Literature Review
2 The Historic Roots of General Education Literature Review Liberal Arts and its cornerstone role in forming core educational requirements or general education curriculum are considered by some to be the essential difference between collegiate-level education and other forms of postsecondary education, including vocation programs, trade/apprenticeship programs, and noncredit, continuing education. Humanities and the arts, social and behavioral sciences, physical and biological sciences, and mathematics form the foundation of communication, critical thinking, problem solving and other life skills that some believe are essential for representative government, improvement of the human condition, and social cohesion. The history of liberal education is steeped in European culture, history, and tradition, replete with classical and classist understanding of who should be educated and to what ends. The concept liberal education was traced to the writings of the Roman philosopher, Seneca, who wrote on the topic in AD 64. A member of Rome s elite ruling class, Seneca saw the benefits of a liberal education extending beyond the narrow Roman demographic who were to be its primary beneficiaries. Popular notions of education called the traditional style of education liberal because it was understood to be an education for well-brought-up young gentlemen, who were called the liberales, meaning the free born. Traditional education, he makes clear, produced people who were sometimes good at dealing with what they knew, but not very good at reflecting under their own steam about the difficult challenges created by new events. Nor were they very good at respecting the human worth of people who did not belong to their elite group. He makes it clear that excessive reverence for tradition frequently impedes the recognition of humanity (Nelson and Associates, p. xii).
Seneca s writings not only addressed early views and philosophy about who should be educated but also addressed the purposes that a liberal education should serve. Far from merely perpetuating the values of one s own culture, Seneca posited that an education is truly liberal if it liberates the student s mind, encouraging him or her to take charge of his or her own thinking, leading the Socratic examined life and becoming a reflective critic of traditional practices (Nelson and Associates, p. xiii). Historic patterns in general education also owe much to the philosophy and practices of the earliest colleges established in North America. The implementation of the core curriculum is as old as Harvard, the first college established in the new world. Under the traditional core system the faculty designates the general education courses in which the student must enroll. Over the years, by consensus, that has been subject to two limits: first, that the core courses would be relatively few in number, and second, that they would be general in scope. The result is a curriculum consisting of a small number of broad-based courses, like Great Works of Philosophy or Landmarks of Literature courses that embrace the central knowledge and skills areas that the faculty deems important (Latzer, B., 2004, p. B2). In response to an alumnus call for the inclusion of more practical courses in the curriculum at Yale, the faculty issued a report in 1828 that argued that the mental discipline that the student received while studying the classics best prepared him to think for himself about other problems that he would encounter. First exercise the mind and then furnish it, the professor wrote. Furnishing would most often come later, on the job or in a special training school like a seminary (Church, R. L., Sedlak, M. W., 1989, p. 136). The core curriculum model would endure until the 1960s during which time student demands for more choices and faculty desires to teach more specialty courses ushered in the distribution system as the predominant general education model. The typical distribution system requires the student to select a few courses in each of the following areas: physical and biological sciences, humanities, social 3
sciences, writing skills, mathematics skills, and multicultural studies. The student is free to choose his or her courses from lists for each area. The trend has been to expand those lists almost without limit as faculty member s press to have their favorite courses included and students seek greater and greater choice. The University of Michigan at Ann Arbor, for instance, lists more then 150 course options for the social-science distribution alone (Latzer, B., 2004, p.b2). Both of these major approaches to general education have supporters and critics. Proponents of the core curriculum argue that this approach is the only way to assure common learning and the passing on of key cultural references and understandings. Supporters of the distribution approach argue that no one curricular approach can possibly meet the changing contextual needs for general education from one generation to the next. While the language used to discuss and document today s general education curricula and practices has taken on an increasingly contemporary and pragmatic tone, some observers of higher education still view general education as an essential element of a college education. In its 2003 Statement on General Education, the Higher Learning Commission notes that throughout its history, the Commission has believed that quality undergraduate higher education involves breadth as well as depth of study. As understood by the Commission, general education is intended to impart common knowledge and intellectual concepts to students and to develop in them the skills and attitudes that an organization s faculty believe every educated person should possess. From an organization s general education, a student acquires a breadth of knowledge in the areas and proficiency in the skills that the organization identifies as hallmarks of being college educated. Moreover, effective general education helps students gain competence in the exercise of independent intellectual inquiry and also stimulates their examination and understanding of personal, social, and civic values (Higher Learning Commission, p. 3.4-3). The recency of this statement underscores the ongoing emphasis placed on the general education curriculum and its continued relevance in collegiate education. While general education requirements need periodical review and update to reflect changing 4
