Over 50 faculty and students discussed ways to improve teaching at the College and analyzed Harvard’s Expository Writing Program at a forum yesterday, part of a series of discussion sessions on the Curricular Review.

Participants at the meeting affirmed the College’s commitment to writing, criticized its neglect of public-speaking instruction, and encouraged its dedication to innovative teaching.

Expository Writing (Expos) will not be eliminated from Harvard’s requirements any time soon, emphasized James Engell ’73, co-leader of yesterday’s forum and Chairman of the Committee to Review Expository Writing.

“We are very loathe to abandon a program that teaches writing in the first year,” said Engell, Gurney Professor of English Literature and a Professor of Comparative Literature.

Engell noted that upon the completion of Expos, students generally “feel good” about the course, though this impression changes by senior year. He suggested that this shift in student attitude may be caused by the fact that even after completing Expos, students struggle to grasp the stylistic demands of different departments.

In an effort to improve this disconnect, Engell called for “greater coordination between those who teach writing and those in the concentrations.”

Faculty and students also discussed the state of teaching at the college, focusing on methods of evaluation and innovation.

Laurel Thatcher Ulrich, co-leader of yesterday’s forum and chair of the Curricular Review’s Pedagogical Improvement Committee, condemned the “ingest and regurgitate” mode of teaching.

Ulrich, who is also the Phillips professor of early American history, recommended the creation of incentives, “monetary or otherwise,” to encourage professors to improve their teaching.

“What if a faculty member were given an entire year free from all administrative duties?” asked David McCann, Korea Foundation Professor of Korean Literature. Faculty at the forum responded well to this suggestion.

Other attendees pointed out that the onus to learn cannot fall only on teachers.

“It’s enormously frustrating to attempt to teach people who aren’t there or who don’t think it’s important to have done the reading,” said Kathleen M. Coleman, Harvard College Professor of Latin.

Adding to this critique of student apathy, James D. Wilkinson ’65, Director of the Derek Bok Center for Teaching and Learning, referenced a survey conducted by the Center more than 10 years ago.

The survey suggested that most students complete only 43 percent of their assigned reading­—regardless of the length of their reading list. However, citing Social Studies 10 as an example, he explained that this number almost doubles when students understand the rationale behind the syllabus.

At yesterday’s meeting, the dearth of public speaking offerings at the college was also criticized.

“There is not much to criticize except its absence,” said Engell, noting that no such courses had been available for over thirty years.

Though “hesitant” to make public speaking a requirement, Engell said that alumni cite public speaking as the course they most wish they had been able to take.

In addition to critiques of the College, the Cue Guide also took some blows. Ulrich criticized the heavy reliance Harvard places on the CUE guide as an evaluative tool, saying that she hoped the implementation of online evaluations would facilitate the creation of questions that “better fit the courses.”

Both the Committee to Review Expository Writing and the Pedagogical Improvement Committee are still in the discussion stage.

—Staff writer Natalie I. Sherman can be reached at nsherman@fas.harvard.edu.