Volume 11   Number 5    Nov.-Dec. 2010

Reexamining UP’s General Education ProgramUP President Emerlinda R. Roman

UP’s General Education Program is considered the hallmark of a UP undergraduate education. Because of its central place in a UP student’s education, the Program has been continuously reviewed, revised, and improved through the years. The latest review was in 2001 when major changes were introduced in the Program’s framework, content, and approach.

Implementing the UP GEPCeleste Ann Castillo LlanetaIn March 2000, the World Bank-UNESCO Task Force on Higher Education published “Higher Education and Developing Countries: Peril and Promise,” which contains a rundown of what one gains from a liberal education. According to the report, a liberally educated person is one who can think and write clearly, effectively, and critically, and communicate with precision, cogency, and force.

The U.P. FORUM ROUNDTABLE on the General Education ProgramQuestions: 

1.) Do you think the RGEP has been successful? Why or why not?

2.) Given UP’s mandate to render public service to the nation, how might the RGEP be improved? Or what is the alternative to the RGEP, if any?

3.) What knowledge is actually necessary for Filipino students in the 21st century?

Math counts, History matters: Do students care?Rod P. Fajardo IIITeenagers. How to make sense of them when they can barely keep up with themselves—growth spurts, mood swings, and all?

Opening New WorldsFrancis Paolo M. QuinaWhen I was first admitted into UP Diliman as an undergraduate student of the College of Science in 1998, I was disappointed to learn that unlike the college students in the movies and television shows I watched, I really had no choice as to what subjects I could take.

Reexamining UP’s General Education ProgramUP President Emerlinda R. Roman

UP’s General Education Program is considered the hallmark of a UP undergraduate education. Because of its central place in a UP student’s education, the Program has been continuously reviewed, revised, and improved through the years. The latest review was in 2001 when major changes were introduced in the Program’s framework, content, and approach. Notable among these changes was the shift from prescription to choice, i.e. from requiring students to take a set of courses to allowing them to choose the courses they want provided they comply with the number of courses in each of three domains.

The Office of the Vice-President for Academic Affairs has been monitoring the Program’s implementation and has reported the following findings:

1. By constituent university the number of GE courses (both old and new) now being offered is as follows: 

 CU Arts & Hum  Soc Sci & Philo  Math, Sci and Tech 

 Baguio  11 11 9 

 Diliman  42  23  20

 Los Baños  6  11  15

 Manila  9  12  9

 Mindanao  12  12  9

 Visayas  14  14  13

 Open U   5   5   6

 TOTAL  99  88  81

The GE Program as "revitalized" requires that students take fifteen units or about five courses in each of three domains. There are more than five courses from which the students may choose in all domains. UP Los Baños, however, only has six (6) courses in the arts and humanities and five (5) of these are old GE courses. In other words only one new course has been instituted since the implementation of the "revitalized" program. The UP Open University instituted two new GE courses in math, science, and technology. The rest are old GE courses. Again, it is evident students do not really have much choice as the number of courses offered is very limited. But we must note that the UPOU offers only one Associate in Arts course and one undergraduate degree.

2. The top five GE courses by constituent university, for Academic Year 2009-2010, by domain, are as follows:

For UP Diliman, data show the popularity of English, Speech Communication, Kasaysayan, Geography, Philosophy, Biology, but not Mathematics.

For UP Los Baños, the popular courses are English, Speech Communication, Humanities, Mathematics, Philosophy, and History.

For UP Manila, the popular courses are Communication, Humanities, History, Philosophy, and Mathematics.

For UP Visayas, the popular courses are Communication, Literature, Philosophy, Environmental Science, but not Mathematics.

For UP Mindanao, the popular courses are Mathematics, Reading and Writing, Philosophy, but not History.

For UP Baguio, the popular courses are English, Communications 1 and 2, Biology, Chemistry, Philosophy, History, but not Mathematics.

Aside from what the data reveal, there have been observations from not a few of our colleagues that it is again time to take a look at the Program’s approach of giving the students the maximum option to choose their courses and how such an approach has helped achieve the Program’s objectives.

The findings and observations do not seem to indicate that we are at a single turning point of crisis proportions but they do suggest the need to once again reexamine the program. In coming together to address the findings and observations, it would be useful for us to consider other issues that are relevant to the evolution of our GE Program. Thus, aside from looking at the GE Program itself and how we implement it today, I suggest that we do so taking into consideration our view of UP’s undergraduate education. The GE program is an important part of our undergraduate program. Any change in it would have implications on our undergraduate education. And any change in our view of the undergraduate degree would affect the GE program.

UP’s Undergraduate Program

The evolution of UP’s undergraduate program is best understood by looking at how American higher education developed over the centuries. This, because our country’s elementary and secondary school system and UP’s undergraduate program were modeled after the American educational system.

From the 17th to the 19th centuries, the purpose of American higher education was to produce gentlemen who would eventually become upper class leaders. They were products of the so-called classical curriculum. The first half of the 20th century, however, witnessed a shift in academic philosophy which led to specialization and the creation of majors. At this time, undergraduate education was considered a terminal credential. Towards the end of the century, there was a noticeable change in the nature of American undergraduate education—and that was that it became less and less a terminal course and instead has become a degree preparatory to graduate and professional training.1

The UP undergraduate education went through a similar transformation. When UP was established in the first half of the 20th century its undergraduate education prepared students for specialization and for the professions—law, medicine, engineering, agriculture, fine arts, etc. It was seen as a terminal degree.

When Carlos P. Romulo assumed the UP presidency he sought to redefine higher education. According to him, a liberal and a general education could not possibly be dependent on a “rigid system of formal course work, prescribed curricula, and enforced attendance."2 His version was that higher education took place not just within the confines of the classroom but whenever and wherever one confronted ideas, actions and things. Education, he said, should be a “habit of mind and a mode of thought” and could therefore be found “outside of the classroom, in the laboratories, in research activity, even in travel to distant places.” Higher education should be founded on freedom and should aim at “widening one’s capacity to enjoy and use as well as for giving one the discipline that lent existence a meaning and an order.”3According to Romulo, this is the kind of higher education UP should give to the Filipino people. He believed in providing a common background for professional and vocational training to make up for the inadequacy of the Philippine education system in making students understand and appreciate culture, thought, achievements. Higher education must develop in students the skills, attitudes, and tools to prepare them for the professions.

To concretize what he meant (the faculty then at that time did not quite get what the President really meant), Romulo came up with his Five-Year Development Plan which, among others, included a reduced role for undergraduate education in favor of graduate education. In Romulo’s view emphasis on graduate education would “enable the university to achieve the status of a true university.” It is graduate education that will produce graduates with the specialized training and research orientation that will enable them to participate more meaningfully in national development. An undergraduate degree was not sufficient to produce experts—it, however, helped prepare students for specialization at the graduate level.

UP President Francisco Nemenzo held the same view and argued that a UP undergraduate education should prepare students for continuing self-education through the GE Program, adding that premature specialization at the undergraduate level would only produce half-baked technicians.

Fast forward to the present and the question is: Is there a need to revisit or redefine the UP undergraduate education? My answer is "Yes." I say this in light of two major and current developments: (1) our decision to secure our status as a research university which places emphasis on research and graduate education, and (2) government’s decision to implement the K+12 basic education program which will definitely have implications on our undergraduate curriculum.

Top 5 GE Courses by Unit, by Semester, and by Domain

UP’s aspiration to become a research university and its reiteration in the last decade of the importance of research and publications in the life of a university send a very clear signal: an emphasis on the development of academic disciplines. Such emphasis creates a certain level of competition for faculty time and resources—more time and resources spent for the development of the discipline means less time and resources spent for the teaching and development of general education courses. When the GE program was reviewed to give way to RGEP in 2000, I recall an argument for opening up the offering of GE courses to other departments—and that was to lighten the burden of those departments traditionally offering GE courses so that they may now devote more time to developing their academic disciplines either through research or through their graduate programs.