5 knowledge, contexts, and delivery systems, values and inquiry methods rooted in the liberal arts will likely continue to inform what is included in general education curricula for generations to come. Chronology of Late Twentieth Century General Education Practices Clark Kerr stated nearly twenty years ago, In the final analysis, the curriculum is nothing less than the statement a college makes about what, out of the totality of. constantly growing knowledge and experience, is considered useful, appropriate, or relevant to the lives of educated men and women at a certain point in time (Rudolph, 1977, p. ix). In the 1980s and early 1990s, the relevance of the American college curriculum came under increasing criticism (Carnegie Foundation, 1981; National Institute of Education, 1984; National Endowment for the Humanities, 1984; Bloom, 1987; Gaff, 1991). Considering that three important philosophical viewpoints had developed over the century, it is not surprising that higher education came under heavy criticism as it was required to serve these purposes: The vocational view that stressed job preparation; the scientific view that stressed research and the dissemination of new knowledge; and the view that stressed liberal learning and the importance of human development and development of the habits that lead to lifelong learning (Fuhrmann, 1996). Approximately 20 national reports calling for reform issued between 1984 and 1994 were generally critical of the undergraduate curriculum and had specific relevance to general education (Ratcliff, 2004, p. 98). The criticisms included: higher education has lost sight of its purpose to stimulate intellectual development; it was little more than a certification mill; it did not prepare students for the world of work; it was responsible for the moral and economic decline of the nation; it had failed to teach students competence in a global economy; it failed to address the needs of women and underserved minorities; it
6 cost too much; it did not require faculty to work effectively or efficiently; and the curriculum failed to help students integrate their learning (Fuhrmann, 1996). Calls for Reform Unfavorable reports of higher education and calls for reform included proposals for improvement in knowledge, skills, and experiences that could be included in undergraduate education. Various elements of the curriculum were identified for improving educational practice: common core requirements, collaborative learning and assessment of outcomes. An identifiable focus was to limit student selection of courses from a variety of disciplines to a more focused general education curriculum. This curriculum had more clearly defined and communicated goals and standards and was designed to develop abilities of students rather than just introduce students to a variety of disciplines. While change was not necessarily a result of strategic planning, program evaluation, or student assessments in the 80s, the critical reports did set the stage for the discourse on general education that occurred across campuses in the 1990s (Ratcliff, 2004). Some approaches to improving general education were tried, including service learning, reflective essays, learning communities, and capstone courses. Change today involves strategic planning, program evaluation, assessment, and continuous quality enhancement. These processes frame curricular reform and quicken the pace of change, making it an ongoing process. While the pace and intensity of planning and evaluation activities have accelerated greatly, their record in improving general education programs and the students in them is less clear (Ratcliff, 2004).
7 AACU Survey Results Historically, general education was considered the central part of American baccalaureate programs. As specialization grew, general education was the vehicle that ensured all students became acquainted with history, culture, sciences, math, critical thinking, communication, quantitative reasoning, and the integration of knowledge. In 2000, 279 of 521 institutions representing all Carnegie classifications, chief academic officers and managers of general education responded to a survey conducted for the Association of American Colleges and Universities (AACU) about the status of general education in their institutions (Ratcliff, Johnson, La Nasa, and Gaff, 2001). The respondents indicated that general education remained a high priority, and 57% of them indicated that the review of general education components was currently being conducted on their campuses. They identified that strengthening the core of the undergraduate curriculum continued and that most of the general education changes appeared to be mission driven (Johnson, Ratcliff, & Gant, 2004, p. 12). Respondents also acknowledged a shift in general education from the traditional content areas to an emphasis on themes and abilities in a largely incremental fashion. Diversity issues, information and computer technology, and collaborative work began to appear as general education components (Johnson, et. al., 2004) However, only 32% were assessing general education outcomes. Additionally, despite accrediting bodies, higher education associations, and the federal government, only 15% of the respondents that were implementing changes in curricula were also assessing the impact of those changes. They were, therefore, depriving themselves of the information needed to make changes progress smoothly, the assessment related to subject or skill area (Ratcliff, et. al., 2001). The survey results indicated a high
8 priority was given to natural sciences (87.8%), mathematics (82.3%), writing (91%), and critical thinking (72%) as components of the general education core. The survey results also addressed challenges that the respondents faced. Despite the high interest level in general education reform, there was little evidence that academic leaders had made significant advancement in the art and science of developing shared values. Although coherence has been a commonly stated aim of general education, it is difficult to achieve in practice (Johnson, et.al, 2004). The leaders reported a slippage in connecting the learning goals to curricula and courses and indicated that coherence remained an enticing but elusive goal. A coherent sequence of courses existed in only 38% of the cases. Distribution requirements, the most common form of general education, permit student choice, faculty autonomy, and ease of administration. It is difficult to make linkages across courses developed, taught, and studied separately. The assessment of complex learning goals remained an aspiration rather than a reality in some institutions. In short, the advancement of general education reform remained stymied by the organization and values of the academy itself: faculty autonomy, lack of the tradition of working collaboratively, and student and faculty preference for specialized study over the broad aims of liberal and general learning (Ratcliff, et.al, 2001). While the General Education (GE) 2000 and the Chief Academic Officer (CAO) 2000 surveys uncovered few reforms initiated from program reviews or assessments of student learning, it is clear from their reports that today s general education programs are subject to such reviews and incorporate student assessments (however incompletely) as well (Ratcliff, 2004).
