University of Hawaii
General Education Project
Review of General Education Literature
Literature Review Committee:
Carol Anne Dickson, Chair
Andrea Bartlett
Catherine Thompson
Sandy Davis
Jim Heasley
Lynn Hodgson
Tom Pearson
A Project of the University of Hawai'i General Education Coordinating Committee
Spring 1996
University of Hawai`i General Education Project
Review of the General Education Literature
..the University must...ensure that all students acquire skills for
life-long learning and basic knowledge in the humanities, social
sciences and natural sciences... (University of Hawai`i, A Strategy
for Academic Quality 1985-95, Preamble).
Purpose of general education. The University of Hawai`i's mandate,
as cited above, is similar to that of numerous mainland institutions, and
the mandate supports a common definition of general education as "...the
cultivation of the knowledge, skills, and attitudes that all of us use and
live by during most of our lives" (3, p .3). Both the mandate and the
definition describe the purpose of general education.
While there is substantial variation in opinions regarding the
implementation of general education, many writers seem to agree, in broad
terms, on the purpose of general education in institutions of higher
learning. The purpose of general education has changed little over the last
century, and stated in one word, could be said to be "community." Learning
about oneself and the world in an orderly and coherent manner defines the
purpose of general education according to Perry (29). "Insight" (4) or
"understanding" (34) are also words that have been used to define the
purpose of general education. "Looking beyond individual perspectives" (3)
is also a phrase used.
Stark and Lattuca (34), in describing a project of the Association of
American Colleges (AAC), found that faculty were in agreement about the
purpose and goals of general education, but wanted the freedom within their
disciplines to pursue those goals. AAC used the term "connected learning"
to describe general education. AAC identified two similar descriptions
of connected learning. The first referred to the "capacity for constructing
relationships among various modes of knowledge and curricular experiences"
(3, p.4). The second description referred to "the capacity to relate
academic learning to the wider world, public issues, and personal
experiences" (3, p .5). Faculty involved in the AAC project agreed that
coherence, or the integration of knowledge and skills, was a primary goal
of general education.
Boyer and Levine (12) integrated the statements of many writers regarding
the purpose of general education. They found that general education is
"...rooted in the belief that individualism, while essential, is not
sufficient" (p. 18) and that the individual must be considered as part of a
community. They stated that general education and majors serve as a balance
between interdependence and independence, respectively, and that general
education "...acknowledges the necessary balance between individual
preferences and community needs.".... "A common agenda for study and
investigation and a common discourse..." (p. 19) describe the purpose of
general education according to Boyer and Levine. They made a strong
argument for general education as a means to understanding a "shared cultural
heritage, a shared agenda of urgent contemporary problems, and a shared
future that cannot be ignored" (p. 38). The summation offered by Boyer
and Levine parallels that of other writers. They stated:
In short, general education seemed to have an historically certain
purpose. It seemed to us to embrace those experiences, problems,
relationships, ethical concerns, and sources of conflict that are
common to all of us simply by virtue of our membership in the human
family and in a particular society, at a given moment in history.
Placed in historical context, general education appears to us to be
an education reaffirmation of the social bond that joins all people.
(p. 58)
Content. Scholars have debated the content of the general education
curriculum for several decades, and as yet, no definitive answer exists.
Many European universities have instituted national common learning
curricula as has Japan (25). In the United States, however, individual
institutions are given latitude to arrive at their own general education
curricula. The general education curricula at institutions around the
country differ in format and content. The wide variety of approaches to
general education can be seen in the work of Toombs, et. al. (36) who
surveyed the general education requirements at over 700 colleges.
Many discussions and movements regarding the reform of general education
have occurred over the past 20 years. National trends include: liberal
arts and sciences subject matter; fundamental skills; higher standards
and increased requirements; increased structure of curriculum organization;
freshman year/community learning experience; senior year experience,
including a capstone experience; global studies; cultural diversity;
integration of education through all four years; and assessment (20). Many
institutions pick and choose from the trends that are of particular
interest to them at the time, based on the pedagogical, political, and
economic concerns of the moment (31), as well as the classification of the
institution.