While details are not yet available on the K+12 program, one of its avowed aims is to correct the deficiencies of basic education, the responsibility for which, at the present time, is assumed by higher education. Is the K+12 program envisioned to assume responsibility for some general education courses? If this indeed is the case, will this now give the University more time for the major courses? And again, going back in history, when the General Education program was adopted during President Vicente Sinco’s term, it was so designed that it took up two years of a student’s undergraduate program. Anxious that the GE Program would eat up on time for the major courses, professional colleges reacted by extending their curriculum by another year so as not to sacrifice the professional competence of their students. The Veterinary Medicine Program became a six-year program, Nursing and Business Administration became five-year programs.

UP’s General Education Program

In many universities in the world, the GE program is the hallmark of their undergraduate education. It is that component of higher education that shapes a student’s way of thinking and his value system to enable him to appreciate and understand various themes of human experience. Because of this central role of the GE program universities are constantly finding ways to improve on it and make it more responsive. For even the slightest change in their internal and external environments, universities go through a review process to institute changes in the GE program—changes which may be incremental, continuous, substantial, superficial, qualitative, or quantitative. Several universities in the United States regularly go through curricular reviews of their GE programs.4 Reforms usually take a long time and the process could be complicated and difficult. One report reveals that it takes on average 2.5 years to complete one review cycle.5

UP’s GE Program has undergone several changes since it was first offered. Before President Sinco’s General

Education Program was instituted in 1958, the University offered what were then called “preparatory courses” for specialization and the professions. The preparatory courses varied by profession but there were common courses which all students had to take regardless of major. These included English, Spanish, and Philippine Institutions.6 Sinco’s GE Program prescribed 63 units7 which were to be taken before the students could be admitted to the professional colleges. In 1971, during President Lopez’ term, students were given the option of taking a combination of English or Pilipino or either one of the two language requirements. It was also at this time that some courses started to be taught in Pilipino.8

The transformation of UP into a system of autonomous universities gave leeway to the constituent universities to formulate their own GE program. Thus UP Diliman, UP Los Baños, and UP Visayas designed their own GE Program. In 1986, during President Angara’s term, a new GE program which prescribed a common set of GE courses for all constituent universities was put in place. Thus, no matter which campus a UP student went to, he/she had to take the same set of GE courses. Values were integrated into the teaching of the GE courses and multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary approaches to teaching were introduced.9 Twelve courses made up the new GE Program.

The GE program went through a number of review processes in 1991, 1992, and 1995. In 2001, under President Nemenzo’s leadership, the Revitalized GE Program was approved by the Board of Regents after going through many campus consultations. Notable changes were the shift from prescription to choice of courses in three domains, an increase in the number of units (from 42 to 45 units), institution of new GE courses based on established standards, involvement of other departments in the offering of GE courses, integrated learning, and prescriptions on who may teach GE courses.

Let me now try to enumerate (based on findings and observations) the issues that we might need to look into:

1. Prescription vs. choice

The shift from prescription to choice arose from the need to provide students more freedom to decide based on their interests, their own sense of their capacity and worth, and what courses would be useful to them. By the time UP shifted to this approach, many US universities had already been using the so-called “cafeteria” style which gave students almost maximum choice of the courses to take.

My review of some recently-revised undergraduate programs of US universities show that while students have been given much latitude to choose their GE courses, there are universities that now require, either as part of or outside the GE program, courses on Writing, a foreign language, and American Government. Some universities have a more subtle way of influencing students’ choice: in all campuses of the California State University, for example, they require that a student demonstrate competence in US History, Constitution, and American Ideals and, as guide for the students, the university listed down the so-called “Highly Recommended” courses to fulfill this requirement.10 In Harvard University, the faculty debated the place of History in the new GE program. The professors voted that students should take at least one course “engaged substantially with the study of the past”—a move that was seen as largely symbolic and a concession to those who felt the new curriculum was a present-day curriculum.11

The University of California Commission on General Education proposed in 2007 a further shift from the so-called “cafeteria” style of GE program to the offering of “bundles of courses” formally recognized as “thematic minors” which may be reflected on the students’ transcripts of record. The “bundle of courses” may be built around “timely issues such as environmental sustainability, technology and society, bureaucracy and society, military and society, political and ethical dimensions of biological knowledge.”12 Here student choice is limited to the “bundle of courses.” He is then required to take the courses listed under that bundle. These therefore are some variants of the so-called approach to the GE Program.

To go back to UP, giving the option of maximum choice to students may have to be reviewed to take into consideration the following:

Students’ performance in the UPCAT subtests, e.g. Math, English Students’ proposed major or specialization, e.g. should a biology major need to take a Biology GE, or

should an Economics major need to take an Economics GE Specific courses that all students must take, e.g. a writing course, quantitative reasoning, Philippine

government

2. Proportion of GE to Major

The proportion of the GE program relative to the major has actually decreased over the years and now varies by program. Recall that 63 units of GE courses were required during President Sinco’s time. Then, for quite a long time, GE courses ate up two years or about 50 percent of a UP undergraduate education. At present, students are required 45 units which eat up from 22 percent to 35 percent of an undergraduate degree or less than two years. In US universities, the GE program in Ivy league universities represents a very small core using up only a quarter of a degree program. In most US universities, the GE core represents about a third, but there remain some that place a lot of emphasis on the GE program, i.e. 50 percent.

The size of the GE program may not seem important, but this has to be seen in light of the proposed K+12 basic education plan. Moreover, while it may be difficult to prescribe an ideal combination, the size of the GE program will have implications on the content and approach in teaching the GE courses, i.e., a small core of GE courses may require that the courses be more structured and rigorous and richer in content.

3. Class size

The issue of class size has become a contentious one in UP Los Baños. Arguments for and against large class sizes have been presented resulting in the decision of the colleges offering GE courses to offer these courses in large class mode. Size is a function of a number of factors, including resources, and by resources, I do not only mean financial resources. The availability of qualified professors who possess the attributes of a GE teacher is limited so that, sometimes, it is better to expose a large class to one outstanding GE professor than to divide the class into smaller sizes and expose them to faculty members who do not have adequate academic credentials and professional experience to handle those courses. But size too must take into account its effect on teaching and learning.

4. Program Administration

The administration of the GE program rests with the departments, colleges, the University Council, and the campus and System GE Councils. The usefulness of this structure in managing the program may be seen in the way the colleges and councils have performed their duties—and this has been mainly in making sure the GE courses instituted comply with so-called “tests”. With this structure, there does not seem to be a specific responsibility center for the GE Program.

If we consider the GE Program as the hallmark of a UP education, then surely it needs more attention than what it is probably getting today. And I shall go straight to the point. In the University of California System, they created a position “Chief Undergraduate Education Officer” in every campus whose primary responsibility includes the general education program. While there have been problems associated with the presence of this position (relationship with academic departments, budget allocations, and clout, etc.), the Commission that reviewed UC’s General Education Program considers the establishment of such position vital to the development of the GE program.13

UP may as well consider establishing a responsibility center specifically for the GE Program and especially so if we consider the GE program the hallmark of our undergraduate education, especially if we believe it is our GE program that gives our students the "tatak UP". The proposed office or officers shall be responsible not so much for routine activities as advising, overseeing tutoring programs, developing instructional materials, etc. but more for nurturing a culture that supports the GE program, conducting regular reviews of the program, and introducing innovations to it, even conducting curricular experiments to enrich the Program. It is not the intention to have a separate department or college for the GE program but to have a person or group whose main responsibility is the development of GE Program.

In all universities, the GE Program is "work in progress". Here, it is the program that will continue to evolve through the years as we respond to changes in every aspect in our environment. It is the program that sets UP apart from other universities. It is probably that program that gives the “tatak UP” to our students. And so we must take good care of it. If we need to reexamine it again and again, then we should do it. If we feel we need to change it as frequently as necessary, we should do it. Unless we do so, we weaken our ability to carry out our mission to produce educated individuals. Then we would have failed as a university.

_______________Email the author at emerlinda.roman@up.edu.ph.

NOTES:

1 Steven B. Sample (2006) “Redefining Undergraduate Education for the 21st Century”. The Collected Writings of Steven B. Sample, University of Southern California.

2 Silvino V. Epistola (1985) “ Romulo’s Design for the Filipino University”, in Oscar M. Alfonso (Ed) University of the Philippines: The First 75 Years (1908 -1983), UP Press.

3 Ibid, p.421.

4 The University of California Commission on General Education, (2007) “General education in the 21st Century: A Report of the University of California Commission on General Education”,eScholarship, University of California.