9 The AACU surveys conducted in 2000 covered all Carnegie classifications of institutions. During approximately the same time, the League of Innovation in the Community College conducted its own research focusing on community colleges. This research began with a focus group of ten senior community college leaders reacting to a white paper prepared by Peter Ewell and Karen Paulson from the National Center for Higher Education Management Systems (Wilson, Miles, Baker, and Schoenberger, 2000). General Education Practices in Community Colleges February of 2000 saw the release of Learning Outcomes for the 21 st Century: Report of a Community College Study published by the League for Innovation in the Community College. The report provided an important resource for two-year colleges seeking to review and revise general education programs. The premise of this white paper, as explained by Ewell and Paulson, was that preparing students with the 21 st Century Skills that encompass levels of literacy, numeracy, and technical knowledge far above that possessed by the nation s workforce and citizenry will require collective cross-disciplinary approaches that call for remaking the basic building blocks of community college programs around assessed competencies rather than traditional coursework (Wilson, et.al., 2000). The authors argued that community colleges were more experienced in the use of competencies than their four-year counterparts, often embracing them widely within particular technical programs. However, they also noted the use of competencies had not generally affected a college s more academic offerings and called for embedding competency-based concepts more fully into every aspect of a community college s approach to learning (Wilson, et. al., 2000). The focus group participants agreed after extensive discussion that a national project that centered on identifying competencies and assessment strategies for 21 st
10 Century Skills would be the most effective way to leverage the greatest amount of change regarding the certification of student learning in community colleges. They identified the hard skills of literacy, numeracy, and information technology literacy, as well as the soft skills of teamwork, communication, problem solving, and the ability to work with diverse groups. They agreed that the acquisition of these skills was necessary for success in the workplace and further education (Wilson, et.al., 2000). The second step in the project was to achieve consensus among focus group members on what constituted 21 st Century Skills. The resulting list included skills in communication, computation, community, critical thinking and problem solving, information management, interpersonal, personal, and technology. A second outcome of the focus group was to underscore the potential implications that adopting a 21 st Century Skills approach to student learning might have on the role of community colleges. The role could change from delivery of learning to credentialing, assessing prior learning, and offering multiple learning options for students to obtain the desired skills. A survey was sent to 677 US and Canadian colleges to determine the extent of use of the 21 st Century Skills. Of the 259 respondents, 92% indicated that the issue was currently being addressed in their institutions, with the most commonly identified skills as communication (91%), critical thinking/problem solving (88%), technology literacy (86%), mathematics (79%), collaboration/teamwork (67%), information management (69%), and cultural/global studies/diversity (59%). Other results of the survey indicated that there were barriers to integrating the 21 st Century Skills on some campuses. The greatest barriers included inadequate time for needed activities (88%), lack of agreement on how to assess these skills (87%), lack of
11 assessment tools (81%), limited articulation with K-12 (78%) and 4-year colleges (76%), lack of useful models (71%), and limited integration use, and assessment of 21 st Century Skills into liberal arts/transfer programs (70%) (Wilson, et. al, 2000). General Education Practices in Selected Community Colleges Given the divergent views on the purposes, content, and delivery of general education, community colleges have approached this challenge in a variety of ways. Cascadia Community College had the opportunity to begin from scratch in 1999 in preparation of opening a new institution in 2000. The college was to be co-located with the University of Washington-Bothell, 13 miles from Seattle in an area with the greatest number of underserved students in the state. The general education program needed to meet regional accreditation standards and comply with the Washington State policy regarding transfer of credits. The college established the Curriculum and Learning Design Team (CLDT) in early 1999. The team of four newly hired faculty was charged with the development of the general education curriculum (Richart, 2004). The team recognized that some of the prospective students would not be fully prepared to undertake collegiate-level coursework. They found evidence at all educational levels (K-16) that underprepared and minority students continue to face enormous barriers, often being relegated to unchallenging and irrelevant remedial courses. Cascadia needed to create culturally responsive courses using pedagogy appropriate for the underprepared, enhancing their learning experience, and providing them with a breadth of understanding that was appropriately enabling (Richart, 2004).
