate College Courses
In addition to anticipating common course objections, it is important to understand the implicit criteria that are commonly used by faculty to judge the credit-worthiness of college-level courses. Three criteria seem to be employed commonly (and often tacitly) by faculty in reaching decisions about approving courses for college credit: (1) Does the course involve coverage of theoretical concepts or abstract principles? (2) Does the course have a broad focus with respect to person, time and place that moves beyond the self to include historical, intercultural, or global perspectives? (3) Does the course foster critical thinking? (4) Is the course comparable to anything already offered for academic credit in higher education?
Strategies for meeting each of these three course-evaluation standards or criteria will be discussed in turn.
u� Course evaluation standard #1. Consistency with the goals of general (liberal) education.
During the 1920s and 1930s, there was a growth of orientation courses across the country. However, faculty challenged their credit-bearing status by arguing that the course抯 emphasis on personal life skills was inconsistent with or antithetical to the liberating or broadening goals of general education (Dannells & Kuh, 1977). However, the holistic focus of the FYE course is strikingly congruent with the 揵roadening� goals of liberal learning and general education because the vast majority of college mission statements and institutional goals refer to student outcomes that are not strictly academic or cognitive in nature (Astin, 1991; Grandy, 1988; Kuh, Shedd, & Whitt, 1987; Lenning, 1988). Kuh, Shedd, and Whitt (1987) argue persuasively that student development and liberal education are often 搖nrecognized (and unappreciated) common law partners� (p. 252). The marriage of holistic development and liberal learning via the FYE course may also provide as a foundation for productive partnerships between student development professionals梬ho promote liberal education via the co-curriculum, and college faculty梬ho promote it through the formal, general education curriculum.
Furthermore, the transferable learning skills emphasized by the course dovetail nicely with the lifefelong learning goals of liberal learning and general education. It is noteworthy that the goals of a liberal arts education tend to be student-centered and emphasize transferable life skills, yet the general education curriculum is typically department-centered and focused on the acquisition of discipline-based knowledge (Palmer, 1982). A common criticism of the college curriculum is that it is dominated by content-driven, information-loaded courses, while giving comparatively short shrift to courses designed to develop students� lifelong learning skills (Cross, 1993). The FYE is a course that can redress some of this imbalance through its focus on the development of student-success strategies and skills that have lifelong value, which is an oft-cited goal of liberal education (Stark & Lattuca, 1997; Weingarten, 1993). Gordon and Grites (1984) argue forcefully for the lifelong value of the FYE: 揟o determine the credit value of a freshman seminar course, ask yourself to identify an undergraduate course you had that you are not using in your work today. If you can identify only one, you are very fortunate. The skills, attitudes, and knowledge learned in a freshman seminar usually outlive those learned in many other courses because they are used daily� (p. 317).
The general education curriculum should broaden students� perspectives beyond the self to include other times, places, and people is a long-held ideal of liberal education (Boyer & Kaplan, 1977) that is shared by faculty in many academic disciplines (Civian, et al. 1997). The criterion of broad focus can be addressed through course content (topics and subtopics), but also through course goals, objectives, and intended learning outcomes.
With respect to course content, there are several major topics or instructional units typically included in first-year seminars that can accommodate this judgment criterion. A common goal of many first-year seminars is to introduce new college students to the 揷ulture� of higher education (Barefoot & Fidler, 1996), including such topics as the key differences between high school and higher education, the meaning and value of a college education, and the academic expectations of college students. A historical perspective can be woven meaningfully into this unit by infusing it with discussion of (a) a brief review of the historical development of higher education in America, and (b) historical differences in the attitudes, values, aspirations, and experiences of college students (e.g., pre-1960s, vs. the �60s, vs. today).
Also, broader intercultural elements may be incorporated under the rubric of introducing students to higher education, such as: (a) diversity of higher education in America (e.g., community colleges, liberal arts colleges, comprehensive universities, research universities); (b) differences between American higher education and postsecondary education in other countries (e.g., student access, diversity of postsecondary institutions); and (c) higher education demographics (e.g., changes in numbers of females, re-entry adults, racial and ethnic minorities).
Diversity is another staple topic in many first-year seminars that is typically covered under the rubric of social development (interpersonal relations) or as a stand-alone unit. Diversity lends itself to a wealth of subtopics that meet the course-evaluation criterion of a broad focus that moves students beyond themselves. For instance, any or all of the following issues may be relevant for discussion in the first-year seminar: (a) multicultural (domestic) diversity梔ifferences among racial, ethnic, and cultural groups within America; (b) cross-cultural (international) diversity梔ifferences between American culture and the culture of other nations; (c) intercultural communication skills; (d) diversity in learning styles; (e) diversity in lifestyle (e.g., relating to socioeconomic differences, or to different campus subcultures梥cholars, party animals, jocks, hippies), (f) diversity in sexual orientation, and (g) achieving unity and community amidst diversity (e.g., discussion of universal human characteristics, needs, and concerns).
Furthermore, many of these same diversity issues may be discussed within the context of another common topic in the first-year seminar: Self-awareness and self-understanding (e.g., self-assessment and self-monitoring; self-concept and personal identity; self-esteem and self-efficacy; values awareness and clarification). Moving beyond the self to understand the perspectives of others who are different (diversity appreciation) provides individual students with multiple comparative perspectives or reference points for more accurately assessing and understanding who they are. (It should also be noted here that including the topic of self-awareness or self-understanding in the first-year seminar is a good course-approval strategy in its own right because it addresses one of the most frequently-cited goals in the history of liberal education: 揔now thyself� [Cross, 1982]).
Since faculty tend to be content-focused and content-driven (Erickson & Strommer, 1991), it is recommended that the title and description of course topics listed in the syllabus should be phrased in a way that highlights their academic (i.e., abstract, theoretical, historical, global) aspects or implications. Listed below is a sample of topic titles typically covered in first-year seminar textbooks followed by a rephrasing of each title to connote a more academic focus. Note the use of the grammatical colon, which allows more opportunity to describe the topic and delineate its specific components.
(1) Introduction to College ( Understanding Higher Education: Its Purpose, Value, &
Expectations
(2) Study Skills ( Strategic Learning, Deep Learning, and Higher-Level Thinking
(3) Time Management ( Personal Responsibility: Self-Motivation, Self-Management, and
Self-Discipline
(4) Majors & Careers ( Life Planning: Connecting the Present Academic Experience to Future
Personal & Professional Goals
(5) Wellness ( Holistic Development: Social, Emotional, Physical, & Spiritual Elements of
Personal Development.
