Jan 14, 2016 - While reform of the general education curriculumâwhether ... to their future careers, and that study confirms students' perennial complaint.
6WXGHQW3HUFHSWLRQVRI*HQHUDO(GXFDWLRQ5HTXLUHPHQWV DWD/DUJH3XEOLF8QLYHUVLW\ 1R6XUSULVHV" &ODULVVD$7KRPSVRQ0LFKHOH(RGLFH3KXRF7UDQ
The Journal of General Education, Volume 64, Number 4, 2015, pp. 278-293 (Article) 3XEOLVKHGE\3HQQ6WDWH8QLYHUVLW\3UHVV DOI: 10.1353/jge.2015.0025
For additional information about this article http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/jge/summary/v064/64.4.thompson.html
Access provided by Kent State University (14 Jan 2016 13:57 GMT)
S t u d e n t P e rc e p t i o n s o f G e n e r a l E d u c at i o n R e qu i r e m e n t s at a L a rg e P u b l i c U n i v e r s i t y
No Surprises?
Clarissa A. Thompson, Michele Eodice, and Phuoc Tran
a bstract
The current study surveyed students’ knowledge of and perceptions about general education requirements at a large research-intensive university. Findings revealed that students harbored misconceptions about general education requirements and illuminated the reasons why students were choosing to take required general education courses at other institutions of higher education. Implications for better informing students about the relevance of courses and opportunities to “rebrand” general education messages for twenty-first-century students are discussed. k ey wo rds : general education, student perceptions, curriculum, requirements, courses General education course requirements might remain one of the most ubiquitous commonplaces across postsecondary institutions. The original impulse for the development of a general education curriculum has changed little in its articulation as a “paradigm developed to encompass intellectual development (liberal learning); ‘curricular unity’ via specialized, discipline-based inquiry (disciplinarity); and training for participation in the broader culture” ( Adler-Kassner, 2014, p. 438). In fact, like our large public university, most institutions still offer the “broad distribution” model of general education curriculum and still The Journal of General Education: A Curricular Commons of the Humanities and Sciences, Vol. 64, No. 4, 2015 Copyright © 2015 The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, Pa.
struggle to reform or assess this curriculum (Johnston et al., 1991). Those of us involved in designing or teaching general education curricula continue to hope that the requirements will “speak” to undergraduate students as they begin to consider the value of a liberal education next to pragmatic choices for career preparation. While reform of the general education curriculum—whether shrinking it, expanding it, or restructuring it—is likely always happening somewhere, there are few instantiations of seeking student input to inform these efforts. Twenty-five years ago students were identified as “the most neglected audience among the various participants in general education” (Reardon, Lenz, Sampson, Johnston, & Kramer, 1990, p. 5), and little seems to have changed in that regard. A 1991 study that did collect student perceptions noted that few researchers solicit student input, because higher education institutions prefer to focus on the “supply side” of general education (what the institutions and faculty determine to be valuable about liberal learning) and fail to give attention to the “‘demand side’—the understandings, concerns, and attitudes students bring to the courses” (Johnston et al., 1991, p. 181). One study (King & Kotrlik, 1995) surveyed juniors and seniors on the relevance of general education requirements to their future careers, and that study confirms students’ perennial complaint that there are too many required courses and these courses are “unnecessary or not related to their interests or major” (Vander Schee, 2011, p. 382; see also Gump, 2007; Montana State University, 1999). These and other similar student standpoints expose what D. Kent Johnson (n.d.) calls the “Completion Agenda”—a view of higher education itself as something to be “got through” in the most efficient manner possible. To take the economics metaphor even further, it seems that twenty-first-century students are compelled to work the numbers for a cost/benefit analysis of the ways their baccalaureate will pay off. However, faculty perceptions, faculty ownership (their sense of responsibility for designing and delivering general education), and faculty committee work on general education have been studied, reinforcing the notion that the “supply side” receives more attention than the “demand side” (Astin, 1993; Beld & Booth, 2010; Paulson, 2012). One survey of faculty across seven different institutions asked what their intuitions could do to “stimulate greater attention to general education” and found the following suggestion: “articulate clearly to campuses and within broader state communities the purpose and value of general education . . . explain its importance to the general population while faculty [continue] working on the day-to-day implementation of general education programs” (Paulson, 2012, pp. 26–27). Clearly, faculty believe in the value of general education to the point that the curriculum still resides with them, yet their call
No Surprises? 279
