Millersville University, Faculty Senate
General Education Curriculum
Program Review
May 1996
D. Curricular Currency
Outline of Curricular
Components
Throughout the United States, general education curricula in higher education
are being revised. In part, this revision is a reaction to the revisions of
the 1960s in which the relevance of courses was challenged. Those 1960s
curricula often were simply smorgasbords of courses. The new curricula are
more proscriptive. The Millersville University curriculum that existed
prior to 1986 was similar to many of these smorgasbord models. (Its detailed
requirements are presented in section III.) The current university president
recently commented that the only graduation requirement at Millersville
before he arrived was that each graduate be able to swim. This is only a
slight exaggeration. The revision of the general education curriculum became
the major goal of the university during the mid-1980s. A committee of the
faculty was formed and charged with devising the best curriculum they could
envision, without regard to cost or difficulties of implementation. There
then followed a three-year period of enacting the curriculum and implementing
its provisions. There are those who believe that the compromises required
for passage weakened the curriculum; others contend that the curriculum was
strengthened in the fires of campus politics as all groups on campus
contributed to the final curriculum. Implementation also yielded changes;
many of the original curricular requirements proved difficult to put into
practice. Other aspects--such as English composition at the freshman level
and two Perspectives courses for all students--have required time to
implement. There are some major changes. Millersville students are
required to complete composition and speech courses during their first year.
They are required to take an advanced writing course as well as four other
courses that have a significant writing component ("W"), implementing, in
part, the concept of writing across the curriculum. A larger proportion of
their courses must be at the 200-level or above, a reaction to the perception
that many graduates had been satisfying their general education requirement
s with 100-level courses almost entirely. Although distribution of courses
among three divisions of the school remain, students now must ensure that
four of their courses have a significant communications component ("C")
or a significant quantitative reasoning component ("Q"). Further, one
course must deal with learning methods of quantitative analytical
reasoning ("QARC"), not simply apply methods to course material. Finally,
two courses in each studentŐs general education curriculum ("P") must
integrate knowledge from more than one discipline.
It is somewhat difficult to ascertain whether this extensive revision is in
accord with general education curricula at other institutions throughout the
nation. Fortunately, a number of studies investigating the revised curricula
have been published, the most extensive being that by Jerry G. Gaff. [The
members of the committee became leery of relying too heavily on Dr.
Gaff's conclusions. They undertook a review of the general education
literature. Brief summaries of the works they consulted are presented in
Appendix E. The review indicated that the
committee was justified in its
initial faith. Dr. Gaff does indeed represent mainstream thought.] In his
book New Life for the College Curriculum Jerry G. Gaff (©1991, Jossey-Bass
Publishers, San Francisco) surveyed 226 colleges and universities which
either had completed significant general education curriculum changes or were
contemplating such changes. Each survey was completed by an administrative
official at the polled institution and hence represented an institutional
"self-study." There were thirteen features that were emphasized by the
survey, features that are characteristic of the current curricular reform
movement. Each of them follow, with a comment on how General Education at
Millersville University incorporates that feature.
Demand for and Reputation of Program
...|Program Mission
|Centrality to and Support of University
Mission
|National and Local Enrollment Trends
|Responsiveness to Change
|Effectiveness to Serving Minorities and Other
Special Populations
Return to Table of Contents
Return to Faculty Senate Home Page
Return to MU Home Page