What Is General Education?
There is widespread confusion, even uncertainty, as to the meaning of the term “general education” and how it relates to the type of specialized education demanded by students who are preparing for professional careers (Project on Strong Foundations for General Education, 1994). This definition has changed considerably over time, but it may best be understood as a complement to the student’s major area of specialization. General education is a mechanism by which the learner is provided with a foundational experience in studies concerning the range of human experience, culture, and knowledge; more specifically, in the academic disciplines of communications, mathematics, natural science, social/behavioral sciences, and humanities. The purpose of a general education program is to cultivate a joy in learning for learning’s sake and to produce lifelong learning in all contexts by enabling students to acquire a broad, transferable base of understanding of the critical knowledge, skills, and attitudes germane to each discipline, and to be able to apply them (Farmer, 1998).
The general education experience in any single college or university faces unique challenges. One common challenge is to be regarded as a program that requires not only formative assessment throughout the experience, but also summative assessment. General education requirements are routinely linked to very broadly drawn academic disciplines, such as communications or humanities, and so the general education program outcomes themselves are typically broad and comprehensive. Upon completing a general education program, a student may be expected to demonstrate a commitment to lifelong learning, civic engagement, moral and ethical reasoning, critical thinking, effective communication, and so forth (Leskes & Wright, 2005; Leskes & Miller, 2006). These learner competencies or core abilities can be grown through directed learning experiences in the general education core (3.3.3 Process -Oriented Guided-Inquiry Learning). Of course, this begs the question: In an experience comprised of several extremely broad academic disciplines, who “owns” the general education program?
Who are the Stakeholders?
A number of constituents have a vested interest in the outcomes of a general education program (2.4.5 Learning Outcomes). Students, faculty, staff, administrators, the public, business, legislators, and accrediting agencies all have a stake in such a program, yet they may have competing notions of what those outcomes are. Students may resent general education as a barrier to overcome on the way to the declared major or area of concentration. Faculty likewise may view general education courses as less desirable to teach than courses in their own academic specialties. All stakeholders demand some form of accountability to ensure that learners attain the outcomes of a general education program. However, if no one claims responsibility for the design of the general education experience, it is less likely that the program’s outcomes will be accomplished. Without some kind of institutional ownership of the general education program, its deliberate design, and ongoing assessment, quality control is difficult.
Many institutions employ the “cafeteria menu” model of distributional requirements for general education; that is to say, students choose the required core course options and electives with little or no directed guidance. Many institutions of higher learning have come to realize that, even though the “cafeteria menu” model seems to privilege learner choice and freedom of expression in finding one’s academic niche, it may actually be counterproductive to learner growth (Huber & Hutchings, 2004). Faculty stakeholders must embrace their commitment to facilitate learning, and the student stakeholders must take active responsibility for achieving their educational outcomes. Staff and administrators must own their respective roles in supporting the academic mission.
It is crucial that all stakeholders of the general education program share ownership. Colleges and universities have a self interest in consistent academic integrity, continued viability, and credibility in the eyes of external stakeholders. The core curriculum of the general education program can be collaboratively owned and designed around principles of self-growth and program assessment (Allen, 2006). In many cases, it may be appropriate to create a position of Director of General Education and reassign a faculty member to this position or assign an administrator to fill this role. This ensures that someone is responsible for addressing the ongoing assessment of program outcomes, assisting deans, working with the faculty senate, or some other faculty curriculum body, and otherwise strengthen the program. This individual would not solely “own” the curriculum, of course, but rather would ensure that systematic processes are in place for ongoing curriculum review in accordance with the delineated academic program goals.
What are the Key Issues in Program Design?
Several issues are critical in the design of an effective general education program. They include the balance between knowledge and process, including the identification of core abilities; the relative size of the core experience compared with the size of the learner’s academic major; the proper mix of disciplinary diversity; the self-sustainability of the design, including staffing issues; quality assurance; and linkage of early and late core experiences (Smith & McCann, 2001).
Given the emphasis in general education on providing a comprehensive foundation of knowledge in designated discipline areas, it is crucial to understand and apply the linkage between knowledge and self-growth (2.2.4 Differentiating Knowledge from Growth). A crucial expectation of an institution’s general education experience is that it grows learners’ skills; therefore the institution must target competencies or core abilities as general education program outcomes (1.5.4 Writing Performance Criteria for a Program). These outcomes are typically broad and comprehensive. Upon completion of a well-designed general education program, a student may be expected to demonstrate commitment to lifelong learning, civic engagement, moral and ethical reasoning, critical thinking, effective communication skills, and so forth. These competencies or core abilities can be assessed at entry, grown through directed and sequenced learning experiences in the general education core, and assessed and evaluated at the exit point for continuous quality improvement (Huba & Freed, 1999).
A proper balance must be maintained between the core education program and the learner’s declared major or area of professional concentration. For example, How many total credit hours will be given to general education, how many will be devoted to the academic specialization, and what is the ratio between the two? Typically, a general education program will require 60 credit hours, about half of the total number required for a baccalaureate degree. But even more important than the number of credit hours are the linkages between the academic major and the general education program. Above all, general education must not be viewed as a “service” component to the “more important” area of specialization, an all-too-typical view of many students. One way to avoid the marginalization of general education is to promote, both internally and externally, a cultural shift toward viewing the entire curriculum in holistic terms (1.5.2 Methodology for Designing a Program Assessment System).