5 Sandra L. Kanter, Zelda F. Gamson and Howard B. London, (1997), Revitalizing General Education in a Time of Scarcity: A Navigational Chart for Administrators and Faculty, Allyn and Bacon.

6 Milagros C. Guerrero (1985) “Sinco’s Clash with Conservatism”, in Oscar M. Alfonso (Ed.)University of the Philippines: The First 75 Years (1908 – 1983), UP Press.

7 Ibid, p. 358.

8 Oscar L. Evangelista (1985) "Lopez’s Beleaguered Tenure", in Oscar M. Alfonso (Ed.)University of the Philippines: The First 75 Years (1908 – 1983), UP Press.

9 Thelma B. Kintanar, (1991) “At the Heart of the University: The Liberal Arts Tradition” in Belinda. A Aquino (Ed.) The University Experience: Essays on the 82nd Anniversary of the University of the Philippines, UP Press.

10 General Education for the California State University System, Fall 2008.

11 Johannah S. Cornblatt and Samuel P. Jacobs, (2007) “After 4 Years of Debate, Faculty Approves Gen Ed",  The Harvard Crimson.

12 Op cit. The University of California Commission on General Education, page 22.

13 Ibid, pp. 15-19.

Implementing the UP GEPCeleste Ann Castillo Llaneta

In March 2000, the World Bank-UNESCO Task Force on Higher Education published “Higher Education and Developing Countries: Peril and Promise,” which contains a rundown of what one gains from a liberal education.1 According to the report, a liberally educated person is one who can think and write clearly, effectively, and critically, and communicate with precision, cogency, and force. This person has a critical appreciation of the ways in which knowledge is gained; possesses a broad understanding of the universe and the self, and of other cultures and other times; makes decisions based on reference to the wider world and to the historical forces that have shaped it; is familiar with if not experienced in thinking systematically about moral and ethical problems; and has achieved depth in some fields of knowledge.

“This definition focuses on cognitive skills,” the report states. “It concerns teaching people to think and to learn. It also stresses breadth of knowledge across a number of disciplines. A liberally educated person should have an informed acquaintance with the mathematical and experimental methods of the physical and biological sciences; with the main forms of an analysis and the historical and quantitative techniques needed to investigate the development of a modern society; with some of the important scholarly, literary, and artistic achievements of the past; and with humanity’s major religious and philosophical concepts. A liberal education should leave students excited by the world of learning and prepared to continue their education, both in the short term…and in the long term…through the process of lifelong learning.”

The cultivation of students with such qualities has been the raison d’etre of the General Education (GE) program of the University of the Philippines since UP President Vicente Sinco introduced the concept to the freshmen of 1958.

Almost 50 years later, in 2001, UP enacted a revitalization of the GE program, reworking what then UP President Francisco Nemenzo described as required courses that ensure “boring teachers and classroom tyrants” whose students “forget what they are supposed to have learned immediately after the finals.”

“The [circa-1990s] GE courses tend to be treated as popularized surveys of various disciplines, thus subverting the synoptic character of these courses,” Nemenzo wrote in the August 2001 issue of the UP Forum. “The irony is, the American universities from whom we copied the present GE program have since dropped the concept of GE as a set of compulsory (or core) courses. A rigid GE curriculum goes against the philosophy of liberal education. It is essentially authoritarian.”

Choice, Flexibility, and Liberal-mindedness

The Revitalized General Education Program (RGEP) that emerged in the early 2000s consists of two documents: the GE Framework, which lays down the requirements, objectives, modes of inquiry, and competencies of the program and defines the character of the GE courses; and the GE Program, which describes the approach, content, and distribution of courses as well as the number of units involved in the distribution.2 The RGEP’s objectives, which do not differ significantly from the old GE program, can be generally stated thus:

to broaden intellectual and cultural horizons; to foster a commitment to nationalism balanced by a sense of internationalism; and to spark and nurture an awareness of the various ways of knowing.

In the course of surveying the implementation of the RGEP among the different constituent units between October 2001 and May 2002, a fourth objective—to integrate knowledge and skills among the students—was added to the GE Framework used by UP Diliman, Manila, and Mindanao, while UP Baguio, Los Baños, and Visayas retained the first version of the Framework.

The GE Framework delineates the methods of inquiry to be used in teaching the GE courses, namely quantitative and other forms of reasoning, and interpretive and aesthetic modes (or approaches, as worded in the Framework’s second version). Also stated in the Framework are the competencies to be inculcated among the students, namely competence in oral and written communication, independent and critical thinking, and creative thinking (independent and critical thinking and creative thinking are merged into one in the second version).

The RGEP deviated from the old GE Program most notably in giving the students the freedom to choose which GE courses to take, so long as they adhere to the 15-15-15 rule to ensure a “healthy mix of disciplines”—that is, to select 15 units from the Arts and Humanities (AH) domain, 15 units from the Social Sciences and Philosophy (SSP) domain, and 15 from the Math, Science, and Technology (MST) domain, with six units in Philippine Studies from any of the clusters. The RGEP proposal reasons that “[u]nlike specialized

courses that are dictated by disciplinal requirements, the GE is governed by the same goals across disciplines. If so, it is possible that courses outside those presently prescribed can achieve the same objectives just as effectively, perhaps even better.”3 Countering the claim that students would only select the popular courses, the RGEP proponents pointed out that the premise of free choice is not absolute, that prerequisites for major courses would be respected, and that freshmen, like all other students, would have faculty advisers to guide their choices.

With the emphasis on flexibility—and so long as the proposed GE courses meet most of the stated objectives, methods of inquiry, and competencies—the GE Program was envisioned to be continually developed and updated, in line with the interest of units to create and institute courses as well as the changing demands on knowledge and skills. The respective expertise of each UP campus could also serve as a locus around which each constituent unit could develop its own GE Program based on its own unique strengths.

In keeping with the spirit of GE, each GE course is required to be broad-based and to provide a basic understanding of the various ways of knowing. “If a course introduces a discipline for GE purposes,” the proposal states, “it must do so not for future specialists in the field but for generalists who want to understand and appreciate that discipline as one way of knowing.” Envisioning a faculty that would become “more conscious of their courses’ content and approach to learning,” the proposal goes on to say that “the goal is to reduce some of the practices antithetical to general education…for example, compartmentalizing skills from subject areas. Training in writing competency should be integrated into GE courses rather than left entirely to the Communication faculty. The same is true of training in quantitative, inductive or deductive reasoning.” And so, for example, instilling Filipino nationalism is visualized to extend to all GE courses, not just limited to Kasaysayan 1.

In allowing units other than the usual Arts and Sciences to propose their own GE courses with liberal education goals, experienced teachers who do not teach GE will be given a chance to teach it, thus limiting the practice of having fresh graduates, inexperienced teachers, or lecturers teaching GE. According to the RGEP proposal, the ideal GE professor is one who is a specialist in his/her field; has a deep understanding of Filipino life and society and a broad world-view; is able to relate his/her expertise to other disciplines or types of knowledge; is a good teacher, able to infuse students with a desire to learn; and is open-minded and welcomes new ideas, methodologies, and ways of thinking and respects opposing views.

Fast-forward to 2010. The preparations to conduct a UP System-wide review of the RGEP had been discussed since 2005, and reviews were conducted in UP Diliman in 2007 and in UPLB in 2009, but it wasn’t until 2010 that a system-wide review of the implementation of the RGEP—now known simply as the GE Program—was conducted through the holding of focus group discussions from each constituent unit, organized by the various Vice Chancellors for Academic Affairs and the GE Committees. The focus groups consisted of faculty members teaching GE, non-GE faculty from units not offering GE, students who were at least of junior standing, and mixed groups of participants including alumni. A total of 75 focus groups were held across the UP System, with a total of 690 participants.

Lack of awareness

Several observations were revealed regarding the actual implementation of the GE Program from the Focus Group Discussions (FGD), as reported by UP Vice President for Academic Affairs Dr. Amelia P. Guevara during the UP System-Wide GE Conference titled “Reexamining UP’s GE Program” held last October 20 at the UP Diliman NISMED Auditorium. One observation was the fact that while some were generally aware of the aims of GE, not many faculty and fewer students among the various CUs knew the actual objectives, methods of inquiry, and competencies as stated in the GE Framework, much less the two versions of the Framework.