to “articulate clearly . . . the purpose and value of general education” does not include students as a constituent audience. But one study found a consequence of faculty being the most involved agents in the design and d elivery of general education: “When [faculty] are appointed to the general education committee, our natural instinct is to battle on behalf of our particular field or discipline or specialized knowledge for a piece of the action” (Astin, 1993, p. 10). This competitive squabbling detracts from reaching the most overarching goal of g eneral education: to provide representative areas of inquiry across the intellectual spectrum, in a balanced manner, to enrich students’ experience of composing their adulthood. Twombly (1992) echoes this in her description of the general education reform process as more about the nature of knowledge than about the learning outcomes of classroom life: it treats students as an abstraction. In other words, the contested view of general education curricula remains focused on disciplinary/departmental domination (Newton, 2000). The stories of reform of general education curricula across the country are legion; but few stories include any student voices sharing what they believe about general education or what they gain from general education. Reardon and colleagues remarked in 1990 that there were few studies drawing on student perceptions of general education curricula (e.g., Boyer, 1987; Gaff & Davis, 1981; Moffatt, 1989). One particular study queried students on their experiences in general education courses mainly to see whether student input could augment other methods of assessing general education, not necessarily to understand more about the student experience with general education requirements (Feldman, 1994). A more recent study commissioned by the Association of American Colleges and Universities (Humphreys & Davenport, 2005) asked students to rank the most and least important outcomes of a college experience. The least valued were those associated with general education goals: expanded knowledge of cultures outside the United States, expanded knowledge of American history and culture, expanded understanding of science and its relation to other fields. It would seem that a deliberate plan for a general education experience is not resonating with the very students it was planned to impact. At our public Research I flagship institution, fully one-third of students’ course work is in general education (forty hours). There is a provost-sponsored general education committee of faculty members that vets course proposals for new general education offerings, but even with that limited charge, the faculty remain involved in trying to maintain the quality of the courses. One goal of this general education committee is to respond to the growing interest
280 Thompson, Eodice, and Tran
on the part of our president to improve the undergraduate academic experience through teaching initiatives and his “challenge to faculty to consider a new paradigm for general education” (Higher Learning Commission, 2012, p. 7). To that end, a team of faculty was selected to attend the Association of American Colleges and Universities 2013 General Education Assessment Institute and learn from that immersion. The team then contributed recommendations to the provost, and several have been acted on, including surveying students to gain insight into their perceptions of general education (this study) and better informing students through intentional branding on a new Web site for general education. In an era of increased concern with recruitment, retention, and tuition costs, general education programs have been scrutinized and assessed or even eliminated in order to meet market demand: students and parents want efficient time to degree. In our case, we recognized that students “vote with their feet,” in that many were choosing to take some general education courses at the local community college. We hoped that taking a snapshot of their current views and understandings of general education offerings would give us the data we needed to develop an approach to broadcast and highlight the benefits of taking general education courses at our university. The administration and faculty are interested in supporting course revisions that improve the delivery of many large general education courses. Our findings from the data, combined with the current institutional disposition and the new Web site, will, we hope, allow our general education courses (lowerlevel/large sections especially) to become a signature contribution to the undergraduate experience at our university. We also anticipate that our findings will be relevant to other institutions of higher education where students likewise share similar viewpoints about the value of their general education curriculum. The current study was designed to elicit student perceptions of general education at our institution and to help us learn from students what their beliefs about these requirements meant in terms of their attitude toward taking those courses. More recently, we became concerned that students did not know basic facts about the requirements, which could impact the quality of their experience and time to degree; we learned that students did not necessarily want to take these courses at our institution, thereby negatively impacting enrollment management and the potential benefit of aligning their overall course work plan. Would there be any surprises when we listened to what students had to say about the general education curriculum? Rather than guess at trends, we sought to learn from students whether misconceptions and negative attitudes about general education existed.