A well-designed general education program must include a diversity of disciplines (Project on Strong Foundations for General Education, 1994). Real-world problems do not often manifest themselves within self-contained disciplinary parameters or silos. A general education program aims to grow critical skills, so it typically embeds core abilities and experiential learning across the breadth of the curriculum in traditional disciplinary designations such as math, natural science, English, social and behavioral science, and humanities. In this fashion, the same critical skills that are defined by the institution are reinforced in the different academic experiences within the program. This results in integrative learning that fosters knowledge, abilities, and attitudes.
It is also critical to take into account the sequencing of learning experiences in the general education program. Research in neuroscience and educational psychology supports the idea that genuine learning occurs most successfully within a structured framework of sequenced academic experiences that reinforce learning across the curriculum (Huber & Hutchings, 2004). A strategic way to accomplish this is to link courses in the sequence to program goals that in turn thread upward to institutional core competencies and abilities (2.4.6 Methodology for Program Design and 2.4.8 Methodology for Course Design). Stand-alone courses or distribution requirements do not in and of themselves ensure that this linkage happens. Rather, the solution is to embed learning outcomes across the program related to the desired skills. Generally speaking, a course that fulfills part of a general education program sequence should link to at least one program outcome (Huba & Freed, 1999). If the sequence has been designed properly, learners are exposed to and assessed in all of the core abilities or competencies in the course of their experience in the program.
Finally, any design or re-envisioning of a general education program may work well enough on paper, but the design must address real-world issues of sustainability. What kind of staffing is required? For example, will a full-time faculty member be reassigned as a director of the program, or will an administrator be assigned to this duty? What support personnel will be assigned to the program director? What kinds of committees must be created, facilitated, and overseen to ensure faculty buy-in and ownership of the design and its ongoing assessment? What number of work hours, and thus dollars, must be given to these initiatives? What combination of grants and/or hard budget money must be allocated toward necessary resources required to maintain the program?
What Can We Learn from Other Campuses?
Many colleges and universities have devised strategies for embedding content, skills, and experiential learning across the breadth of the general education program. There is no shortage of models to scrutinize as colleges and universities redesign general education to infuse skills, content, and diverse disciplinary approaches and processes into the core curriculum. Each institution is unique in its vision, mission, and goals, and no single model will precisely fit the context of another (Allen, 2006). However, exemplary general education designs demonstrate that such curriculum is not only possible but desirable. Table 1 provides a representative sampling of general education programs in higher education. Each institution is identified by name and Web address. Notes describing special features of each program are also included in Table 1.
Concluding Thoughts
As higher education increasingly becomes a culture of assessment, it is critical to re-envision and design general education as a program with defined outcomes (4.1.5 Moving Toward an Assessment Culture). Such curriculum reform is a key experience for a college; one that requires visionary leadership and committed faculty (1.3.8 Successful Institutional Change—The Human Dimension). What teacher has not felt at one time or another the need to inspire a true passion for learning among his or her students? A strong, well-designed general education program based on faculty collaboration has the potential to transform every student (Smith & McCann, 2001). For it to be successful, every faculty member must take ownership of foundational learning as well as his or her area of specialization (1.2.3 New Faculty Roles for Institutional Effectiveness). Every stakeholder in general education must embrace the vision and communicate this vision to students if we want to achieve the full transformative potential of generation education.
References
Allen, M. J. (2006). Assessing general education programs. Boston: Anker.
Farmer, D.W. (1998). Enhancing student learning: Emphasizing essential competencies in academic programs. Wilkes-Barre, PA: King’s College.
Huba, M. F., & Freed, J. E. (1999). Learner-centered assessment on college campuses: Shifting the focus from teaching to learning. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Huber, M.T., & Hutchings, P. (2004). Integrative learning: Mapping the terrain. Washington, DC: Association of American Colleges and Universities.
Leskes, A., & Miller, R. (2006). Purposeful pathways: Helping students achieve key learning outcomes. Washington, DC: American Association of Colleges and Universities.
Leskes, A., & Wright, B. D. (2005). The art and science of assessing general education outcomes: A practical guide. Washington, DC: Association of American Colleges and Universities.
Project on Strong Foundations for General Education. (1994). Strong foundations: Twelve principles for effective general education programs. Washington, DC: Association of American Colleges and Universities.
Smith, B.L., & McCann, J. (Eds.). (2001). Reinventing ourselves: interdisciplinary education, collaborative learning, and experimentation in higher education. Boston: Anker.
|
Institution |
URL |
Observations |
|
Stony Brook University |
Strong experientially based undergraduate curriculum |
|
|
Military Academy at West Point |
Core curriculum linked to learning models |
|
|
King’s College |
Sequencing of courses within the major to produce growth |
|
|
University of Southern Maine |
Core curriculum has twin goals of basic competence and approaches to knowing |
|
|
James Madison University |
A core cluster of courses are embedded across the curriculum |
|
|
Portland State University |
Interdisciplinary University Studies program |
|
|
University of North Carolina at Charlotte |
Foundation of competency is embedded in four major areas |
|
|
Washington State University |
Foundation of learning skills not rooted in specialization |
|
|
San Jose State University |
Guidelines and objectives are clearly stated, and linked to associated outcomes, support, and assessment |
|
|
Alverno College |
Continual assessment strategies are practiced; grades are eliminated in favor of measurement against standards |