12 The college also had to determine what it valued for all students to learn and know as educated persons. The college team researched the 1991 report by the US Department of Labor, Secretary s Commission on Achieving Necessary Skills (SCANS), that indicated the good jobs of the future will increasingly depend on people who can put knowledge to work (U. S. Department of Labor, 1991). The team decided that the necessary skills for Cascadia students manifested themselves in various disciplines as well as in general education. Thus, each major course of study had to include ways to strengthen student learning in basic skills. Another important skill identified by the team was that students needed to be able to synthesize information in a meaningful way. As a result of the research, identification of important skills, state articulation policy, accreditation standards, and college mission, the team identified the Common Core of Learning Outcomes. These included the ability to think critically, creatively and reflectively, to learn actively, to communicate with clarity and originality, and to interact in diverse and complex environments (Richart, 2004). The resulting curriculum development included several distinctive features. Teamwork was embedded in courses across the curriculum in foundation classes, academic classes, and technology classes. Some mathematics courses require students to register simultaneously in a core class to learn how math is used in daily life, the workplace, and other college subjects. The college used learning communities to link courses by themes, to help students synthesize knowledge across disciplines, and to integrate their studies with personal experience and intellectual growth. The next challenge facing Cascadia Community College was to develop ways to assess the integrated learning outcomes. The college organized interdisciplinary learning
13 outcome teams for each of the four defined outcomes. Every college employee and student joined one of the four teams. The teams focused on creating distinct measurable outcomes for each course and program. The college continues to struggle over how best to translate seat time requirements into outcomes language, searching for consistency between course outcomes, program outcomes, collegewide outcomes, and distribution area outcomes (Richart, 2004). The college committed to integrating learning into everything they do and as the president, Victoria Munoz Richart said At Cascadia, we will always continue to learn (Richart, 2004). Washtenaw Community College faced a different challenge to review general education in a long-established community college prompted by the Higher Learning Commission s new accreditation standards. This community college was founded in 1966 as a comprehensive community college with a special mission in career education. Until 1993, when the time came to review their general education degree requirements, there had been only two general education requirements, English and political science. The committee to review the general education program at Washtenaw Community College included 11 faculty and 5 administrators. They debated for two years the merits of traditional education models, as well as innovative proposals. The more traditional approaches were broadly rejected by the faculty. In particular, many faculty expressed dissatisfaction with the conventional approach of reducing the number of specific courses to make room for the expanded core. Most felt a better approach could be created (Altieri and Cygnar, 1997, p. 4). The search for a better approach was grounded in the belief that general education was more effective when taught in a cross-disciplinary fashion. A cross-disciplinary approach would have to work effectively with a diverse
14 curriculum and student body and also secure widespread faculty acceptance, but most importantly, faculty commitment to teach the common learnings across the full curriculum (Altieri and Cygnar, p. 4). The core curriculum created at Washtenaw consisted of 24 core elements that were clustered into four skills areas and four content (or knowledge) categories. The skills categories included communication, critical thinking, mathematics, and computer literacy. The content areas included art and humanities, natural science, technology, and social sciences. These were selected as necessary for success in the workplace and in future formal education. The core curriculum is delivered differently in that each course offered at the institution is identified as containing some of the core elements from the skill or content areas. Because the core curriculum focused on the specific skills and content that the associate degree graduate needs to demonstrate, rather than on exposure to a traditional set of course distribution requirements, the core elements were not limited to a discipline area. For example, a core element for mathematics skills may be included in a radiography course, a psychology course, or an electronics course as long as the course developers provide acceptable documentation that the students taking that course will be required to demonstrate proficiency in those mathematical skills (Altieri & Cygnar, p. 7). The college modified its semester grade reports to provide core assessment summaries for each student, regardless of his/her degree intentions. As with all major changes, there were ongoing challenges. Student access to core curriculum computer files at terminals across the campus needed to be implemented. The process of connecting the Washtenaw Community College core to curricula from other institutions needed to be improved. Clarifications and enhancements to the core
