General Education

How do colleges change the general education curriculum, and for what reasons?  CAOs typically view change in the general education curriculum as complex and difficult, and designing formal plans for change must be an institutional priority.  “The CAOs at these institutions saw general education programs to be ever-changing and saw such change as largely incremental rather than a one-time comprehensive overhaul event” (12).  Most changes in general education curricula “appeared to be mission driven . . . .  Mission, more than student needs and expectations or social issues and context, guided the design of general education” (12).  Other important concerns in changing general education:  developing a clear statement of general education goals; linking goals and requirements; and increasing coherence among the requirements.  Assessment hs not played a large role in general education change:  Only 14% reported strong emphasis on assessment.

What are the most frequently mentioned innovations in general education curricula?

Respondents reported incorporating interdisciplinary courses, first-year seminars, common learning experiences, advanced courses, and honors courses.  Less frequently, they reported adding experiential learning, paired or linked courses, a senior thesis, service-learning experiences, internships, independent study, or remedial or developmental courses.  Baccalaureate institutions were more likely to add common learning experiences; research institutions were more likely to add honors courses.

What is the percentage of general education requirements to total graduation credit requirements? 

A survey in 1991 indicated that just less than 40% of total credit hours to graduate were allotted to general education.  In the 2000 survey, “general education composed 38 percent of the credits for the B.A. and 38 percent of the credits for the B.S. degrees . . . .  Thus, although most colleges and universities were changing their general education curricula, they did so without altering significantly the amount of total credits required or the proportion of credits attributed to general education in the baccalaureate degrees” (14 -15). 

The change process in general education

In conducting their changes, most institutions were not guided by formal program reviews—usually just a general sense of a time for change.   Despite saying it is important to assess student learning, only 15% of responding institutions said that assessment of student learning was an important part of the change process.  Only 32% of CAOs reported assessment as part of their general education programs.

What reforms were most common; what courses were added or dropped?

“We found most curricular changes undertaken over the decade to be modifications to existing general education programs rather than complete revisions or remaking of courses of study. . . .   However, . . . the general education requirements became more prescriptive, reducing student choice” (18 – 19), a major shift from the high student choice in the 1980s.  The number of specific requirements grew through the 1990s.  “Course work now includes components in critical thinking, cultural studies, global studies, history, life sciences, and literature.  Courses in foreign languages, computer literacy, and values education were added” (20).  The notable exception where student choice remained high was in distributive requirements (humanities, social sciences, and natural sciences requirements). 

How were general education requirements organized?

“Were most general education programs still distributional, or was the trend in 2000 toward a core curriculum?” (21).  Many respondents noted that their general education programs had shifted from traditional content and skill distribution categories (e.g., three credits in history, three in writing) to required themes or clusters of course work, with content and skills integrated into these thematic organizations.  There is a general interest in embedding a focus on skills throughout the general education program, as well as in specific courses.  Respondents felt the emphasis on themes helped build program coherence in the curriculum.

What were the major reasons for change?

External sources were not said to have a large influence in the change process.  Regional accrediting associations were the largest single external influence cited.  Specialized accrediting agencies—e.g., for majors in professional fields—“were not seen as particularly influential on general education” (23).  One in four found that the standards of specialized accrediting groups played a significant role in changes to general education.  There was a general sense of broad pressure to incorporate more assessment of student learning outcomes and competencies.  The internal impetus for change, according to respondents, came from three sources, with percentage of CAOs who mentioned each in their open-ended commentary:  1. The general education program was fragmented and had little coherence (54%); 2. Changes in the students or faculty required changes in general education (48%); 3. The program was outdated (38%). 

Conclusion

“The decade in change was largely incremental and sustained trends noted at the outset of the decade” by earlier surveys.  “These curricular changes sought coherence using two primary approaches.  First, student election of course work was reduced, while prescribed sets and sequences of courses increased.  Second, course work was grouped into themes and clusters to better communicate the relationship between different subjects, skills, and fields of knowledge contained therein.  These changes were often associated with tying the general education program closely to institutional mission more than to meeting student needs or social expectations” (26).  The value of studying other schools and programs is not one of adoption of approach and practice.  Rather, it is one of analogy, allegory, and adaptation.