These arguments suggest the FYE is a course whose intended learning outcomes are very compatible with those of a liberal education and whose holistic, learner-centered, and skill-oriented focus fills a void in an otherwise content-driven general education curriculum. Supporting this argument are national survey data, which indicate that more than 50% of responding colleges and universities offer the FYE for general education credit (Tobolowsky, 2008).
u� Course-evaluation standard #2. Coverage of theoretical concepts or abstract principles.
A major criterion commonly employed by faculty when judging the credit-worthiness of a college course is its theoretical emphasis. As Shaw (1980) points out:
The main criterion that governs faculty thinking in making distinctions between the creditable
and the noncreditable is often hidden梟ot intentionally but because faculty by nature or
conditioning have come to assume it. The criterion is abstraction. Virtually any course that
yields or at least manipulates abstract concepts is virtually assured of accreditation (pp.
33-34, italics added).
Thus, proponents of the seminar should emphasize during course negotiations that the content of the course is well-grounded in scholarly research and theory on personal adjustment (e.g., mental health and social psychology), human development (e.g., adolescent and adult development), and human learning (e.g., information-processing and cognition). The seminar抯 content is also well grounded in higher education research and theory on student adjustment, student development, and collegiate success. These theoretical and research underpinnings of the seminar should be showcased in course proposals and highlighted in the course syllabus (e.g., in course objectives, topic descriptions, and bibliographical references) so as to raise their level of consciousness in the minds of those who are offering judgments and rendering decisions about the seminar's credit-bearing status.
This does not mean that the course has to forfeit its applied, learner-centered, student development focus梬hich remains the primary focus on what is done with students inside the classroom (the 搃nternal audience�)梬hile theory is introduced secondarily. However, for the 揺xternal audience� (faculty), theoretical aspects of the course are highlighted. This is not to suggest that deception or duplicity be used in course negotiations; what is being suggested is that different aspects of the course should be showcased or marketed when selling it to different audiences梖aculty or students. This strategy is no different than one commonly recommended by assessment scholars for reporting data on educational programs: Tailor the content and tone of the assessment report to the specific needs and interests of the audience (Hanson, 1982).
This recommendation for emphasizing theory or practice for different audiences at different times is well illustrated in the first-year seminar offered at Empire State College (NY). This course includes readings on the ways that humans develop over the life span that have a theoretical focus; however, classroom activities and course assignments have a practical emphasis, such as constructing personal life-planning maps and interviewing people with extensive life and work experience (Steltenpohl, Shipton, & Villines, 1996).
u� Course evaluation standard #3. A focus on critical thinking.
In national surveys of college professors teaching freshman-level through senior-level courses in various academic fields, more than 95 percent of them report that the most important goal of a college education is to develop students� ability to think critically (Gardiner, 2005; Milton, 1982). Similarly, college professors teaching introductory courses for freshmen and sophomores report that the primary educational purpose of their courses is to develop students� critical thinking skills (Higher Education Research Institute, 2009; Stark et al., 1990). This suggests that including attention to critical thinking in the first-year seminar may serve to enhance its perceived academic credibility. Fortunately, critical thinking is a skill-focused educational objective which can be applied to a wide variety of content areas, including those that comprise the first-year seminar. Unfortunately, however, even though many faculty are staunch advocates for critical thinking, there has been little consensus among them on how they define it (Mc Millan, 1987). Nonetheless, it has been the author抯 experience that almost all faculty will firmly assert that they 搆now it when they see it� (i.e., they can identify or recognize instances of it).
One strategy for ensuring that faculty who are using the critical-thinking criterion will 搒ee it� in the first-year seminar is to include critical-thinking goals or objectives in the course syllabus. One strategy for ensuring that faculty who are using the critical-thinking criterion will 搒ee it� in the first-year seminar is to include critical-thinking goals or objectives in the course syllabus. Another strategy is to breakout or isolate 揷ritical thinking� as a separate unit of instruction and list it in the syllabus as one of the major topics to be covered in the course. Many first-year seminar/student success textbooks include critical thinking as a stand-alone course topic, so they may be consulted to identify components of this topic. It is also recommended that an instructional unit on critical thinking in the first-year seminar should include some or all of the following subtopics: (a) becoming an intelligent 揷onsumer� of college courses, programs and activities, (b) critical thinking with respect to choice of major and career; (c) critically evaluating information retrieved in print and through the Internet; (d) understanding epistemological and methodological differences across different academic disciplines (e.g., disciplinary differences in types of intellectual questions asked, approaches to answering these questions, ways of learning and knowing, standards or criteria for judging truth or beauty, and for demonstrating critical and creative thinking); (e) applying critical thinking to interpersonal relationships; and (f) applying critical thinking to money management and intelligent consumerism.
Students can also reflect deeply, think critically, and write rigorously about爐he content of the first-year experience course (about which much research and scholarship exists) and about their own first-year experiences梒onverting these experiences into bona fide experiential learning by engaging in reflection (e.g., prompted by higher-level thinking questions that engage them in processing their experiences and abstracting the cross-contextual, lifelong-learning implications of these experiences.�
First-year experience instructors should be intentional about articulating how facilitating students� decision making with respect to issues involving their educational, personal, and vocational choices is a cognitive process that involves some of the highest levels of thinking and problem solving (Jimenez-Aleixandre & Pereiro-Munoz, 2002), including: (a) determining what additional information is needed, (b) analyzing and determining criteria on which to base decisions, (c) self-insight into personal priorities and爒alues,�(d) critical evaluation of 爐he advantages/disadvantages燼ssociated with爌ursuing different options, as well as (e) estimating, projecting or imagining the consequences of different courses of action. It may also include reflective analysis of what defines or constitutes "success."
One final recommendation for addressing the critical-thinking criterion often used in judging first-year seminars is to include an emphasis on student writing in the course proposal and course syllabus. Writing and thinking have long been viewed as strongly interrelated activities, both in the scholarly literature on writing (Ackerman, 1993; Applebee, 1984; Elbow, 1973; Connolly, 1989) and in the minds of many faculty (Smit, 1991). Thus, requiring student writing in the first-year seminar (e.g., out-of-class writing assignments and in-class writing activities) is strongly recommended for gaining and securing course acceptance. However, it should be noted that requiring student writing is not synonymous with requiring the traditional term paper. Required writing can take the form of essays exams (in-class or take-home), as well as a host of short, focused 搘riting-to-learn� assignments.
u� Course evaluation standard #4. Comparability with already-accredited college courses.