According to Guevara’s report, faculty belonging to units offering GE courses are generally aware of the GE objectives, methods of inquiries and competencies, especially faculty who were involved in the development of new courses. Surprisingly, many faculty teaching GE courses Tayagare unaware of the details of the Framework. On the other hand, faculty from units not offering GE courses are generally unaware. Among the students across the campuses, many are unaware of the objectives of the GE Program because these were not explicitly presented to them, although those who are aware learned about these from their GE teachers at the beginning of the course, or from information gathered from their course syllabi or course guides, or, in the case of UPLB, from an RGEP Primer given out to all freshmen.

“What is known to many [of the faculty and students in UP Mindanao] are the objectives of the content [of each GE course in particular],” says Dr. Nilo B. Oponda, head of the UP Mindanao GE Committee, sharing some of the experiences of UP Mindanao in the implementation of the GE program. “But because most of the courses in the GE Program are content-referenced and not so much framework-referenced, many have the perception that a GE course is an appreciation course only. That’s the common perception among the faculty and students. That’s why students expect GE courses to be go-easy courses. If the major courses are the heavy courses, the RGEP courses are the ‘breather’ courses.”

The cause, perhaps, is the absence of transmission of knowledge among the faculty. “Perhaps some time ago, when the RGEP was first adapted, orientations were held regarding the framework,” Oponda says. “But for the new crop of faculty members teaching the RGEP, there is no more orientation on the Framework, no passing of the baton from the old faculty to the new faculty teaching the RGEP courses.”

GE faculty and students who are unaware of the specific objectives of the GE Program run the risk of missing out on the full benefits of the program. Courses taught in ways that do not meet the Framework’s requirements either churn out half-baked students who barely retain any sort of learning or are regarded by the students as tedious and difficult obligatory courses laden with requirements that do nothing to instill liberal-mindedness or a love of learning—so-called “apprehension” courses instead of “appreciation” courses.

However, Guevara’s report on the FGDs also reveals that things might not be so bad: although older students and alumni underwent the RGEP without being aware of its objectives, they generally realized on hindsight that they had been provided these in their GE courses after all. The GE courses, they noted, taught them to be critical thinkers and developed their communication skills. They were exposed to various modes of inquiry depending on the GE courses they enrolled in.

“As far as the alumni are concerned, many said that because of the RGEP courses they were able to do more than expected in their workplace,” Oponda relates. “The RGEP gave them an edge. I think that’s one of the things that spell out success in our implementation.” He admits though that this success does not quite extend to matching the teaching of the GE courses to the worded intent of the Framework. “However, I am positive that informing the GE faculty of the Framework would be enough to improve things in terms of implementation.”

Choice vs. prescription

The major distinction of the RGEP, the freedom given to the students to choose their courses provided they choose 15 units per domain, has not been exercised to quite the same extent as envisioned.

Guevara’s report on the FGDs revealed some of the constraints on the students’ free choice, one of which is the fact that, except in UP Diliman, there are not that many GE courses in each domain for the students to choose from. Other limitations, such as the availability of courses and the number of hours in a day, also come into play in the students’ choices. “The freedom of choice, which is one of the premises of the RGEP, is not exercised to the fullest because one of the limiting factors of the students is schedule,” admits Oponda. “Some students say they are forced to take an RGEP course that they can fit into their schedule. They might like a certain course, but if it is in conflict with the schedule of a major course, they prioritize the major course because they have no choice, they have to take it. So they give way to a different RGEP course. Availability is an issue, which is why one of the students’ recommendations is that we need to offer more RGEP courses.”

Limitations in scheduling that result in curtailing the students’ freedom to choose are taken to a whole new level in the case of UP Manila. “I feel we have not really implemented the RGEP in terms of giving the students the freedom to choose,” says Dr. Josefina G. Tayag, UP Manila Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs. “Our health colleges cannot afford to implement complete free choice because it all depends on the students’ free time, so their schedules hinge on their major subjects.” She relates how a College of Medicine student chose to take a particular GE course that ended up derailing his entire schedule and forcing him to stay behind a year. “The CM is as compliant with the free-choice premise of the RGEP as it can get, giving the students the freedom to choose 12 out of the 45 units of the GE Program. But they must decide as a class or a block. It is the easy way out for them, because deciding based on individual choice would only lead to their schedules getting derailed.” The College of Nursing, on the other hand, simply prescribes the GE courses the students are to take. The situation is even more complicated for the School of Health Sciences in Palo, Leyte, given its unique ladderized curriculum.

Dr. Josefina G. Tayag

That faculty advisers, or even departments and units, prescribe GE courses to their students is not unheard of in the other CUs, especially among the professional colleges that require certain qualities and competencies among their students in order for them to graduate and pass licensure exams, and those colleges that require their students to have certain basic competencies in communication and mathematics. Another common experience is the overlap between the students’ degree programs and the GE courses they take in the same domain, a situation that results in science and math majors getting bored during MST courses, and arts and humanities majors growing impatient with the pace set by their classmates who are non-AH majors. Yet another is the tendency of certain CUs not to honor the GE courses already taken by students transferring from another CU, thus forcing that student to take an extra semester or so just to fulfill a particular “prerequisite.”

However, VP Guevara corrected the wrong notion that GE courses taken by a student from one CU will not be credited if the student transfers to another CU. The RGEP Proposal approved by the BOR provides for crediting of GE courses of students transferring from one UP CU to another: "Constituent universities that adopt the GE Framework and Proposal must agree to credit the GE courses of students transferring to their campuses."

There is also the unsurprising inclination of students to choose GE courses that are easy to pass, do not have as many requirements, and are taught by teachers reputed to give high grades—the so-called “uno-able” courses. The tendency to choose the easy, popular, and good in the short run often backfires upon the

students themselves, who end up regretting not choosing the GE courses that would have given them the competencies needed to hurdle the latter part of their degree programs or the trials of work and career after graduation. “Sometimes the students get 1.0s, but they’re not happy,” Tayag adds. “’We didn’t learn anything,’ they say. Certainly, there are those who choose a course because they can get an easy 1.0 out of it, but the serious students, the ones who want more than just attractive grades, are not satisfied by this.”

Several proposals were offered by the FGDs to deal with the issue of free choice or lack thereof. Those arguing for the retention of free choice note that allowing the students to choose the courses that interest them motivates them to learn and study; any deficiencies in their skills and competencies resulting from their choices would be entirely their problem. However, there is an undeniable need to balance freedom of choice with sound judgment. Many in the various CUs have suggested requiring certain GE courses, around 6 to 9 units per domain, that are basic to UP education and would satisfy university-level standards as well as instill that intangible yet peculiarly distinctive “Tatak UP” among students. Setting up a substitution system for courses that are redundant in light of students’ degree programs (e.g., more AH and SSP courses for science and math majors, more MST and SSP courses for AH majors, etc.), and possibly an advance placement test, will minimize the overlapping of GE courses and major courses. Prescribing certain GE courses such as Communications 1, 2, and 3, Math 1, and Kasaysayan 1, to name a few, is also perceived as a corrective measure meant to remedy the failures of basic education. Advising freshmen on the best courses to take is also a viable option.

For the CUs, adding to the course offerings, getting the professional colleges and units to offer their own GE courses as the RGEP proposal envisioned, and reassessing the degree of compliance of existing GE courses to their objectives, are also clear steps. These are easier said than done, however. “Frankly, it’s difficult to craft a GE course,” says Tayag. “We’re more used to focusing on the content of the course, but you have to gear an RGEP course toward certain objectives, methods of inquiry, and so on. Our chancellor wants each health college to craft an RGEP course, and we’ve had to work at this thanks to the tendency to think in terms of content. But as is repeatedly stated, a GE course is not a content course, it’s a venue for accomplishing the RGEP objectives and competencies.”

There is also the question of logistics. “If we’re going to offer more courses, that will mean more faculty members will be needed to teach those courses,” says Oponda. “Based on the profile of academic loads among the faculty, I think this will be quite difficult because most of the faculty members on average already have the maximum of 12 units. So it will be another challenge in terms of resources. But if a faculty member is willing to absorb an extra course on top of what is required over and above the research and extension work, I think it can work.”

