RYERSON UNIVERSITY ACADEMIC POLICIES AND PROCEDURES Policy Name: Professionally-Related Studies in Ryerson's Tripartite Curriculum Ref. No.: 124 Academic Council Approval Date: April 2, 1996 (Academic Standards Committee Report #122) Status: CURRENT A copy of the document follows. Note: Other related policies include Ref. No. 14 "Liberal Studies in Polytechnic Education: Development of a Tripartite Curriculum Structure", Ref. No. 33 "Program Balance", Ref. No. 44 "Liberal Studies in the Ryerson Curriculum", Ref. No. 64 "Change to the Composition of the Liberal Studies Committee", Ref. No. 68 "Temporary Exemption in Application of Liberal Studies Policy to Engineering Programs", Ref. No. 74 "New Structure for Administration of Liberal Studies at Ryerson", Ref. No. 107 "Revision of Liberal Studies Policy", and Ref. No. 109 "Implementation of Liberal Studies Policy". PROFESSIONALLY-RELATED STUDIES IN RYERSON'S TRIPARTITE CURRICULUM A FRAMEWORK FOR DISCUSSION REVISION 6--25-3-96 At the January, 1996 meeting of Academic Council, several questions were raised regarding the tripartite curriculum policy in general and the professionally-related element of the policy in particular. Since that meeting, the Academic Standards Committee (ASC) has addressed the tripartite curriculum policy and numerous issues arising from it. The intent of the committee has been to develop a paper that would serve as a framework for Council to discuss Ryerson's tripartite curriculum policy in an open-ended and constructive fashion. This paper is not intended to provide a quick and easy answer to the question of whether we should maintain or eliminate the tripartite curriculum. Rather, it is an opportunity to ask a series of related questions that should serve to enhance our collective understanding of the tripartite curriculum, its strengths, and its deficiencies, and may lead towards the conclusion that the policy requires a more thorough assessment. If we determine to follow this latter course, though, we should pursue it in a systematic, deliberative manner, allowing time for proper research, evaluation, and reflection. Policy on the structure of Ryerson's curricula is not something to be determined in an evening's work. This section of the report attempts to answer three basic questions about the existing tripartite curriculum policy: What is this policy? Why was it adopted? How was it intended to operate? The term "tripartite" made its first formal appearance in Report 23 of the ASC (Liberal Studies in Polytechnic Education, February, 1977), in which the committee identified a curricular structure comprised of professional studies, liberal studies, and a third type of course that could not "be considered to fit exactly either of the [other] categories". This third, professionally-related category was seen to embrace theoretical and synthetic qualities that contributed to the professional preparation of students. It was also seen to "occupy a position on the educational spectrum between the extremes of the other two". Although the terminology now associated with the tripartite curriculum emerged from Report 23, the curricular structure itself certainly did not. In fact, as the ASC noted, the tripartite curriculum "appears to have characterized the formation of all programs". Professionally-related studies and the curriculum structure as a whole arose organically out of Ryerson's emerging polytechnic style of education, not as a result of specific policy initiatives. Report 23 created a typology of our then existing curriculum and provided new language to describe it, but the substance of the report was clearly more summative than formative. Out of Report 23 came the definitions of our tripartite curriculum that are still in place: Professional Studies: Studies that induce functional competence by presenting the knowledge and developing the skills characteristic of current practice in the career field. Professionally-related Studies: Studies that develop an understanding of the theoretical disciplines upon which the career field is based, or which synthesize the diverse elements of professional study. Liberal Studies: Studies that develop the capacity to understand the social and cultural context in which the graduate will work as a professional and live as an educated citizen. Report 23 stated that each program would require the inclusion of courses from all three categories, but also specified that "the exact proportion of each would vary so as to reflect the needs of the career field; its theory and practice; its accreditation, recognition or employment requirements; its students' expectations and interests; ...". Thus, while the resulting policy mandated each program to present a tripartite curriculum, the balance of its three curriculum elements in each program would vary according to the criteria specified. Report #23 also specifies that the same course may well have different roles in different programs. For example, a course in the Principles of Semantics would be a professionally-related course in a Translation Program, but a liberal studies course in programs in which an understanding of the nature of language is not of special application to the career field In a later report (Number 41, January 1982), the ASC turned once again to the tripartite curriculum, this in response to uncertainties about how to categorize individual courses and to a perceived need to define more precisely the notion of balance among professional, professionally- related and liberal studies that should be reflected in each program. Report #41 reaffirmed that a course which is included in more than one program may be given different designations, depending on the objectives of the course in the program under consideration. In addition it specified: 1) that courses taught by faculty members of the program department will not usually be designated as professionally-related or liberal studies (an exception to this guideline may occur when a department is involved in more than one academic area). 2) that compulsory courses will only exceptionally be designated as liberal studies, since in most cases the objective of a compulsory course is to provide professional or professionally- related material. It also introduced a quantitative method of measuring program balance. The quantitative measures of program balance were derived from an empirical survey of existing programs, from which came the identification of the broad ranges that are still in effect: 50-75 per cent for professional studies, 10-40 per cent for professionally-related studies, and 8-20 per cent for liberal studies. When Report 41 was prepared, these ranges accomodated the practices of about three-quarters of Ryerson's programs. They were presented as guidelines, and the ASC emphasized that latitude should be permitted. It also commented, however, that "there should be justification for those programs which deviate". Indeed, on ASC's recommendation, Council adopted a policy for purposes of diploma and degree program design and evaluation, the following program balance ranges be regarded as standard: Professional Studies 50-75% Professionally-Related Studies 10-40% Liberal Studies 8-20% In summary, Reports 23 and 41 gave language, conceptual shape, and validation to the tripartite curriculum, but they did not create it. Credit for that goes to the programs of the time which, in their natural evolution, established curricular patterns embracing the elements that we chose to label professional, professionally-related, and liberal studies. Moreover, Ryerson's tripartite curriculum policy as defined in Reports 23 and 41 of the ASC did not fix ranges of volume of curriculum in each category and program. What the policy specified was the variations from the norms or standards defined in the two reports required academic justification and approval by Academic Council. In the light of the foregoing description of the origins and purposes of Ryerson's tripartite curriculum policy and Ryerson's new mandate and mission as a Polytechnic University (appended), ASC suggests that Council discuss the tripartite curriculum policy by addressing the following questions: . Is this policy still relevant? . What changes, if any, should be made to the policy or its implementation to fulfill Ryerson's mandate better, and support our mission? . What alternative policy, if any, would better ensure delivery of curriculum consistent with Ryerson's new mandate and mission?