With respect to understanding and coping with this common criterion for judging the credit- worthiness of college courses, it should be kept in mind that psychological research indicates that familiarity has a powerful effect on human judgment and decision-making. Generally speaking, the more exposure humans have to something, the more familiar it becomes, and the more likely it is to be perceived positively and judged favorably. So powerful is the effect of familiarity, it has gained the status of an established principle of human behavior, referred to by social psychologists as the 揻amiliarity principle,� i.e., what is familiar (and has not harmed us) is good (Zajonc, 1968, 1970, 2001). This strong influence of familiarity on human judgment may explain why innovators in any organization or culture often must overcome rigid adherence to tradition and intense resistance to change. Thu, in the case of the first-year seminar, resistance to the course as being 揳cademic� or 搑igorous� may be based simply on its lack of superficial semblance to the familiar (traditional) course offerings.
For course proponents trying to gain acceptance of the first-year seminar, one strategy that may reduce this source of resistance and re-direct it in a way that it may work for (rather than against) course approval is to look for familiar, already-credited courses which cover topics that are similar to those discussed in the first-year seminar. For instance, it could be pointed out during negotiations that a course commonly offered by colleges and universities, 揚sychology of Adjustment,� contains content that is quite comparable to topics covered in the first-year seminar (e.g., self-concept and self-esteem, motivation and goal setting, self-management, memory-improvement, and interpersonal relations). The only major difference is that students in the first-year seminar apply these topics and concepts to the college adjustment experience in particular, rather than to personal adjustment in general. Undoubtedly, there are courses in the college curriculum that cover content similar to that which is discussed in the first-year seminar, particularly those offered by the behavioral or social sciences, and the departments of education and human development.
Comparability with other college courses may also be addressed by ensuring that the nature of student work in the first-year seminar is comparable to that required of students in other academic credit-bearing courses. As Gardner notes with respect to first-year seminars,
These courses can be made as 揳cademic� as the designers choose. There are all sorts of
opportunities for freshman seminars to provide instruction and learning opportunities by such
traditional means as required readings, required writing, testing, book reviews, oral reports,
written reports, keeping journals [and] writing term papers (1989, p. 247).
One way to make these 揳cademic� elements of the course very visible to those who are judging its credibility is to showcase them in the course syllabus. Indeed, the design and presentation of a comprehensive, well-constructed course syllabus may in itself promote positive perceptions of the course and enhance its endorsement.
A final strategy for capitalizing on the familiarity principle to gain course acceptance is to simply point out that first-year seminars are rapidly becoming familiar additions to the college curriculum in higher education, as evidenced by national findings indicating that the vast majority of colleges and universities report having implemented a first-year seminar and the majority of these campuses require 90% or more of their students to take the course (Young & Hopp, 2014). Although the first-year seminar may still be perceived as unorthodox when viewed in relation to other courses comprising the home institution抯 curriculum, if it is viewed from a less parochial and more national perspective, a strong case can be made that the course has become an established component of college curricula across the country.
References
Ackerman, J. M. (1993). The promise of writing to learn. Written Communication, 10(3) 334-370.
Applebee, A. N. (1984). Writing and reasoning. Review of Educational Research, 54(4), 577-596.
Astin, A. W. (1991). Assessment for excellence: The philosophy and practice of assessment and
evaluation in higher education. New York: Macmillan.
Bligh, D. A. (2000). What抯 the use of lectures. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Blunt, M., & Blizard, P. (1975). Recall and retrieval of anatomical knowledge. British Journal of
Medical Education, 9, 255-263.
Boyer, E. L., & Kaplan, M. (1977). Educating for survival. New Rochelle, NY: Change
Magazine Press.
Brethower, D. (1977). Research in learning behavior: Some implications for college teaching. In
S. School & S. Inglis (Eds.), Teaching in higher education. Columbus, Ohio Board of
Regents.
Civian, J. T., Arnold, A., Gamson, Z. F., Kanter, S., & London, H. B. (1997). Implementing
change. In J. G. Gaff, J. L., Ratcliff, & Associates, Handbook of the undergraduate
curriculum: A comprehensive guide to purposes, structures, practices, and changes (pp. 647-
660). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Connolly, P. (1989). Writing and the ecology of learning. In P. Connolly & T. Vilardi (Eds.),
Writing to learn mathematics and science (pp. 1-14). New York: Teachers College Press.
Columbia University, New York.
Cross, P. K. (1982). Thirty years have passed: Trends in general education. In B.L . Johnson
(Ed.), General education in two-year colleges (pp. 11-20). New Directions for Community
Colleges, No. 40. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Cross, P. K. (1985). Education for the 21st century. NASPA Journal, 23(1), 7-18,
Cross, P. K. (1993). Reaction to, 揈nhancing the productivity of learning,� by D. B. Johnson.
AAHE Bulletin, 46(4), p. 7.
Dannells, M., & Kuh, G. (1977). Orientation. In W. Packwood (Ed.), College student personnel
services (pp. 102-124). Springfield: Charles C. Thomas.
Davis, B. O., Jr. (1992). Freshman seminar: A broad spectrum of effectiveness. Journal of The
Freshman Year Experience, 4(1), 79-94.
Elbow, P. (1973). Writing without teachers. New York: Oxford University Press.
Erickson, B. L., & Strommer, D.W. (1991). Teaching college freshmen. San Francisco: Jossey-
Bass.
Fife, J. D. (1982). Foreword. In R. C. Nordvall, The process of change in higher education
institutions (pp. xv-xvi). AAHE-ERIC Higher Education Research Report No. 7.
Washington, D.C.: American Association for Higher Education.
Franklin, P., Huber, & Laurence, D. (1992). Continuity and change in the study of literature.
Change, 24(1), 42-53.
Gardiner, L. F. (2005). Transforming the environment for learning: A crisis of quality. To Improve the Academy, 23, 3�23.
Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences. New York: Basic
Books.
Gardner, H. (1993). Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences (2nd ed.). New York: Basic Books.
Gardner, H. (1999). Intelligence reframed: Multiple intelligences for the 21st century. New York: Basic Books.