annotations needed to be made so that new and continuing faculty could develop a better understanding of what each element represented. Few curricular endeavors on a college campus are as challenging and rewarding as is the creation of new general education requirements. In one form or another, this type of activity touches everyone in a significant way. The central curricular essence of an institution is revealed by what it declares to be the core requirements for graduation (Altieri and Cygnar, p. 9). In navigating this major change in general education, the lessons learned were valuable. They included faculty and student involvement as central, a strong syllabi system, a fluid nature of the core, flexible system, and technology use. The cases of Cascadia and Washtenaw Community Colleges were distinctive because the survey results from GE2000 and CAO2000 indicated most curricular changes undertaken over the last decade were modifications rather than complete revisions of the courses of study (Johnson, et.al. 2004). Stakeholders In Cascadia Community College s development of a general education core, the state government set guidelines for transferability of the general education courses. Washtenaw Community College responded to new accreditation standards established by their regional accreditation agency in changing their general education core. All major stakeholders in higher education, including specialized accrediting agencies, the public, students, prospective employers, and educators are concerned about the general education core curriculum. While nearly two-thirds of institutions (63%) reported at least one external influence on general education reform, the sources varied across institutions and no single external factor was identified by a majority of institutions (Johnson, et. al., 2004). 15
16 Although state higher education governing/coordinating boards neither have opportunity nor propensity for leadership in matters of curriculum, some have taken notable steps in bringing general education in their states in line with contemporary thinking (Shoenberg, 2003). It is interesting to note that only 12% of the GE2000 and CAO2000 respondents indicated that their state governing/controlling boards influenced their general education reform. However, the current motivations behind the practice of state-level specification of general education intentions reflect the convergence of contemporary trends. The growth of the transfer phenomenon has led to concerns about the ease and dependability of credit transfer. The K-16 movement has increased the pressure, both political and practical, to coordinate high school outcomes and college expectations. Colleges and universities are being pushed by legislative bodies, accrediting associations, and other higher education organizations to assess student learning outcomes. Even the purposes of the baccalaureate degree have come under scrutiny. However, 54% of those responding to the 2000 surveys indicated that the impetus for change came from within their institutions. The three major reasons cited most often were that the general education program was fragmented with little coherence, required changes by faculty or students, or was an outdated program (Johnson, et. al., 2004). The former justification for distribution requirements as acquaintance with a variety of fields has come to seem threadbare (Shoenberg, 2003, p.14). Contemporary thinking emphasizes the development of such general education skills as critical thinking, communication, and problem solving throughout the curriculum. The purpose of each course in forwarding these skills becomes necessary to consider. Higher education governing/coordinating boards are seen as the only guarantor of the integrity and
17 coherence of a degree where some students are simply collecting individual courses from several institutions until they can graduate. This is particularly true with the advent of distance learning (Shoenberg, p. 15). Work remains to be done when state articulation agreements focused on comparability of course content, not on comparability of course purpose. The Role of Assessment The role assessment has played in the review and subsequent reform of general education requirements is somewhat contradictory. A central question in many general education reforms is whether the focus should be on the improvement process itself or a set of desired outcomes (Ratcliff, 2004, p. 109). As reported in the GE2000 and CAO 2000 surveys, few reforms were initiated from program reviews or assessments of student learning (Ratcliff, p. 100). Despite the efforts of accrediting bodies, higher education associations, and the federal government, only 15% of those implementing curricular changes were also assessing student academic achievement (Ratcliff, et. al., 2001). Some of the changes (in general education) were deliberate actions but less tightly tied to formal program review, assessment of student learning, and budgetary processes. Ferren (2003, p. 8) argued that the collaborative intellectual processes that generate an idea-effective curriculum are not always the same as those that produce sustainable, cost-effective change. Community colleges are responding to allegations made by legislators, policymakers, employers, and educators that community colleges cannot readily demonstrate the specific learning achievements of students. There is some consensus that the reform efforts called for in the 80s and 90s have failed, and that this failure is largely
18 because those efforts were centered on processes rather than outcomes (Wilson, et.al. 2000, p. 7). Some community colleges have shifted their attention to outcomes and have committed to placing learning first in every policy, practice, and program in the institution (Wilson, p. 7). However, in the results of the survey on 21 st Century Outcomes targeting community colleges, it was noted that only 43% of the respondents have agreed on methods of assessing student achievement of the 21 st Century Skills. More than half of the colleges are still in the discussion and planning stages for assessment methodology. Interestingly, more than half (55%) reported that faculty are assessing student achievement, even though only 43% reported having standard assessment methods in place. The findings indicated that although colleges are actively engaged in helping students achieve 21 st Century Skills, a significant number of them did not have formal institutional processes in place for curriculum development, instruction, and assessment of these same skills. Current calls for accountability in K-12 and higher education make it critical that any review of general education also include consideration of how student learning is to be measured. Even the most elegantly stated list of learning outcomes will prove to be of little use if these outcomes do not lend themselves to measurement. Although many talented educators and theorists have made significant contributions to current practice in establishing curriculum standards and assessment programs, the framework established by Bloom in the Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: Handbook I: Cognitive Domain continues to serve as a time-honored starting point in the development of educational objectives.