No Surprises? 281
Method Participants In an effort to understand students’ knowledge about and perceptions of the general education (GE) curriculum at the University of Oklahoma (OU), students in the Psychology Department subject pool completed an Institutional Review Board–approved online survey about GE as part of a larger prescreening survey used by the department’s graduate students and faculty members to identify participants who meet the requirements for their laboratory studies. This subject pool is primarily composed of Introductory Psychology students, who complete experiments as part of a research exposure course requirement. Approximately 1,100 students enroll in the introductory course each semester; 925 students (~84 percent) completed at least some of the GE questions that appeared on the prescreening survey. Over 75 percent of the respondents were first-year students; 65 percent were female; 70 percent were white; 94 percent were born in the United States; 89 percent reported that they had already selected a major.
Survey The entire prescreening battery of questions could be answered in about an hour (M = 56:34, SD = 22:15). Students had the option to decline to answer any question on the survey. The survey was administered at the beginning of the fall 2013 semester. Demographic information (i.e., self-reported date of birth, gender, race, ethnicity, U.S. citizenship, year in school, SAT/ACT/GPA) was collected. The average age of respondents was 19.97 years (SD = 1.56, n = 919), their average ACT score was 26.14 (SD = 3.7, n = 766), and their average SAT score was 1,796 (SD = 284, n = 112). The majority of the questions were quantitative; there were two qualitative questions: (1) “If you plan to take General Education courses at a college or university other than OU, what is your reason for doing so?” and (2) “How would you describe the General Education curriculum requirements at OU to a friend who is not familiar with our university?” See the appendix for a complete list of survey questions. We created a neutral, positive, and negative coding scheme for these two open-ended, qualitative questions. For those who indicated that they were planning to take general education courses at another institution, the reasons they gave for doing so were coded as neutral (e.g., pragmatic, close proximity to home), positive (e.g., easier, cheaper, smaller classes, receive more attention from instructor), or negative (e.g., the home university courses are not important to their degree plan, the courses are seen as “weed-out” courses). The coding
282 Thompson, Eodice, and Tran
scheme for the question that asked students to describe OU’s GE curriculum to a friend was similar. There was a neutral code (e.g., required or prerequisite), a positive code (e.g., well-rounded student; prepares for major, career, or life), and a negative code (e.g., waste of time, money, and effort). Two undergraduate research assistants, naive to the purpose of the survey, coded responses from the two main open-ended questions individually and then compared their codes to establish interrater reliability. Discrepancies in coding were resolved through discussion. Raters corresponded on 95 percent of their initial codes for the question concerning why the student would choose to take a general education course elsewhere and on 88 percent of their initial codes for the question concerning how the student would describe the general education curriculum to a friend.
Results Students’ Knowledge of General Education Requirements Only a quarter of students (24.7 percent) answered correctly that forty credit hours were required to satisfy the University of Oklahoma general education requirement. A third of students (33.8 percent) chose not to answer the question, and almost half (41.5 percent) answered incorrectly. Table 1 presents the distribution of responses to “How many hours of General Education are required by the Oklahoma State Regents for Higher Education?” Only a quarter (23.4 percent) of students correctly answered that the general education curriculum at OU contained five core areas. Another quarter (26.3 percent) incorrectly answered that there were four core areas, and a third of students (33.2 percent) did not provide a response. Table 2 presents the distribution
table 1 Distribution of Responses on General Education Hours. Hours
% Responses
# of Responses
10
6.8
63
20
11.1
102
30
15.8
146
40
24.7
228
50
2.5
23
60 No response
5.2
48
33.8
312
No Surprises? 283
of responses to “The General Education curriculum at OU encompasses how many core areas?” A large proportion (46.4 percent) of students correctly answered four true/ false statements regarding general education at OU (e.g., “All students must take the same General Education courses”). A slightly smaller proportion (40.2 percent) of students correctly answered three of the four true/false statements. Table 3 presents the distribution of scores out of 4 for the true/false statements (see the appendix for all statements).