Gardner, J. (1989). Starting a freshman seminar program. In M. L. Upcraft, J. N. Gardner, and
Associates (pp. 238-249). The freshman year experience. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Gardner, J. N. (1990). Guidelines for evaluating the freshman year experience. National Center
for the Study of the Freshman Year Experience. Columbia: The University of South
Carolina.
Goleman, D. E. (1995). Emotional intelligence. New York: Bantom Books.
Goleman, D. (2006). Social intelligence: The new science of human relationships. New York: Dell.
Goleman, D., Boyatzis, R., & McKee, A. (2013). Primal leadership: Realizing the potential of emotional intelligence. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Gordon, V. N., & Grites, T. J. (1984). The freshman seminar course: Helping students succeed.
Journal of College Student Personnel, 25(4), 315-320.
Grandy, J. (1988). Assessing changes in student values. In C. Adelman (Ed.), Performance and
Judgement: Essays on Principles and Practice in the Assessment of College Student
Learning. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education Office of Educational Research
and Improvement.
Gustav, A. (1969). Retention of course material over varying intervals of time. Psychological
Reports, 25, 727-730.
Habley, W. R., & McClanahan, R. (2004). What works in student retention? All Survey Colleges.
Retrieved February 12, 2006, from
http://www.act.org/path/postsec/droptables/pdf/AllColleges.pdf
Hanson, G. R. (1982). Critical issues in the assessment of student development. In G. R. (Ed.),
Measuring student development (pp. 47-64). New Directions for Student Services, No. 20.
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Hacker, A., & Dreifus, C. (2010). Higher education? New York: Times Books.
Higher Education Research Institute (HERI) (2009). The American college teacher: National norms for 2007-2008. Los Angeles: HERI, University of California, Los Angeles.
Jiminez-Aleixandre, M., & Pereiro-Munoz, C. Knowledge producers or knowledge consumers:
Argumentation and decision making about environmental management. International Journal
of Science Education, 24(11), 1171-1190.
Kuh, G., Shedd, J., & Whitt, E. (1987). Student affairs and liberal education: Unrecognized (and
unappreciated) common law partners. Journal of College Student Personnel, 28(3), 252-260.
Jencks, C., & Riesman, D. (1968). The academic revolution. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Lenning, O. T. (1988). Use of noncognitive measures in assessment. In T. W. Banta (Ed.),
Implementing outcomes assessment: Promise and perils (pp. 41-52). New Directions for
Institutional Research, No. 50. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Levine, A., & Cureton, J. (1998) When hope and fear collide: A portrait of today's college
students. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
McGrath, D., & Spear, M. B. (1991). The academic crisis of the community college. Albany:
SUNY Press.
McLeish, J. (1968). The lecture method. (Cambridge Monograph on Teaching Methods No. 1).
Cambridge, England: Cambridge Institute of Education.
McMillan, J. (1987). Enhancing college students� critical thinking: A review of studies. Research
in Higher Education, 26, 3-29.
Millton, O. (1982). Will that be on the final? Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas,
National Resource Center for The First Year Experience and Students in Transition. (1998).
1997 national survey of first-year seminar programming. Columbia, SC: University of South
Carolina, Author.
Palmer, J. C. (1982). Sources and information. In B. L. Johnson (Ed.), General education in
two-year colleges (pp. 109-118). New Directions for Community Colleges, no. 40. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Pascarella, E. T., & Terenzini, P. T. (1991). How college affects students: Findings and