Those who can, teach

All the poetry and prose that went into the drafting of the GE Framework will fade into insignificance without the most crucial element of the program: the faculty who teach GE courses the way they ought to be taught. The ideal GE faculty, as described by the participants in the FGDs, is a veritable paragon. He/She should have at least three years of teaching experience, a good teaching record, and at least a master’s degree. He/She should be innovative and creative, holistic and analytical, highly motivated, patient, and broadminded, as well as nationalistic. He/She should possess good communication skills, and have a good sense of humor, enthusiasm, and a passion for teaching. He/She must have an awareness of other disciplines and the capacity to relate his/her expertise to other disciplines as well as integrate various theories into the students’ programs and their everyday life.

“The reason we have a multiplier for GE classes is it’s not easy to teach a GE course,” Tayag reveals. “As our GE faculty say, ‘You have to sing, to dance, to do anything to gain and keep the students’ attention, to explain concepts to both the BS and BA majors who may have different backgrounds and levels of comprehension. Every now and then, you have to check if you still have their attention. If you don’t, you have to be able to switch teaching styles in mid-gear.’”

When it comes to teaching GE courses, breadth—not depth—of knowledge is what counts, along with the ability to transmit this breadth to their students. Hence, many participants of the FGDs agreed that senior faculty should teach GE courses, on the assumption that they have a broader sense of the subject matter; have greater depth and can better integrate or apply theories to reality; and have a greater mastery of the field. Others pointed out, though, that these qualities are not necessarily exclusive to senior faculty. Some said that senior faculty, particularly those with PhDs, cannot relate well with the students and tend to teach way above their heads. As Tayag recalls someone asking: “Why should we require the oldest members of the academic community to teach the youngest members?”

In contrast, the FGDs found that younger faculty members can relate to and connect more easily with the students, tend to be more technologically-savvy (a key trait for UPOU faculty), and are also more creative and innovative. “Mastery of the field and the ability to make students appreciate the discipline are the two most cited attributes of an ‘ideal’ GE faculty,” says the summary of the FGD reports for UP Baguio. “Mastery of the field, however, sometimes comes with years of immersion in the discipline, not only as a teacher of the discipline but equally important as a researcher of the discipline. The ability to integrate not only textbook knowledge but also research experiences and real life issues is what makes the students appreciate the course fully. The inability of the teacher to do this renders the GE course an ‘esoteric body of knowledge’. Some of the non-GE faculty admitted that among the reasons they choose not to teach GE courses is that the ‘interpretive and aesthetic’ mode of inquiry requires a certain amount of maturity…The students seem to favor versatile, creative, patient, and not boring GE faculty who are not biased against other disciplines and are able to translate technical concepts into actual applications that they can appreciate.”

However, this ideal is sometimes stymied by the law of supply and demand. “We regard senior faculty as the priority faculty to be given the teaching load of RGEP courses, but since we only have a few senior faculty

members, as is the case in our math and physics department, we are forced to delegate the teaching of RGEP courses to the junior faculty members,” Oponda relates. “Our department is not an exceptional case. This is true for the other departments and CUs.”

UP Manila has also experienced an excess of demand for faculty to teach certain courses, such as Com 1, and the lack of supply of senior faculty. “Everybody must be able to teach, even the younger ones,” says Tayag. “That’s why during the conference, we agreed that under certain conditions—such as the possession of an MA degree and three years teaching experience—letting junior faculty teach is negotiable.”

Other units have found other ways to deal with the shortage of GE faculty, ranging from assigning new faculty and even long-time lecturers to teach (a practice that the RGEP proposal desired to prevent) to conducting modified large classes, as in the case of UP Los Baños. The various FGDs also conceded that junior faculty can teach GE provided they possess the attributes of an ideal GE faculty; they are oriented, trained, and mentored by senior faculty; and there is no available senior faculty to teach the course.

Tatak UP

All in all, the objectives, approaches, and intentions of the GE Program have lost none of their relevance, vision, and liberal spirit despite the gaps and glitches in the implementation. What’s more, given that flexibility is one of the main qualities of the RGEP, it is highly possible that these setbacks and failures can be used as among the bases for adjusting the implementation methods to make the program more reflective of reality. But the fact remains that the GE Program is, in its core, a valuable vehicle for cultivating the “Tatak UP” among the students.

“You can look at the education of the UP student in the major or professional fields, but I don’t see how relying solely on this can make our students totally competent out there in the workplace. The other half, the half that makes a student a holistic student, is filled up by the RGEP,” says Oponda. “If we can just correct the not-so-well-implemented portions of the RGEP, and if we’re going to be strict in the implementation of its framework—its objectives, modes of delivery and competencies—I think this would spell the difference between a UP student and a non-UP student.”

The U.P. FORUM ROUNDTABLE on the General Education Program

Q: Do you think the RGEP has been successful? Why or why not? 

   

Rowena Cristina L. Guevara, PhDProfessorElectrical and Electronics Engineering InstituteCollege of EngineeringUP Diliman

   

Priscilla S. Macansantos, PhDProfessor and ChancellorUP Baguio

   

Michael L. Tan, PhDProfessor and DeanCollege of Social Sciences and PhilosophyUP Diliman

   

Rolando B. Tolentino, PhDProfessor and DeanCollege of Mass CommunicationUP Diliman

   

Erlinda S. Echanis, PhDProfessorCollege of Business AdministrationUP Diliman

   

Nilo B. Oponda, PhDAssistant ProfessorCollege of Science and MathematicsUP Mindanao

   

Ma. Severa Fe S. Katalbas, MSAssociate Professor, College of Arts and SciencesRegistrar and GE CoordinatorUP Visayas

   Guevara: RGEP has been successful in terms of increasing not only the number and variety of courses, but also the participation of faculty members from various colleges in handling basic courses. For example, the College of Engineering offers several GE subjects such as Kuryente at Iba Pa (EEE 10), Earth Trek (GE 1), Forces at Work (ES 10), and Introduction to Information Technology (IT 100). Offering these GE courses has encouraged faculty members to widen their audience, work on their teaching skills, learn to handle large classes, and most importantly, help students embrace multi-disciplinary problem-solving.

RGEP also paved the way for the review and revitalization of courses such as STS. Years ago, students took STS simply because it was a required subject, but now, under RGEP, STS has proven to be a popular choice, attracting many students such that it seems to be a required course.

Since its inception, RGEP has never been reviewed. RGEP subjects, old and new, need to be scrutinized in terms of achieving the objectives of the courses in the spirit of General Education. I recommend that subjects be assessed by faculty members outside the discipline under which they fall; it would also be good to have faculty members outside of the University review them.

A side effect of offering RGEP courses is an imbalance in the teaching load of most departments. It is of course well and good that colleges without GE courses in the past are now able to recruit students to their undergraduate degree programs through RGEP course offerings. This, however, means more work, which is why the University needs to provide more faculty items to colleges that are now offering RGEP subjects.

Macansantos: To the extent that RGEP has allowed the introduction of courses that address issues not necessarily addressed by the old program, RGEP has been successful. In UP Baguio, new GE courses like Media Studies, The Gene in Life, and Notions of Justice have been added to the menu of GE courses previously offered, and this has allowed greater breadth as far as our offerings of general education courses are concerned. Moreover, RGEP has brought about the opportunity to review the “old” GE courses, and in some instances, these old courses were either revised and revitalized, or altogether abolished. Having said that, I must add that I expect some constituent universities are more successful than others in beefing up their menu of GE courses. Small CUs like UP Baguio are somewhat hampered by the smaller number of faculty members on whom lies the burden of designing and teaching innovative GE courses.

Tan: To evaluate whether RGEP was successful or not we have to keep going back to the goals of a GE program which, in turn, are based on concepts of a liberal education. Liberal education emphasizes critical and independent thinking, and given that RGEP stimulated UP to offer a wider range of subjects, we can say that there was success.

I will give an example where I was personally involved, and this is Social Science 3 (Exploring Gender and Sexuality). A subject like this would have been unthinkable ten years ago, and when it was first offered, we did get some flak, including an angry letter to the Inquirer from a UP student saying such a subject had no place in UP. The letter convinced me even more about the need for subjects like Soc Sci 3, if only to get people to question the imposed silence we have in society on such important issues.

