rDear Colleagues,I apologize for not having made myself clear at the meeting yesterday and thus would presume to take some more of your time. In my humble opinion, every required course needs to be well defined. That is partly why, instead of “English Literature 1” and “English Literature 2,” we set exact period boundaries among the required literature courses. Instructors can map their territories, and students will better know what to expect. Along these lines, we may even consider renaming “OT 1” and “OT 2” as “English Conversation” and “Public Speaking” respectively. The sheer size of the department and, accordingly, the huge number of required courses/sessions offered, demands clear-cut boundaries among them. Most required courses have more than one session, and instructors don’t always meet before they compile their syllabi. Also people take turns to teach various titles. Only by setting clear boundaries, preferably with a brief guideline for each required course, different and new instructors know what to do.For the same reason, I’d think an all-inclusive “Freshman English” presents technical challenges. Even though the course for the next academic year has already been carefully planned, thanks to Karen, the continuation of this scheme cannot be guaranteed. Would the course always require three teachers from different fields (EFL and Literature) to co-teach? This seems to complicate scheduling and to restrict the use of manpower. If co-teaching is not the rule, then would an EFL or Literature instructor be forced to teach unfamiliar areas, using assigned materials? Do students really benefit from such teaching?I totally agree with Karen that students need all the skills she lists. Yet, many of those are already covered by other courses: “OA 1” (listening, pronunciation), “Introduction to Literature” (literary terms and genres), “Composition” (plagiarism, grammar, practical writing), and “Introduction to Linguistics” (phonetics, pin-yin). Perhaps practical writing (resume, email, etc.) is not currently taught in all Composition courses, but it can be easily incorporated into them in the future, as long as all instructors are informed. May I also suggested that a guided tour to the library be included as well? What remains uncovered, I think, is mainly reading and critical thinking. If we decide to keep “Freshman English” which, in my humble opinion, we can do without, it can focus on these areas. Based on their specialty and interests, instructors are free to choose the reading materials, literature or non-literature. It can be 2 hours a week, not 4. Although reading and thinking are the focus, students will nonetheless get to develop/employ their other skills—listening and speaking, if not writing.I am not against the idea of offering oral training in the junior year, but I wonder if it should be required. Not all students aim at becoming rhetoricians—some never acquire the skills of public speaking in their native tongue. I think we should provide the fundamental language training in the first 2 years, and leave students enough room to develop their own paths in the next 2 years by reducing required courses for juniors and seniors. We can offer an elective “OT 3” (entitled “Argumentation and Debate,” “Professional Presentation,” etc.) and an elective “Composition 3” (entitled “Creative Writing,” “Academic Writing,” etc.) Thank you for your patience in reading this long email. All the best,BeatriceBi-qi Beatrice LeiAssistant Professor, Dept of Foreign Languages and Literatures