insights from twenty years of research. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Pascarella, E. T., & Terenzini, P. T. (2005). How college affects students, Volume 2: A third
decade of research. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Rudolph, R. (1977). A history of the American undergraduate course of study since 1636. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Seymour, D. T. (1988). Developing academic programs: The climate for innovation. ASHE-
ERIC Higher Education Report No.3. Washington, D.C.: Association for the Study of Higher Education.
Shaw, J. W. (1980). Learning centers and the faculty: Improving academic competency. In O. T.
Spear, K. I. (Ed.)(1984). Rejuvenating introductory courses (pp. 25-38). New Directions for
Teaching and Learning, no. 20. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass
&(,.12CFfqs}������� ,
�
胫胫胫胫胫胫胫胧滑驶瑹攩zvrnrj`Vh瞊�CJOJQJh�:�CJOJQJh�:�htNh瞊�h
^h
^h
^5丆JaJh�:�h瞊�5丆J\乤Jh�:�h瞊�CJaJh瞊�5丆JOJQJ\� h
^h瞊�CJ OJQJaJ h
^h
^CJ OJQJaJ h
^CJ OJQJaJ (h
^h
^5�6丆J OJQJ\乚乤J (h
^h瞊�5�6丆J OJQJ\乚乤J F������
�
?Cf�����d
��% � � ��������������������������gd�:�$a$gd
^$a$�
�
�
�
p s � n �
?CVdjt�������T �����鲮鲮鲮忪揿谭獭虜鞀鞌鞌z旍p靋靁�h鄘�CJOJQJh瞊�6丆JOJQJ]�h�;CJOJQJ h瞊�5�6丆JOJQJ\乚�h瞊�CJOJQJh瞊�5丆JOJQJ\�+h
62h瞊�5�6�>*CJ OJQJ\乚乤J (h
62h瞊�5�6丆J OJQJ\乚乤J "h
62h瞊�5丆J OJQJ\乤J h瞊�hH3�CJOJQJh瞊�CJOJQJh鎚jCJOJQJ �ci���� ""&"x"�"�"G$H$O$U$b$c$k$8%9%�%�%0&5&J(_(�,�,�-�-�-�-..!.-./
/�/鲮鲮喏杖站揣挫殞殞殈n汌歯歯汌毚毚毚殞殞殞� h
* h
* 6丆JOJQJ]�h
* h
* 5丆JOJQJh
* h
* 6丆JOJQJh
* h
* CJOJQJh
* 5丆JOJQJ\�h
* CJOJQJh
* CJOJQJh瞊�6丆JOJQJ]�h瞊�CJOJQJhb5�h汿�CJOJQJh汿�CJOJQJh
62CJOJQJ* € � D � b � - � � *!+!z"t(�-�/;1<1�27#9i<�j<��<�'=�=�=�=����������������������������gd
* �/�/�/�/�/�/0;122&2(2*2h2�2�288C8e8m8#9'9V;c;�?�?�? C顲鳦奃孌鲩鲩喏橛煽播矔部埧埧呖~繄t縥\jRhH�CJOJQJh
* h漡�6丆JOJQJh漡�CJOJQJh€]CJOJQJh汿�CJOJQJh瞊�6丆JOJQJ]� h瞊�5�6丆JOJQJ\乚�h
* 5丆JOJQJ\�h瞊�5丆JOJQJ\�h瞊�CJOJQJh瞊�CJOJQJh
* OJQJ^JaJh
* CJOJQJh
* h
* CJOJQJhk�CJOJQJ �=怉慉預FB˙C C C孌嶥怐扗擠@E F F怘慔豀糑\L^LM0R沇_Y��������������������������*$gd4�$a$gd4�gd4�gdH�孌嶥擠朌篋綝蔇>E@EFE欵 F
FaF}F嶧怓怘慔獺縃荋譎豀VJ鲮庳司哎殽柏嵷嵷嵷{f{f{WMh瞊�CJOJQJ h
62h瞊�CJ OJQJaJ (h
62h瞊�5�6丆J OJQJ\乚乤J "h
62h瞊�5丆J OJQJ\乤J hH�hH�CJOJQJh
^5丆JOJQJhH�5丆JOJQJhH�hH�5丆JOJQJhH�5丆JOJQJ\�h
625丆JOJQJ\�hH�CJOJQJhH�CJOJQJh��CJOJQJh漡�CJOJQJVJaJnJvJ濲鯦KFKWKkKvK\L^L`L楲歀淟MFNONTN[N圢轓OOO_OkOQ=Q0RtR{R擱罷賂箝箝箝箝箝箝哒司本爾彇彇爾偹俽俬h甝 CJOJQJ h4�h4�6丆JOJQJ]�h4�h4�CJOJQJ
h甝 5乤Jh4�h4�5乤J
h4�5乤J h甝 5� h鹮J5�h
625丆JOJQJ\�h4�5丆JOJQJ\�h4�CJOJQJh4�CJOJQJhH�CJOJQJh瞊�CJOJQJh瞊�6丆JOJQJ]�&賂酺mUuU擴砋経綰豒V#V橶歐沇燱礧癤砐'Y,Y-Y8Y>YXYZY雋靐aibisitiui眎瞚砳莍萯鲩匍鲩鲩搪谈坍庐庐Ξ洂泦x啴k產甼產產甼hH�CJOJQJ j烉h瞊�CJOJQJh��h��6丆JOJQJh��CJOJQJh��6丆JOJQJh瞊�6丆JOJQJh瞊�OJQJh瞊�CJOJQJh甝 CJOJQJh4�CJOJQJh4�h4�CJOJQJ h4�h
626丆JOJQJ]�h4�h
62CJOJQJh
62CJOJQJ&_Y赹鴅mf蝖蟞#iaibi瞚砳 jCjDj焜錴鎗@kpkqk�B�\�h�寪異 �(�顠鴴�
���蹟瓡^�a�硽 � �%�� �'�J�M�N�c�n�u�~��€�仧儫枱�L�M�f�i�t�u�箧偕偕倏部部部ǹ灴部部柌卡卡尐卡尐寕▊繉坎繉縰h�&"h瞊�CJOJQJhFECJOJQJh~pLCJOJQJh瞊�OJQJh�;CJOJQJh�%�CJOJQJh瞊�6丆JOJQJ]�h瞊�CJOJQJ h瞊�5�6丆JOJQJ\乚�h瞊�5丆JOJQJ\�h�&"5丆JOJQJ\�h4�5丆JOJQJ\�.d�e�f�g�h�i�t�u�浴4�5�敘微息 � ��ぃィ��p�胜伽冥�������������������������gd汿�
�0�*$gd�&"gd�&"XD<�gdWw�$a$u�谩摹拧啤恰取恕嫠畱sV; 5hA�hWw�0J B*CJOJQJ^JaJmH ph�sH 5hA�hWw�0J B*CJOJQJ^JaJmH ph�sH 8hA�hWw�0J 6丅*CJOJQJ^JaJmH ph�sH ;hA�hWw�0J 5�6丅*CJOJQJ^JaJmH ph�sH 8hA�hWw�0J 6丅*CJOJQJ^JaJmH ph�sH 8hA�hWw�0J 5丅*CJOJQJ^JaJmH ph�sH 4hA�hWw�6丅*CJOJQJ^JaJmH ph�sH 1hA�hWw�B*CJOJQJ^JaJmH ph�sH 恕印浴�%�3�4�5�J�发息洧 � �l�櫍龋蓿摛挨q�妤~�Ζ阄僵經憚t刧Wg凪@M@M@M@M@h瞊�6丆JOJQJ]�h瞊�CJOJQJ h汿�h汿�6丆JOJQJ]�h汿�h汿�CJOJQJ h�&"h�&"6丆JOJQJ]�h�&"h�&"CJOJQJhWw�CJOJQJhWw�CJOJPJQJaJ&h|
�hWw�6丆JOJPJQJ]乤J h|
�hWw�CJOJPJQJaJ)hA�hWw�B*CJOJQJ^JaJph�8hA�hWw�0J!5丅*CJOJQJ^JaJmH ph�sH 冥5�彞癀��x�咋X�锭戋毵<�=�洦建鲸 �Y�Z�俯濠姗5�6�挭潽����������������������������XD<�gdWw� Ζe�嫥毵�� �1�=�[�i�〃波建鲸屁台莹专莰��!�)�X�Y�Z�┅侃姗�4�鲩鲞堰眠龉鲩霪�姌鲩鰈Vl*h|
�hWw�6丆JOJPJQJ]乛JaJ$h|
�hWw�CJOJPJQJ^JaJh甝 6丆JOJQJh甝 h甝 6丆JOJQJh甝 CJOJQJh甝 h甝 CJOJQJh�&"CJOJQJh