Literacy. What should college graduates know? Knowledge, skills,
personal qualities, and additional controversial issues (20) are all
considerations underlying the questions regarding what college graduates
should know. Hirsch (24) suggests a common core of knowledge known as
"cultural literacy." Bennett (6) suggests a comprehensive approach that
includes an understanding of Western civilization; prominent English,
American and European literary works; the history of philosophy; foreign
language; a non-Western culture; and the history of science and technology.
Bloom (7) suggests a Great Books approach, wherein students read classical
texts so that each shares a common educational experience. Several
institutions have adopted the Great Books approach (13).
Boyer and Levine (12) differ in their beliefs of what should be included
in a common core. They advocate studying the use of symbols, membership
in groups and institutions, activities of production and consumption,
relationships with nature, sense of time, and values and beliefs. Cheny (15)
proposes that of the approximate 120 required semester hours constituting
a college education, 50 of those should be spent in general education.
Beyond Cheney's "50 Hours," there have been numerous other attempts at
defining a core curriculum (30; 14; 22). Approaches vary amongst
institutions. Multidisciplinary approaches to the core are increasingly
common. Frequently, new general education curricula emphasize the
multicultural nature of modern society.
Skills. Both in and out of academe there has been agreement that
students need to develop skills such as writing and oral communication,
logical and critical thinking, computer utilization, mathematical analysis,
and formal reasoning (20). Many recent curriculum changes have emphasized
the development of these skills. Proponents of a skill-based curriculum
argue that no content can cover all that students need to know to
function well in society. The university needs to train the mind to sharpen
questions, identify basic assumptions, think through complex topics, find
evidence pertaining to relevant issues, assess alternative interpretations
and claims, and make reasonable decisions (20). This focus highlights
lifelong learning.
A trend gaining popularity is the distribution of skills across the
entire curriculum, such as the writing across the curriculum program at
UH. At other universities the across the curriculum practice includes
communication skills (21; 26), critical thinking (5), computer utilization
(18), and mathematics (39;41).
Structure. Members of the AAC Project on Redefining the Meaning and
Purpose of Baccalaureate Degrees asserted that "general education starts
with diversity but aims at coherence" (4, p. 12). Possible ways colleges
and universities could achieve coherence include the following: (a) core
courses or a modified core taken by all students (i.e., first-year seminar,
followed by course(s) in the humanities or sciences); (b) senior capstone
seminars or projects in which students integrate their general education
learning through study of universally significant topics; (c)
interdisciplinary courses that emphasize the connections among two or
more disciplines or even "draw out the bond-like connections among subject
matters to create intellectual substance of a different order" (23, p. 371);
(d) one-credit general education seminars in which students would enroll
each semester (40); and (e) one major focus that permeates all course work
(e.g., San Jose State University's Cultural Pluralism requirement for all
courses).
Improving teaching and enhancing evaluation. The purpose of teaching
and the primary purpose of a college education, Cross (16) has reminded us,
is "to involve students actively in their own learning and to elicit
from them their best learning performance" (p. 20). This purpose may be
achieved in any number of ways: through writing; debates; collaborative
activities; even lively, well-planned lectures. A reexamination of the
liberal arts curriculum demonstrates that it has the power to improve teaching
since "it is the one part of the curriculum where creative planning can
still take place" (12, p. 50).
An institution can be assessed in terms of its students, faculty, and
programs (4). Students should be evaluated relative to the nature of
their preparation, their progress through the program, and finally "the
difference the curriculum has made in the capacity of students to function
as effective human beings" (4, pp.33-34). Evaluation of faculty generally
involves student rating scales with characteristics such as concern for
students, knowledge of subject matter, and stimulation of interest (16).
Finally, in order to assess programs, Yarbrough (41) emphasized: "First,
the institution must commit the financial and human resources to conduct
a good evaluation and act on it to improve the program" (p. 231).
A review of university systems approaches to general education. Although
many institutions of higher education can agree on the goals of general
education, they have countless methods for meeting those goals. This
diversity is also reflected in the diversity of methods used by university
systems in approaching general education.
Some systems have approached the issues of system-wide general education
requirements with a highly structured system of required courses. The
courses themselves may be structured to the point that every instructor
teaching a required course is required to teach using the same text books and
other instructional materials, the same syllabus and the same exams.