19 The elegance of Bloom s Taxonomy lies in its clear construction of educational learning objectives using verbs and nouns. The verb generally describes the intended cognitive process. The noun generally describes the knowledge students are expected to acquire or construct (Anderson et. al., 2001, pp. 4 & 5). Bloom s model provided six categories of cognitive processes across which learning takes place. These six categories exist along a continuum from very simple and rudimentary processes at one end to more complex and sophisticated cognitive processes at the other end. Bloom s model also suggested an ordering of cognitive processes from concrete thinking to more abstract thought processes. Bloom s cognitive processes are presented and briefly described in TABLE 1.
20 TABLE 1 BLOOM S TAXONOMY OF COGNITIVE PROCESSES Process Knowledge Comprehension Application Description Knowledge, as defined here, involves the recall of specifics and universals, the recall of methods and processes, or the recall of a pattern, structure, or setting. For measurement purposes, the recall situation involves little more than bringing to mind the appropriate material. Although some alteration of the material may be required, this is a relatively minor part of the task. The knowledge objectives emphasize most the psychological processes of remembering. The process of relation is also involved in that a knowledge test situation requires the organization and reorganization of a problem such that it will furnish the appropriate signals and cues for the information and knowledge the individual possesses. To use an analogy, if one thinks of the mind as a file, the problem in a knowledge test situation is that of finding in the problem or task the appropriate signals, cues, and clues which will most effectively bring out whatever knowledge is filed or stored. This represents the lowest level of understanding. It refers to a type of understanding or apprehension such that the individual knows what is being communicated and can make use of the material or idea being communicated without necessarily relating it to other material or seeing its fullest implications. The use of abstractions in particular and concrete situations. The abstractions may be in the form of general ideas, rules of procedures, or generalized methods. The abstractions may also be technical principles, ideas, and theories which must be remembered and applied. Application to the phenomena discussed in one paper of the scientific terms or concepts used in other papers. The ability to predict the probable effect of a change in a factor on a biological situation previously at equilibrium. Analysis Synthesis The breakdown of a communication into its constituent elements or parts such that the relative hierarchy of ideas is made clear and/or the relations between the ideas expressed are made explicit. Such analyses are intended to clarify the communication, to indicate how the communication is organized, and the way in which it manages to convey its effects, as well as its basis and arrangement. The putting together of elements and parts so as to form a whole. This involves the process of working with pieces, parts, elements, etc., and arranging and combining them in such a way as to constitute a pattern or structure not clearly there before. Evaluation Judgments about the value of material and methods for given purposes. Quantitative and qualitative judgments about the extent to which material and methods satisfy criteria. Use of a standard of appraisal. The criteria may be those determined by the student or those which are given to him. (Adapted from Anderson, et. al., 2001, pp. 271-277)
21 Following this framework, and the verb/noun pattern for writing objectives, learning objectives are developed with a view toward the information or skill to be learned as well as the depth of learning required of the student. Bloom s work has guided generations of educators in the development of outcomes that have been carefully written to measure the appropriate depth of student learning from knowledge through evaluation. His work was extended in a revision of his educational objectives by Anderson, et.al, in 2001. The Anderson revision sought to provide greater detail in using this model in curriculum design, instruction, and assessment of learning. A basic understanding of Bloom s Taxonomy continues to provide a useful starting point for curriculum design and assessment. This may be true in general education curriculum where some of student learning may not lend itself to straightforward demonstration of objective skills. Summary Careful and informed review and revision of general education is as much an art and science as many of the disciplines that typically comprise a general education curriculum. Historically, the general education curriculum has been as much about the body of knowledge and cultural understandings that all college graduates should be exposed to, as it has been about how this knowledge and understanding should be used. While there has been debate around the issue of the subjects and disciplines that are included in a general education curriculum, it remains the hope of some in higher education that well-designed general education programs will produce citizens who are good at reflecting under their own steam about the difficult challenges created by new events (Nelson and Associates, p. xii). It is to this hope that the members of this task force dedicate this report.