62CJOJQJh€]h€]6丆JOJQJh€]h€]CJH*OJQJh€]CJOJQJh瞊�6丆JOJQJ]�h瞊�CJOJQJ 4�5�6�`�y�为 �臬 �c�}�叕啲毈维憩���5�X�l�骗赅稚稚稚稚指じ嘀芍峳峳峕D]0h��h汿�0J B*CJOJQJ]乛JaJph�)h��h汿�B*CJOJQJ^JaJph�4h��h汿�0J @堼�B*CJOJQJ]乛JaJph�-h��h汿�@堼�B*CJOJQJ^JaJph�&h4�hWw�6丆JOJQJ]乛JaJ h4�hWw�CJOJQJ^JaJh瞊�6丆JOJQJ]�h瞊�CJOJQJhWw�CJOJQJ)h|
�hWw�B*CJOJQJ^JaJph�潽灙L�彨惈瞰
� �叕啲喱憩X�黔拳&�€�伄喈8�H�I�惎癔懓挵�������������������������� d�XD<�gd汿�XD<�gd汿� gdWw�骗黔F�b�槷萎`�v�惎く忒鸠癔 � �d�惏懓霭 �-�z�鸨W�X�ú遣磴帚帚帚联另洀�沶阒鉧QaG阒h鹮JCJOJQJ h� �h鹮J6丆JOJQJ]�h� �h鹮JCJOJQJ hb5�h汿�CJOJQJ^JaJ hb5�h汿�6丆JOJQJaJh汿�CJOJQJaJ hb5�h汿�CJOJQJaJ,h|"vh汿�6丅*CJOJQJ^JaJph�)h��h汿�B*CJOJQJ^JaJph�h瞊�6丆JOJQJ]�h瞊�CJOJQJ#h汿�B*CJOJQJ^JaJph�挵鸢,�-�嫳惚A�W�X�恫也硬2�Z�灣煶��]��€�舜檀u�v�系-�\���������������������������XD<�gdWw�gdk�gd鹮J遣/��"�]��€�⒋炒檀荽娲��9�t�u�v��,�2�J�\�]�瓒鲩鲩鲥厮剿o私d剿ZMh�&"h�&"CJOJQJhk�CJOJQJhk�6丆JOJQJhWw�CJOJQJ0hu�hWw�6丂堽�B*CJOJQJ^JaJph�'hWw�@堽�B*CJOJQJ^JaJph�-hu�hWw�@堽�B*CJOJQJ^JaJph�hk�hk�6丆JOJQJhk�hk�CJOJQJhk�h瞊�CJOJQJh瞊�h瞊�6丆JOJQJ]�h瞊�CJOJQJ\�]�慷 � �v�w�逊,�m�n�矢龈鞲Q�c�d�焦]�伜偤蘸趾2�懟ɑ���������������������������
���!gd�&"gd�&"瓒� � �)�*�A�X�w�址
�m�n�徃筛细馗舾龈鞲�G�x�姽<�疸傧畔赶沭阗瀮k優^臫细细螶h€]CJOJQJh7CJOJQJh漡�h漡�CJOJQJ/h漡�6丅*CJOJQJfHph"""q�
����5h漡�h漡�6丅*CJOJQJfHph"""q�
����2h漡�h漡�B*CJOJQJfHph"""q�
����h瞊�6丆JOJQJ]�h漡�CJOJQJh瞊�CJOJQJh�&"CJOJQJh�&"h�&"CJOJQJ h�&"h�&"6丆JOJQJ]�<�S�y�伜偤柡昂7�m�┗鸹 �}�~�旨菁�P�樈私�I�伨z�浛��-�↑忘铧 � �妪�P�鲨鲛郧郧院拊窃窃窃窃窃窃ㄔ窃鲨鲈簯|c0hu�hWw�0J B*CJOJQJ]乛JaJph�)hu�hWw�B*CJOJQJ^JaJph�-hu�hWw�@堻�B*CJOJQJ^JaJph�U h�&"h�&"6丆JOJQJ]�h�&"h�&"CJOJQJh瞊�6丆JOJQJ]�h瞊�CJOJQJh�&"CJOJQJh�^h�^6丆JOJQJh�^CJOJQJ&ɑ┗�`�}�~�丶!�"�伣督方�1�2�壘Z�伎U�↑Ⅻ�� � ����������������������������
�0�*$gd�&"Smit, D. W. (1991). Improving student writing. IDEA Paper No. 25. Center for Faculty
Evaluation & Development. Kansas State University, Manhattan, Kansas.
Spear, K. I. (Ed.) (1984). Editor抯 notes. Rejuvenating introductory courses (pp. 1-9). San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Stark, J. S., & Lattuca, L. R. (1997). Shaping the college curriculum: Academic plans in action.
Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Stark, J. S., Lowther, R. J., Bentley, M. P., Ryan, G. G., Martens, M. L., Genthon, P. A., et al. (1990). Planning introductory college courses: Influences on faculty. Ann Arbor: National Center for Research to Improve Postsecondary Teaching and Learning, University of Michigan. (ERIC Document Reproduction Services No. 330 277 370)
Steltenpohl, E., & Shipton, J., & Villines, S. (1996). Exploring the meaning of learning and
education in a college orientation course. The Keystone (Newsletter of the Wadsworth
College Success Series)(Fall), pp. 4-5.
Stephens, J., & Eison, J. (1986-1987). A comparative investigation of honors and non-honors
students. Forum for Honors, 17(1-2), 17-25.
Thelin, J. R. (1992). The curriculum crusades and the conservative backlash. Change, 24(1), 17-
23.
Tobolowsky, B. F., & Associates (2008). The 2006 National survey of first-year seminars:
Continuing innovations in the collegiate curriculum (Monograph No. 51). Columbia, SC:
University of South Carolina, National Resource Center for The First-Year Experience and
Students in Transition.
Weingarten, R. H. (1993). Undergraduate education: Goals and means. Phoenix: Oryx Press.
Young, D. G., & Hopp, J. M. (2014). 2012-2013 National Survey of First-Year Seminars:
Exploring High-Impact Practices in the First College Year (Research Reports on College
Transitions No. 4). Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina, National Resource Center
for The First-Year Experience and Students in Transition.
Zajonc, R. B. (1968). Attitudinal effects of mere exposure. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 9, Monograph Supplement, No. 2, part 2.
Zajonc, R. B. (1970). Brainwash: Familiarity breeds comfort. Psychology Today, (February), pp.
32-35, 60-62.
Zajonc, R. B. (2001). Mere exposure: A gateway to the subliminal. Current Directions in
Psychological Science, 10, 224�228.