Other systems have agreed upon a core of general education courses that
are acceptable and students are allowed to choose from amongst the offerings
on all campuses with all general education courses transferable within the
system.
The mobility of today's college students has made transfer of credits
among institutions an increasingly important issue in higher education (32).
Credit transfer is of particular concern at the University of Hawai'i at
Manoa where, of 1200 transfer students, 67% transfer general education
courses taken at one of the system's community colleges. Approximately
40% of the students transferring to Manoa take more than half of their
general education courses at community colleges (17). It is wise, therefore,
to consider how other higher education systems have addressed issues of
general education and credit transfers among units in the system.
According to Florida's General Education Compact, students in the Florida
system may apply as many as 36 credit hours in general education, from any
campus in the system, to baccalaureate degrees pursued within the system
(19). In the New Jersey public state colleges system, general education
courses may be transferred amongst all campuses in the public state college
system (27). In California, it is the individual community colleges that
determine and select the courses that are to be accepted by the system's
baccalaureate-granting institutions (28).
The City University of New York (CUNY) has also attempted to address the
issue of credit transfer by implementing the following policies: (1) Students
with CUNY associate of arts and associate of science degrees are guaranteed
a place within the system's senior colleges (8); (2) Students with associate
in applied science degrees cannot be required to take more than 72 credits at
a senior college (9); and (3) Students may transfer all liberal arts and
science courses throughout the system (10). However, Bowles (11) reported that
these policies, have been applied unevenly.
Going beyond the transfer of existing courses, Minnesota began with the
question: "What should a liberally educated person in our time know and
be able to do?" Based on faculty input from throughout the system, each
of Minnesota's community colleges redesigned its general education curriculum
to address this question. The newly-developed transfer curricula now
satisfy the general education requirement at any public university in
Minnesota (37).
Several writers, including Boyer and Gaff (12; 20), found that the
institutionalization of general education requirements depends substantially
on the employment of faculty development programs that focus on generating
energy born of a common commitment to a common goal. Gaff's (20) summation
states that:
Faculty development is not simply something "nice" to do. The evidence
indicated that it is a very important strategy for strengthening
general education by changing a curriculum, by,improving the nature of
teaching and learning within course, and by keeping the focus on the
people at the heart of the enterprise--students and faculty members.
(p. 120)
According to Boyer and Gaff (12; 20), implementation of a course of action
relative to system-wide general education will be greatly enhanced if faculty
are involved in the implementation from development of a general education
core to the delivery of the courses to be included in it.
In summary, a preponderance of the literature reviewed indicated a level
of agreement regarding the purpose and generally desired outcomes of a
general education curriculum. Implementation of the curriculum on a given
campus or among units of a system of campuses must, due to diverse needs, be
left to individual units. It is faculty, however, who must sustain the core
and its mission and vitality on a day-to-day basis.
REFERENCES
1. A Strategy for Academic Quality: 1985-95. University of Hawai`i,
July 1984.
2. Association of American Colleges. (1994). Strong Foundations: 12
Principles for effective general education programs. Washington, DC.
3. Association of American Colleges. (1988). A new vitality in general
education: Planning, teaching, and supporting effective liberal
learning. Washington, DC.
4. Association of American Colleges. (1985). Integrity in the college
curriculum: Project on redefining the meaning and purpose of
baccalaureate degrees. Washington, D. C.
5. Bennet, J.R., & Hodges, K. (1986). Reading and thinking through
writing in general education. Journal of Teaching Writing, 5, 159-174.
6. Bennet, W. J. (1984). To reclaim a legacy. Washington, D.C.: National
Endowment for the Humanities.
7. Bloom, A. (1987). Closing of the American mind. New York: Simon and
Schuster.
8. Board of Trustees, City University of New York. (1972). Policy on
transfer of CUNY Associate in Arts (A.A.) and Associate in Science
(A.S.) graduates. New York: Board of Trustees, City University of
New York.
9. Board of Trustees, City University of New York. (1973). Policy on CUNY
Associate in Applied Science (A.A.S.) graduates. New York: Board
of Trustees, City University of New York.
10. Board of Trustees, City University of New York. (1985). Policy on
transfer of Liberal Arts and Science courses. New York: Board of
Trustees, City University of New York.