There are many other examples of subjects that break the mold, from Math 2 (Practical Math) to Araling Pilipino 12 (Suroy-suroy sa Wika, Panitikan at Kultura ng mga Isla ng Luzon, Visayas at Mindanao). Such subjects show that a general education must in fact build on specialized knowledge.

Tolentino: Ang pasok ng RGEP ay di kakatwang sinundan ng pambihirang pagtaas ng tuition fee sa UP. Nabago ang demographic profile ng estudyante ng UP, nabawasan ang kalipikado pero walang kakayahang makapag-aral batay sa mataas na matrikula. Dahil din ang RGEP ay postmodern pedagogy—student’s choice, demokratisasyon ng unit na may inihahaing RGEP, at market-driven competition para sa limitadong enrollment—napausbong ang nosyon ng mito ng indibidwal na ahensiya, ang pagsasapribado ng collective desire para sa social mobility at ang papel ng tertiary education hinggil dito sa antas ng indibidwal na mag-aaral. Mito ito dahil sa aktuwal ay wala naman talagang tunay at ganap na ahensiya ang estudyante para malaman ang sustansiya ng kanyang liberal na edukasyon.

Kasama ng pagdagsa ng mas maykayang estudyante—mula sa mga pribadong eskuwelahan at sa Metro Manila—nagkaroon ng hapit ang penomeno ng neoliberal subject: wala nang papel ang pamahalaan sa kanyang edukasyon sa UP, ipinasasakamay na sa estudyante ang disenyo ng kanyang bersiyon ng liberal na edukasyon, na siya na ang bagong kliyente ng UP—nakakapagbayad at, kung gayon, nakakapag-demand ng fun, feel-good, at uno-able na mga kurso. At itong pagbuo ng neoliberal subject ay nakaugnay din sa tinahak na landas ng UP sa kagyat na nakaraan: ang reliance sa komersiyal na negosyo para sa pagpapalaki ng resources ng Unibersidad, ang partnership sa pribadong sektor para sa pagpapaunlad ng pasilidad at welfare ng faculty, at ang cost-cutting measures ng mga serbisyo sa labas ng pangunahing education function ng

UP.

Sa ganitong kontraproduktibong diskurso nagtagumpay ang RGEP sa partikular at UP sa pangkalahatan, na hindi nga hiwalay sa diskurso ng kaunlaran (development) ng estado.

Echanis: I believe the RGEP has been successful. One measure of this is the development of a number of new courses which meet the GE objectives. Another is the involvement of other units in the University in the development of courses which enrich the selection of courses offered. RGEP dismantled the monopoly of some departments in servicing the “old” GE courses. Maintaining competent faculty to handle such courses must have been a very challenging job for these departments.

Oponda: RGEP as implemented in UP Mindanao has gained a degree of success but it has shortcomings as well. These shortcomings are partly due to the learner-customized content of RGEP premised on the freedom of choice.

Given such freedom, some students prefer to take easy GE courses taught by faculty known for not being strict with course requirements and giving high grades. Another concern is that some students are able to earn their degrees without basic Math, English, and communication skills. The implementation of RGEP in UP Mindanao is also affected by the limited number of GE course offerings, as well as the absence of true revitalization in some RGEP courses. Consequently, there is a growing concern that students enroll in upper-division courses without having the relevant background knowledge.

Not all faculty members who handle GE courses (except for faculty members who prepared RGEP course proposals or those who went through RGEP themselves as undergraduates) are totally aware of the requirements, objectives, and character of RGEP. As a result, their teaching of GE subjects is content-oriented, and these subjects are treated as appreciation courses. Students, on the other hand, start out not knowing exactly what RGEP objectives are; they somehow get a grasp or a hint of the objectives in the course of a semester or after taking a few courses.

Despite its shortcomings, RGEP as implemented in UP Mindanao, to some degree, has been able to provide UP Mindanao students with a broad perspective grounded in the arts, humanities, and science.

Katalbas: RGEP in UP Visayas has the following general objectives: 1) to broaden the student’s intellectual and cultural horizons, 2) to foster a commitment to nationalism balanced by a sense of internationalism, and 3) to develop an awareness of various ways of knowing. Specifically, the program aims to enable the student to: 1) acquire basic skills and competencies in mathematics, reasoning, and communication; 2) develop an awareness, understanding, and appreciation of the various disciplines of the natural sciences, social sciences, humanities, and philosophy; and 3) develop the ability to integrate and/or adapt the knowledge and skills acquired from the various disciplines. Students are expected to learn quantitative and other forms of reasoning as well as interpretive and aesthetic modes of inquiry. They are also expected to develop skills in oral and written communication, independent and critical thinking as well as creative thinking.

The success of the program can be gauged by the kind of graduates it has produced vis-à-vis the GE objectives. Faculty members who are aware of the GE objectives and who teach the courses the way they ought to be taught have ensured the successful implementation of the program. Their students have expressed appreciation for the skills they have learned and the values they have imbibed from these courses. In an exit interview on the GE experiences of graduating students of UPV conducted on March 8-19, 2010, students mentioned that among the most memorable lessons they learned from their GE courses are 1) adjusting to different students (including teachers) of different disciplines, 2) becoming more tolerant of others who have different opinions than their own, 3) realizing they do not know everything, 4) appreciating many things that were usually taken for granted, 5) being more analytical, 6) writing correctly, 7) speaking publicly like a professional, 8) taking care of the environment and reaching out to the community, and 9) time management. When asked about what they gained from their GE classes they mentioned the following: 1) technical writing skills, 2) a wider perspective of things, 3) critical thinking/an analytical mind, 4) an appreciation of other disciplines, 5) self-confidence, 6) social skills, 7) social awareness and civic consciousness, 8) respect for environment, 9) intellectual maturity, 10) learning to accept criticisms, 11) professionalism, 12) patience, and last but not least, 13) friends/admirers from other disciplines. Based on these answers, RGEP has been successful.

For the program to be successful, there is a need to orient and train faculty who will handle GE courses. On a per GE course basis, regular roundtable discussions among faculty members will help improve their teaching strategies by sharing their “best practices” in teaching these courses. Students, especially freshmen, need to be oriented on RGEP for them to appreciate the significance of the program.

However, choices of students are still limited. The kind and number of courses that can be offered are limited by faculty loading and class scheduling.

Math counts, History matters: Do students care?Rod P. Fajardo III

Teenagers. How to make sense of them when they can barely keep up with themselves—growth spurts, mood swings, and all? How much guidance do they need in making decisions of consequence to their future, and how wise is it to just leave them be? Are they old enough to make up their own minds and be responsible for their actions?

These were some of the pertinent questions confronted by the University of the Philippines when it organized a review of the Revitalized General Education Program (RGEP) on October 21, 2010, almost ten years after its implementation. The program, which revolutionized the way general education is offered in the University, gave students the freedom to choose their subjects, as long as they completed 15 units under each of the three domains of learning—Arts and Humanities; Social Sciences and Philosophy; and Math, Science and Technology.

RGEP and critical thinking

According to Dr. Fidel R. Nemenzo, Professor at the UP Diliman Institute of Mathematics and member of the UP System GE Council, the GE program develops critical thinking and provides students with a well-rounded education. “A critical thinker is not one who always criticizes, but one who is able to analyze, read between the lines, and think out of the box; one who is able to distinguish between substance and form, and appreciate and understand connections as well as differences between the many things we study and how these impact on society,” he explains. “The specialized training that the student receives in her/his major is not sufficient preparation for career and life after graduation, where she/he not only applies knowledge but has to discern and make informed judgments as well. GE is our antidote to the overspecialization and the fragmentation of learning.”

Dr. Fidel R. Nemenzo

Nemenzo believes that the changes introduced by the RGEP produced positive results. “Units were compelled to review and improve the content and delivery of their GE offerings. Students also now have a broader and more exciting variety of courses to choose from,” he notes.