PAGE
PAGE 1
��V����<�no���4��
fg����������������������
�0�*$gd�&"$$
�0�d�*$1$7$8$H$gd�&"XD<�gdWw�*$gd�&"gd�&"P���L`����l
'Ofg������赅稚稚稚挚菠矚峿崥ukdku_N h~pLh~pL5乫Hq�
���� h~pL5� h~pL5�6�h~pLh~pL5�6�h~pLh~pL5� h�&"h�&"6丆JOJQJ]�h�&"h�&"CJOJQJh�&"CJOJQJh�&"h�&"6丱JQJ^Jh�&"h�&"OJQJ^Jh�^CJOJQJh瞊�6丆JOJQJ]�h瞊�CJOJQJhWw�CJOJQJ)hu�hWw�B*CJOJQJ^JaJph�g�z��RS��� IJLMOPRSUV_`������������������������刪]刪匄��&`#$gd�%�gd汿�$-DM�
����a$gd~pL 1����+���� %:>?IJKMNPQSTVW]^蜥蛸吓概概拞抴挕jb^b^b^b^TNT
h瞊�0Jjh瞊�0JUh��jh��Uh汿�h�%�CJOJQJ h�hFE0J"CJOJQJh�%�0J"CJOJQJ h�h�%�0J"CJOJQJh�h�%�CJOJQJh�%�CJOJQJh瞊�6丆JOJQJ]�h瞊�CJOJQJh~pLCJOJQJh~pLh~pL5� h~pLh~pL5乫Hq�
����h~pL5乫Hq�
���� ^_abhijklnop禚灬禚鲚�h汿�h�%�CJOJQJh��hNO�0JmHnHujh瞊�0JUh瞊�
h瞊�0J `almnop������gd汿�刪]刪匄��&`#$<� 00 PBP 靶/ 班=!盃"盃#悹$怓%�盃盃 愋Dp�#s02���� 0@P`p€�����2(�� 0@P`p€����� 0@P`p€����� 0@P`p€����� 0@P`p€����� 0@P`p€����� 0@P`p€�8X�V~�����€�� 0@�� 0@�� 0@�� 0@�� 0@�� 0@�� 0@�� 0@�� 0@�� 0@�� 0@�� 0@�� 0@�� 0@_HmH nH sH tH P`�P Normal1$7$8$H$ OJQJ_HaJmH sH tH L@L Heading 1$$@&a$5丆JOJQJ\丗F Heading 2$$@&a$ CJOJQJL@L Heading 3$$@&a$6丆JOJQJ]丗@F Heading 4$@&5丆JOJQJ\丗F Heading 5$$@&a$ CJ OJQJFF Heading 6$$@&a$ CJ OJQJ@@ Heading 7$@& CJOJQJFF Heading 8$@&6丆JOJQJ]丩 L Heading 9 $$@&a$6丱JQJ]乤J DA`��D Default Paragraph FontVi��V Table Normal :V �4�4�
la� (k ��(No List <�& ��<� Footnote Reference4 @4 0Header
���!.)@�. Page NumberRB@"R Body Text$1$7$8$H$a$5丆J OJQJ\丯P@2N Body Text 2$a$5丆JOJQJ\乤J L BL Footer
���!1$7$8$H$ CJOJQJ6U�Q6 Hyperlink >*B*ph�>Q@b> Body Text 3 CJOJQJLZrL
Plain Text1$7$8$H$OJQJ^JaJ.X��. H�Emphasis6乚亁䁖��x �&"
Document 1%$$
�0�d�*$1$7$8$H$$CJOJQJ^J_HaJmH sH tH :���: �&"0 Header Char OJQJaJ\﨩�\ 汿�0REF"$刪剺�d9D^刪`剺龵$B*OJ QJ ^J aJph0䁖��0 汿�0
Ref Italic6�v﨩!�v Ww�0
References. $刪剺�d��1$7$8$H$^刪`剺龵$5丆JOJ
QJ
\乛J
aJ:﨩��: Ww�slug-pub-date35乗�(﨩��( Ww�slug-vol,﨩�, Ww�
slug-issue4﨩�4 Ww� slug-pages35乗�<�䁖�!<� �%�0 TX italic6丱J QJ ]乛J PK!檗� [Content_Types].xml瑧薔�0E鱄鼉�-J湶@%閭菐洽|廊�$韶钵UL襎B� l,�3鳛;鉹� 得槣B+$�G]ミ7O侪V墎vn�`2莾漤,�!"篍3瀙#9嬇G� Qd恋��; H�
xuv� � 摍 徸氯 0F[,盕釟淜 sO鞊'3 w �#圮妽黺fS蠽bs勜爕摙X� 幈p�5v埍euw 1鈠@� 鉲,溁膇!b
I� 宩Z響�2�剕�9搞�淡簫廘$�圸洒15聏�妉.�(厉�m${骴ㄣ:\@�'𩔗聹踠n$癪-樽@^靑?狊菵&� 趞�#苩d� !姦6l從龍 B�"�&6�3�yy@裰t�!豀鏖jp擴Т*ye朮ry3{s:FXI
俊�塐�5Y�[Y!}蹴S霜.獱7b剑鲋d|n]�枌扰最6毰71�.�
旖t織n�/蒇铉w/�+�鶘[舤6钛謢麡P�s婘冠簊鐻�. J;跆姵绺i囼N� �$A势I橒剤��)祜嫯t2� �頛噈�耳杧:��(}\-澹i* 壵x料漆QCよJu�柟Wl'闝yI@诰
m2揇貰⒑ 擜R�4 挡w垄naQ擃棭赻圆稚�
W悯=0#x廳炓T/倡掶.3�-楩�>bY獿�%篆藫獽K� �6Hh錰扨慟=寚h��)G螧鉳s]_ピ�'C℃円Z穴筑嵟ys
v脍@c])h� 7躂賴�� 胏? FS� .芳圢噍貾$�
e�&\�觻+袸� "'%Q脮讼褸c�!奫�俻a烧AV.9H簷d< 恪杏畭菻Ё狆￢X�*篌儱%汚簕徼�衁r A夰闸 鄨px鸖L�9"�:3睻5礻�U
ャ圢C磋(簶%� u柵@;[�獏d�賎鯛�4�)嚟]鱰#9M4W=覲�5�*f贪lk�<_撟X-C 殾w鳷鹤%肪院祡B�% 郰�,]�
A６毺�&o拾造浓�;� <呞Y殑暐鄣竐=�: 灚髢輟章衳汞T慥�=鬙lp模
/乬Tp旿� �踉�$�
窫顙怒G�,!