22 REFERENCES Altieri, G., & Cygnar, P.M. (1997, Fall). A new model for general education associate s degree programs: Developing and teaching a core. Community college review, 25 (2) pp. 3-20. Anderson, L. W., & Krathwohl, D.R. (Eds.). (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of bloom s taxonomy of educational objectives. New York: Longman. Bennett, W.J. (1984). To reclaim a legacy. National Endowment for the Humanities. Bloom, A. (1987). The closing of the American mind: How higher education has failed democracy and impoverished the souls of today s students. New York: Simon & Schuster. Bloom, B.S. (Ed.), Engelhart, M.D., Furst, E. J., Hill, W.H. & Krathwohl, D.R. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: Handbook I: cognitive domain. New York: David McKay Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. (1981). Common learning. Washington, D.C.: Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. Church, R.L. & Sedlock, M.W. (1997). The antebellum college and academy. In L. F. Goodchild and H. S. Wechsler (Eds.) The history of higher education, Second Edition (pp. 131-199). Boston: Simon and Schuster Custom Publishing. Ferren, A.S. (2003, Summer). The dollars and sense behind general education. Reform. Peer Review, 5 (4) pp. 8-11.
23 Fuhrmann, B.S. (1996). Philosophies and Aims. In J.G. Gaff & J.L. Ratcliff (Eds.). Handbook of the undergraduate curriculum. (pp. 86-99). San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass Publishers. Gaff, J.G. (1991). New life for the college Curriculum: Assessing achievement and furthering progress in the reform of general education. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Higher Learning Commission (2003). Handbook of Accreditation, Third Edition. Johnson, D.K., Ratcliff, J.L., & Gaff, J.G. (2004, Spring). A decade of change in general education. New Directions for Higher Education, 125. Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Latzer, B. (October 8, 2004). Common knowledge: the purpose of general education. The Chronicle of Higher Education, p. B20 National Institute of Education. (1984). Involvement in learning: Realizing the potential of American higher education. Report of the Study Group on the Conditions of Excellence in American Higher Education. Washington, D.C.: US Government Printing Office. Nelson, M. and Associates. (2000). Alive at the core: Exemplary approaches to general education in the humanities. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Paulson, K., & Ewell, P. (1999). 21 st century skills for community college education: The critical role of competencies. Paper prepared for the League for Innovation in the Community College, Mission Viejo, CA. Ratcliff, J.L. (2004, Spring). Re-envisioning the change process in general education. New Directions for Higher Education, 125. Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
24 Ratcliff, J.L., Johnson, D.K, La Nasa, S.M., & Gaff, J.G. (2001). The status of general education in the year 2000: Summary of a national survey. Washington, D.C.: Association of American Colleges and Universities. Richart, V.M. (2004, Spring). Cascadia Community College: Finding the Cascadia Way. New Directions for Higher Education, 125. Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Rudolph, F. (1977). Curriculum: A history of the American undergraduate course of study since 1636. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Shoenberg, R. (2003, Summer). Tell me why: The states leadership role in general education reform. Peer Review, 5. (4) pp. 12-15. U.S. Department of Labor. Secretary s Commission on Achieving Necessary Skills. (1991). What work requires of schools: A SCANS report for America 2000. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office. Wilson, C.D., Miles, C. L., Baker, R.L., & Schoenberger, R.L. (2000). Learning outcomes for the 21 st century: Report of a community college study. Mission Viejo, CA: League for Innovation in the Community College.