But alongside these positive results, the RGEP carries with it unforeseen consequences, notes Dr. Ma. Mercedes G. Planta, Professor at the UP Diliman Department of History and Assistant Deputy Director of the UP System Information Office. “The RGEP was conceived with the intention of strengthening liberal general education in UP and part of this endeavor is to provide students the chance to have a ‘direct hand’ in choosing/designing his/her courses. This component of the RGEP was impelled by the belief that students would choose the subjects that would benefit them most in terms of quality education,” she explains. “Given the highly competitive work environment and access to opportunities that we face, however, we failed to take into consideration the propensity of some students, while claiming to benefit from the idea of being able to choose their subjects, to enroll in classes that they find easy and do away with those they find difficult.” In short, Planta says, “I think we placed too much faith in the students.”

Before the implementation of RGEP, Planta points out that she had 40 to 50 students in her History classes. Today, she has only 20 to 25 students, some of whom enrolled only because the course fit their schedule. Or because their adviser required them to, which defeats the purpose of RGEP.

Her observation seems to find support in an informal survey of enrollment rates in GE subjects presented by UP President Emerlinda R. Roman during the October 21 conference. According to the survey, which covers Academic Year 2009-2010, English and Communication courses rank high in the list of students system-wide. History—except in UP Manila and UP Baguio—does not. Math is not among the popular courses, except in UP Mindanao, UP Manila, and UP Los Baños. Most students opt to skip these two subjects if they can.

While Roman notes that findings from surveys and observations from the faculty members over the past ten years indicate the need to review the approach of giving students the option to choose their courses, she stresses that there is no turning back from RGEP.

Nemenzo shares the same view. “The way forward is not to go back to the old purely prescriptive format, but to identify the core courses that we believe our students should not do without, and prescribe these along with a broad range of choices,” he says. “Off the cuff, I think all UP students should know how to write and communicate effectively, they should know their Philippine history and culture. They should also have appreciation of the role of science and mathematics in society.”

In other words, the RGEP should be a combination of compulsory and non-compulsory courses. The question is: which subjects should be prescribed and which ones should be made elective?

A grounding of who we are

For Planta, there is no question that History should be prescribed. “History is a grounding of who we are as a people and as a nation,” she explains. “We’re talking about nationhood. Our development as a nation should be traced if we are to know which is the best way forward.”

Dr. Ma. Mercedes G. Planta

In 2009, the Department of History reviewed Department of Education textbooks used in public elementary and high school. In their report, the team headed by Professor Ma. Serena I. Diokno noted that History is incorporated into HEKASI (Heograpiya, Kasaysayan, at Sibika) or Civic and Culture, Social StuWdies. Put simply, there really is no History as a subject by itself.

“We realized that our students have very poor background in History. In fact, for most of them, it is in UP that they take History for the first time,” she says, so that History teaching in the University becomes a remedial course, which is not supposed to be the case. While this is another argument for making History a compulsory subject in UP, she says, “it also allows us to see the bigger picture of the quality of basic education that we must be aware of and how this quality of education, or lack of it, influences the learning, perception, and appreciation of History as a subject.”

In Japan, a major economic power, students are taught History as an independent subject as early as in their first grade. History is also taught systematically; the students move from one period in history to another and the discussion becomes more in-depth as they move from one grade level to the next. By the time they are at the tertiary level, Japanese students already have grounding and even mastery of History, so that there is no need to emphasize the subject or compel them to take History in the university. In the Philippines, History in basic education is taught, if at all, by making students memorize the same facts over and over; consequently, they hardly learn anything new even as they move from elementary to high school.

“Students are not given the chance to learn beyond the facts they are made to memorize. There are even instances where the facts they memorize are wrong. When asked what year the Philippine Revolution took place, some students answer 1986. Apparently, they confuse it with the EDSA Revolution,” notes Planta. “So here in UP, aside from checking their facts and figures, we also train our students to be analytical and critical whenever they are confronted with ideas, issues, and concepts.”

The language of science and technology

In the case of Math, Nemenzo argues that it should be prescribed because it is the language of science and technology. He clarifies, however, that Math as a GE subject should not be a remedial course since UP students are presumed to have already learned the basics in elementary and high school.

“GE Math is not ‘elementary math’ or classroom math made easy, but an opportunity to truly discuss mathematics as a human enterprise, an essentially social and creative activity,” he points out. “Mathematics is not just a collection of techniques and formulas. Mathematics is a language, a way of looking at and ordering the world. It is culture.”

Fear of math, which may explain the low enrollment rate in the course, can partly be blamed on parents who reproduce such fear at home and on school teachers who may know a lot about formulas but little about the nature of mathematics. “In confining Math to the classroom and reducing it to formulas and techniques, a teacher may present Math as nothing but an obstacle course,” says Nemenzo.

“I am not saying that the numbers, formulas, and techniques we study in elementary and high school are useless. In fact, they are absolutely necessary. Every educated person needs a minimum level of numeracy. After all we live in a world of numbers—we compute bills, we tell time, we make sense of data in this information-driven world,” he continues. “But teachers should be able to make students understand that the numbers and formulas of the classroom are merely the scaffolding for more powerful ideas, in the same way that a student needs to master language and grammar in order to appreciate literature. It is not mastery but appreciation of mathematics that should be among the goals of GE. An educated person need not have a grasp of equations and formulas, but should understand the role of mathematics in shaping our world.”

But how to make students care about Math and History?

Keeping up with the times, going beyond symbols

There are many ways to make History interesting to students but, according to Planta, there is also a need for new learning materials, teaching tools, non-traditional methods, and good textbooks. “While we continue to demand excellence from our students, we also have to be excellent ourselves and keep up with the times. We need to be more aware and aggressive in updating our teaching materials and strategies,” she notes. “We have to keep in mind that our students are savvy users of information technology. They come across a lot of facts, figures, and ideas every time they go online. So how do we keep them still interested in the information that we give them in class?” In this regard, she says that a review of the RGEP poses the challenge of not only offering the opportunity to review the quality and substance of the educational system

in UP, but also its continuing relevance, particularly for History.

She also says there is a particular set of textbooks that she wants her students to use because, aside from the fact that the set is authored by the country’s leading historians, it uses large fonts, illustrative graphics, and colorful pictures. “It is very friendly to students who are just starting to appreciate History,” she adds. Unfortunately, the cost of the textbook makes it unrealistic to require. “It is very expensive. The first time it came out, the price was P15,000. Then it went on sale at a hugely discounted price of P5,000—still not affordable to students.” For Math, Nemenzo thinks the challenge for the teacher is to go beyond numbers and symbols, which are merely the formal trappings of mathematics. The professor should instead teach how the ideas behind the symbols have shaped the world and the way we see it. “For example, in teaching Cartesian coordinates in the GE classroom, one should not focus on the equation of a line or a parabola, but on the enormous influence of Descartes on mathematics as well as philosophy,” he explains. The professor should convey to students the significance of Descartes’ unifying two areas of mathematics—arithmetic and geometry—which previously developed along separate paths.

“In reducing the topic to poorly misunderstood formulas, a teacher misses the opportunity to discuss Math and its role in the history of ideas,” he concludes. “Mathematics is socially and culturally embedded. GE should also present how mathematical ideas arise in context and connect math to history, culture, and society.”

Opening New WorldsFrancis Paolo M. Quina

When I was first admitted into UP Diliman as an undergraduate student of the College of Science in 1998, I was disappointed to learn that unlike the college students in the movies and television shows I watched, I really had no choice as to what subjects I could take. As a public high school student, I had dreamt that in college I could get course credits just watching and discussing movies, the way some characters in the popular 90’s TV drama series "Dawson’s Creek" did during their time in college. Or maybe spend part of another semester learning how to paint or make pottery. All of this, of course, I imagined I would do as I was working my way toward a degree in Applied Physics.

But such was not the case, as I discovered the moment I saw the course outline for the BS Applied Physics program which identified each and every subject that I had to take. I was disappointed, to say the least, and I even questioned why I had to take certain subjects like Kas 1 (Philippine History) and Kas 2 (World History), when I had already taken classes which more or less covered the same topics all throughout high school. Apparently, the “cafeteria style” of college general education, as it is called, while popular in universities in other countries such as the United States, was unheard of in UP. The only choice UP college students had, with respect to their college subjects, was the few electives they were allowed and, generally, how to schedule their classes.