鰽羙zA�r厷呱ye瘣蛂b�/诃褻h,"寠~� 鑭皴E峯|}墫o�.
Y攇觌J^W__姤韄_ Ⅲ燫曛缩V%W/7�9闍kW俲慧黌禁衭�豮�╁*� 葃晜猑┰舄蚙莐>\lc`濠|,b酻紇���PK!
褠煻'theme/theme/_rels/themeManager.xml.rels剰M
�0匃倃oo雍�&輬协�勪5
6?$Q祉
�,.嘺緳i粭澤c2�1h�:闀q毩m胳嶡RN壻;d癭値o7�g慘(M&$R(.1榬'J摐袏T鶂�8V�"＆A然蠬鱱}狇�|�$絙{�朠�除8塯/ ]As賲(⑵锑#洩L蔥汉倪��PK-!檗� [Content_Types].xmlPK-!ブх�6 0_rels/.relsPK-!ky��� theme/theme/themeManager.xmlPK-!猂%咂��theme/theme/theme1.xmlPK-!
褠煻'� theme/theme/_rels/themeManager.xml.relsPK]�
槎���� $$$$$'�
��/孌VJ賂萯L{:�u�恕Ζ4�骗遣瓒<�P�^p`bceghikmnpqstvxz{��� �=_Y胮d�冥潽挵\�ɑ �g`padfjloruwy|��� '!�!�晙�8�@ ����€€€�饞��0�( �
�養
�S � ��� ?���W8犏 9犏 :犏 ;犏 <犏 =犏 >犏 ?犏 @犏 A犏 B犏 C犏 D犏 E犏 F犏 G犏 H犏 I犏 J犏 K犏 L犏 M犏 N犏 O犏 P犏 Q犏 R犏 S犏 T犏 U犏 V犏 W犏 X犏 Y犏 Z犏 [犏 \犏 ]犏 ^犏 _犏 `犏 a犏 b犏 c犏 d犏 e犏 f犏 g犏 h犏 i犏 j犏 k犏 l犏 m犏 n犏 o犏 p犏 q犏 r犏 s犏 t犏 u犏 v犏 w犏 x犏 y犏 z犏 {犏 |犏 }犏 ~犏 犏 €犏 侁� 傟� 冴� 勱� 呹� 嗞� 囮� 堦� 夑� 婈� 嬯� 岅� 嶊� 庩� kMkM\�\�j�.�.�8�帓帓y�y�/�/�W�W�l�J�J�鳁鳁螛螛跇L�L�綒綒,�,�鄾鄾L�L�U�憸煖煖瓬簻簻魷魷摺摺证证纽纽 � �?�?�J�-�-�:�R�R�[�d�毹酲���仾仾��.�.�:�]�]�瞽醐��� � �甓
!#"$%'&()*+,-./0123465798:;=<�>?蔼叠础颁顿贰贵骋贬滨碍闯尝惭狈翱笔蚕搁厂罢鲍痴谤惭谤惭﹫﹫丑�濒�濒�6�<�<�敀敀啌啌7�7�j�t�t�W�W���貥迾迾T�T�艢艢4�4�頉頉T�[�[�櫆矞矞聹聹鼫鼫臁臁悚悚甩甩��H�Q�Q�8�<�<�Z�c�j�j�蟥鳕� � ���帾帾#�#�8�>�>�j�j�舡����)�)�甓
!#"$%'&()*+,-./0123465798:;=<�>?@BACDEFGHIKJLMNOPQRSTUV=3*€urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags €PlaceType€=4*€urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags €PlaceName€9Q*€urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags€State€8T*€urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags€City€9W*€urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags€place€BV*€urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags€country-region€ WVWTWTQWTQTWWTWQWTQWTWTWTQWQWQWQWTW43TW34WTWQWTWTWTTWWTVWTQ4W43TQW34WTWTWTWTQWT433TWQWT枚哦贫榷啥硕潭味隙锥诙涠缍甓�
�
������$'����IP��
gr��26�����!�!60?0Y0d0�0�0�0�0Z5g5�5�56 6t6y648=8XB露枚隙锥诙涠甓3333333333333333333333333陮駥鷮鼘龑��m�倣儘儘喑2�3�3�扯范露枚枚贫贫隙锥诙涠甓陮駥鷮鼘龑��m�倣儘儘喑2�3�3�扯范露枚枚哦贫贫榷啥硕潭味隙缍甓{BFk^/M{鮂fb軲>�=�-B靀m FE螷tN�;�6 甝
* �&"
62寋27鹮J~pL~O!CO薗Q€]
^�^)`5b�!h鎚j/[pBwq�0|�<}� P���H�4�.E��%��#�����Ww�瞊�漡�漚�汿�NO�_?�mF��*���騢�k��-�H3���~J��:�鄘���B6�跩�枚哦�@€�
++g&g'g7g8g>g?|~|y�槎�@��(@�"�H@�2�h@�D��@�L��@�n��@�z��@���$@��@��Unknown������������
G ��*郃x� �Times New Roman5 �€Symbol3.� �*郈x� �ArialA.� ��Arial Narrow;�€Wingdings? �€Wingdings 3G=�€
�帑j�MS Mincho-�3� f g71� Courier?=� �*郈x� �Courier NewI�MJansonText-RomanE�MWeidemann BookKMJansonText-ItalicA ���$B�Cambria Math"� 蛐h椋sg椋sg魖迤G|�]KG|�]K! 驉���xx�f�f�3僸 驉堰��HP�?����������������鎚j2! xx� ���/THE CONCEPTUAL CASE FOR THE FIRST-YEAR SEMINAR: joe cuseo Sandlin, Kim�鄥燆鵒h珣+'迟0������ 8D
d p |
������ 0THE CONCEPTUAL CASE FOR THE FIRST-YEAR SEMINAR: joe cuseo Normal Sandlin, Kim 2 Microsoft Office Word@@8癸N羰@:]咴@:]咴G|��胀諟.摋+,0( hp���� ����
� � marymount collegeK]f� 1THE CONCEPTUAL CASE FOR THE FIRST-YEAR SEMINAR: Title
!"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<�=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz{|}~€�����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������Root Entry�������� �F览鞟]咴�€1Table����������9WordDocument��������>SummaryInformation(�����DocumentSummaryInformation8�������������CompObj������������r����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������
���� �F Microsoft Word 97-2003 Document
MSWordDocWord.Document.8�9瞦