11. Bowles, D. (1988). Transferability in the liberal arts and sciences.
In C. Prager (Ed.), Enhancing articulation and transfer. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass, pp. 27-38.
12. Boyer, E. I. & Levine, A. (1982). A quest for common learning.
Washington, D. C.: The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of
Teaching.
13. Butterworth, C. E. (1992). Understanding and preserving traditional
learning. College Teaching, 40, 102-105.
14. Carfagna, R. (1993). A core curriculum designed for women. Journal of
General Education, 42, 270-279.
15. Cheney, L. V. (1989). 50 Hours: A core curriculum for college students.
Washington, D. C.: National Endowment for the Humanities.
16. Cross, K.P. (1991). College teaching; What do we know about it?
Innovative Higher Education, 16, 7-25.
17. Dungy, G. (1995). The community in higher education. Liberal Education,
81(4), 48-53.
18. Ferren, A. S. (1993). General education reform and the computer
revolution. Journal of General Education, 42, 164-177.
19. Florida Department of Education. (1971). Florida articulation agreement
of 1971. Tallahassee: Florida Department of Education.
20. Gaff, J. G. (1991). New life for the college curriculum: Assessing
achievements and furthering progress in the reform of general education.
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
21. Ganshow, L. (1980). Integrating basic reading, writing, and study skills
in the content areas. Journal of Developmental & Remedial Education, 3,
24-26.
22. Gaudiani, C. L. (1994). For a new world, a new curriculum. Educational
Record, 75, 20-29.
23. Grant, G. & Reisman, D. (1978). The perpetual dream: Reform and
experiment in the American college. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press, 1978.
24. Hirsch, E. D. (1987). Cultural literacy. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin.
25. Kimball, B. A. (1981). Japanese liberal education: A case study in its
national context. Teachers College Record, 83, 245-261.
26. Morrison, B. H. (1992). Ideas in practice: Bringing the curriculum into
the developmental writing class. Journal of Developmental Education, 16,
26-29.
27. New Jersey Board of Higher Education. (1981). Statewide plan for higher
education. Trenton: New Jersey Board of Higher Education.
28. Office of the Chancellor, California State Colleges and Universities.
(1973). Executive order 167 on transfer of credit. Los Angeles:
Office of the Chancellor, California State Colleges and Universities.
29. Perry, W. (1970). Forms of intellectual and ethical development in the
college years. New York: Holt, Rhineholt and Winston.
30. Reedy, J. (1992). A Hirschean approach to the content of core. College
Teaching, 40, 29-32.
31. Roemer, R. E. (1983). Obstacles to achieving a core curriculum.
Journal of Thought, 18, 38-44.
32. Schneider, C.G. (1994). Challenge & response: Integrity and AAC&U's
reform initiatives, 1985-1994. Liberal Education, 80(3), 4-13.
33. Spear, K. (1989). Sources of strain in liberal education. Review of
Higher Education, 12(4), 389-401.
34. Stark, J. S. & Lattuca, L. R. (1993). Diversity among disciplines: The
same goals for all? New Directions for Higher Education, 84, 71-86.
35. Thomas, R. (1962). The search for a common learning: General education:
1800-1970. New York: McGraw-Hill.
36. Toombs, W., Amey, M. J. & Chen, A. (1991). General education: An
analysis of contemporary practice. Journal of General Education, 40,
102-118.
37. Wangen, N.R. (1995). The Minnesota model for general education. In G.
Higginbottom and R.M. Romano (Eds.), Curriculum Models for General
Education, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, pp. 53-66.
38. Weaver, F. S. (1982). Introductory statistics and general education.
Journal of General Education, 32, 287-294.
39. Weaver, F.S. (1991). Liberal education: Critical essays on professions,
pedagogy, and structure. New York: Teachers College Press.
40. Wolfe, C. R. (1993). Quantitative reasoning across a college curriculum.
College Teaching, 41, 3-9.
41. Yarbrough, D.B. (1992). Some lessons to be learned from a decade of
general education outcomes assessment with the ACT COMP measures.
Innovative Higher Education, 16 (3), 223-234.
Return to General Education Homepage