Changes

I stayed in UP for only a year that first time. Shortly before the second semester ended, I fell ill and needed to take time off, not only to fight the disease, but to recuperate as well. When I did return in 2002, after being away for more than three years, it was a different UP that I found myself in. The fares for the Ikot and Toki jeepneys were much higher than when I was a freshman. The Computerized Registration System or CRS, which was still being beta-tested when I left the University in 1999, had become the norm.

But the biggest change that took place during my absence was the institution of the Revitalized General Education Program or RGEP. The RGEP, which replaced the old General Education (GE) program which had been in effect since 1987, was being implemented for the first time that year. It was approved by the Board of Regents the previous year, after a series of consultative meetings with various sectors of the UP community.

One of the key changes with the passing of the RGEP was that it left the choice of GE subjects students should take to the student themselves. It was the very same “cafeteria system” that I had expected to find when I first entered UP.

Naturally, I was elated upon learning about this development. But more than having the freedom to learn what I wanted to learn, given that a course on it was available, what excited me most about the RGEP was the fact that I no longer had to take subjects I thought were unnecessary for me to take in the first place, or subjects which I thought I would honestly perform terribly in, like Comm 3 (Public Speaking).

Of course, I was not, and I am not, the only person to have thought of the RGEP in these terms. The results of the recently concluded review of the RGEP, which were presented to the UP community during a conference on October 21 at the NISMED Auditorium, showed that many UP students take advantage of the freedom to choose afforded to them by the RGEP by not only avoiding classes that they don’t want to take (such as Math and History subjects), but also by signing up for classes that have developed a reputation as “uno-ables”—subjects where one can easily get a grade of 1.0.

Another student’s story

“I know of some classmates who chose classes like that, because the class is said to be easy,” says Alisa (real name withheld upon request). She is quick to add, however, that generally, the students she knows choose classes according to their personal biases, the subjects that they do or don’t like.

I met Alisa in 2002, and we were among the first students to study under the RGEP program. She was a Chemistry major and I, because I opted out of the BS Applied Physics program upon being readmitted to UP, was without a major. We became classmates in the newly instituted GE subject, CW 10 (Creative Writing for Beginners), during my second semester back in UP. I was there because I had developed a love for writing during my long break from the university, and thought that I should try my hand at it before deciding if it was really what I wanted to pursue.

She was similarly inclined. “I really wanted to be a writer,” Alisa confesses. “It is a frustration of mine. I even called my mother when I first failed my Chem 17 long examination, and I told her that if I got a 5.0 in the subject, I would shift to the arts.”

And while she did not shift out of her course, Alisa, who is now pursuing a master’s degree in Chemistry, says that the CW 10 class gave her the confidence to write. She adds that the class’s workshop format allowed her to get feedback on her work. “I like hearing people comment about my work because I do want to grow as a writer,” she notes.

In fact, after our CW 10 subject together, Alisa used up her free electives on CW subjects. “Often, when you ask a friend about your writing, you can’t be sure if they’re being sincere or not,” she says. “But in CW class, tagos sa puso. If it really sucked, they really told you. It was that honesty from the students and the teachers that I loved in CW classes.”

Where her CW 10 class allowed Alisa, to explore her interest in the arts while at the same time pursuing a degree in Chemistry, that same CW 10 class made me decide finally on a new course. By academic year 2003-2004, I was officially a Creative Writing major. Another classmate from the CW 10 class, while not making a formal shift, likewise began pursuing a career in the arts and letters.

New fields

With the implementation of the RGEP, fields that were once highly specialized such as creative writing and film (in the arts and humanities) as well as environmental science and molecular biology and biotechnology (in the sciences) are now available to the greater student population. This allows students not only to broaden their horizons, but also interact with faculty members in UP units that do not usually offer undergraduate courses.

The Marine Science Institute (MSI) in UP Diliman is one of the many units that, before the institution of the RGEP, did not handle general education subjects. Mainly a research and graduate degree-granting institute, the MSI offered only two undergraduate courses before the RGEP: MS 101 (Introduction to Oceanography) and MS 102 (Introduction to Marine Science).

According to Prof. Aletta T. Yñiguez, Deputy Director for Instruction at the MSI, these two introductory subjects were designed as electives for students in the biological sciences track of the College of Science.

With the opening of RGEP, the MSI began offering a third undergraduate subject, MS 1 (Oceans and Us), an RGEP subject under the Math and Science and Technology (MST) cluster. The course became available to students in the Academic Year 2005-2006. An appreciation course, MS 1 emphasizes the relationship between us humans and the oceans.

Prof. Yñiguez says that class is a great way for students who have never been exposed to Marine Science and issues surrounding it, to gain an understanding of the relevance of marine systems in their everyday lives. “Just because you’re landlocked doesn’t mean that what happens in our oceans does not affect you,” she adds.

Prof. Yñiguez

This semester, the MSI has four sections of MS 1 classes, which, according to Yñiguez, is small considering the high demand for the class during the enlistment period. “We try to offer as many sections as we can, but that number depends on the capability of the faculty,” she says. “There are 17 faculty members in the MSI, but not all of them are available to teach that subject.” In fact, some of the faculty members who are teaching MS 1, such as Yñiguez herself, are willing to enlist more than the maximum number of students in class to accommodate those who want to take the course.

Anatomy of an RGEP course

According to Yñiguez, there is a core syllabus which the faculty members teaching MS 1 follow for their lectures and activities. “Since this is an appreciation course, there aren’t too many readings and more lectures and activities,” she explains. Lecture topics range from the basic sciences to their real world applications. The introductory part of the course, for example, is a discussion of physical and geological oceanography. It then moves on to a discussion of chemistry and biology, as the lectures enter the field of marine biology. “Toward the end of the course, the lectures highlight issues such as biodiversity loss, the effects of climate change, over-fishing, and other similar issues relevant to marine science,” she says.

“The lectures are more or less set. It’s in the activities where the faculty member has more leeway in terms of how to conduct it.”

Local news

Yñiguez notes that among the activities they require students to do is to make a news report focusing on Philippine marine science concerns such threats to biodiversity, red tide, and accidents like the Guimaras oil spill. Students are also given the opportunity to have first-hand experience about the work she and her colleagues do through field work. Yñiguez, for example, takes her own classes to Batangas for water sampling, and going through coastal habitats such as coral reefs and the mangrove areas. “In my case, the trips are to familiarize the students with the ecosystem and marine habitats in the area,” she says. “For other classes, they might focus on profiling beaches and waves in, for example, Corregidor Island.”

As an RGEP course, MS 1 does its part to fulfill the RGEP Framework specification that courses should instill nationalism. “What we try to do throughout the course is show and highlight examples from our country’s abundant marine ecosystems. We show different aspects of marine science in the Philippines,” Yñiguez says. “But even without trying, discussions in class always focus on how marine science affects our everyday lives, culturally and economically.”

Incorporating research

For their final project, MS 1 students are asked to explain an MS topic using their own academic backgrounds. For example, students from art courses might do paintings that explain a certain MS concept. Yñiguez cites a group of students from the College of Education who designed a class discussing the problems of over-fishing. “They held a teaching demo, and expressed MS concepts using their particular field of expertise.”

Because all of the faculty members of the MSI have PhDs and are active in research, their studies are sometimes incorporated into lectures and discussions. “For example, if the discussion in class is on red tide, and the MSI has research projects about that, so what I do is show them the result of these studies,” Yñiguez says. “That way, the students are also made aware of the situation in the country and of the kind of research that we do here at MSI.”

This appreciation of what marine science is and what the MSI does has led to some students going forward and taking the MSI’s other undergraduate courses. Yñiguez also cites one MS 1 student from another field who, upon graduation, even went into one of their Master’s of Science programs.

New worlds

By now, with the review of the UP Administration out in the open, it’s undeniable that the RGEP has exacerbated certain problems rooted in our country’s weak primary and secondary education programs. But at the same time, the RGEP has allowed UP students to broaden their horizons; it has allowed students in the sciences to find new avenues of expressing themselves in the arts, and it has allowed artists to better appreciate not only the social world that is their milieu, but also the natural one that sustains us all.

I cannot guess the shape and form of what will replace the RGEP in the near future, but I know that there is no stepping back. New worlds of ideas have been offered to the Iskolar ng Bayan; it is too late to ask them to close their minds.