Students’ Perception of GE For the distribution of responses on students’ perception of general education see Table 4. Students generally appreciated the positive value of GE. Half of students agreed or strongly agreed (44.7 percent and 5.1 percent) with the statement “General Education course instructors challenge students to think about how General Education courses are relevant to students’ majors and/or future careers.” Over two-thirds of students agreed or strongly agreed (58.9 percent table 2 Distribution of Responses on Ceneral Education Core Areas. Core Areas
% Responses
# of Responses
1
0.2
2
0.3
3
3
4.6
42
4
26.3
243
5
23.4
216
6
6.6
61
7 No response
2
5.2
48
33.2
306
table 3 Distribution of Scores for True/False Statements. Total Score
% Students
# of Students
1
2.3
21
2
3
28
3
40.2
371
4
46.4
428
8
74
No response
284 Thompson, Eodice, and Tran
table 4 Distribution of Responses on Perceptions of General Education. Statement
Strongly Disagree
Disagree
General Education course instructors challenge students to think about how General Education courses are relevant to students’ majors and/or future careers.
3% (28) 15% (135) 29% (263) 45% (413)
The main purpose of General Education courses is to help students become more well-rounded individuals and responsible citizens.
2% (16)
General Education courses have helped me or will help me choose a major.
9% (78) 32% (296) 29% (271) 26% (238)
7% (64)
Neither Disagree nor Agree
Agree
Strongly Agree 5% (47)
19% (175) 59% (544) 11% (102)
2% (14)
If General Education 2% (20) 22% (200) 23% (215) 37% (340) 13% (122) courses were not required by OU, I would probably not enroll in these courses. I would prefer to take additional courses related to my major instead of taking an equivalent number of General Education courses.
1% (9)
General Education courses are easier than courses required for my major.
2% (14) 15% (141) 41% (378) 32% (299)
7% (63)
At least one academic 11% (98) 27% (253) 25% (233) 29% (267) adviser or instructor has clearly explained the General Education curriculum requirements to me.
5% (48)
6% (52)
20% (180) 50% (461) 22% (200)
Note: Percentages may not add up to 100% due to nonresponse.
No Surprises? 285
and 11.1 percent) with the statement “The main purpose of General Education courses is to help students become more well-rounded individuals and responsible citizens.” Students expressed ambivalence (32 percent disagreed, 29 percent were neutral, and 26 percent agreed) regarding the statement “General Education courses have helped me or will help me choose a major.” This ambivalence may have stemmed from the fact that the majority of students (89 percent) stated they had already chosen a major. In contrast, students did not particularly value general education and indicated a preference for taking additional courses in their major. Half of students agreed or strongly agreed (36.8 percent and 13.2 percent) with the statement “If General Education courses were not required by OU, I would probably not enroll in these courses.” Over two-thirds agreed or strongly agreed (49.9 percent and 21.7 percent) with the statement “I would prefer to take additional courses related to my major instead of taking an equivalent number of General Education courses.” About a third (30.6 percent) of students planned to take GE courses at institutions other than OU. Less than half of students agreed or strongly agreed (32.4 percent and 6.8 percent) with the statement “General Education courses are easier than courses required for my major”; however, they were just as likely to feel neutral (41 percent) regarding the statement. Although a large portion (39 percent) of students felt that GE courses were easier, a majority (72 percent) still preferred to take additional major courses rather than GE courses. Last, only a third of students agreed or strongly agreed (28.9 percent and 5.2 percent) with the statement “At least one academic adviser or instructor has clearly explained the General Education curriculum requirements to me.” This may suggest a relation between the two-thirds of students who incorrectly answered or chose not to respond to the general knowledge questions pertaining to the general education curriculum at OU.
Students’ Qualitatively Coded Responses Regarding GE Just over 30 percent of students stated that they planned to take a GE course at another university. All students were asked to provide an open-ended reason or reasons for this decision and to indicate N/A if they did not plan to take any of their general education courses elsewhere (56 percent of responses; 17 percent declined to answer). Students’ responses were qualitatively coded, and multiple codes were allowed for any given student’s response. Of the 243 total coded responses that mentioned a positive, neutral, or negative reason for taking a course elsewhere, 59 percent of students mentioned a positive (for them) reason
286 Thompson, Eodice, and Tran
(e.g., “It will save me time and money while allowing me to advance to my major courses more quickly”); 34 percent mentioned a neutral, more pragmatic reason (e.g., “I want to take classes over the summer closer to home to get some credits out of the way”); and 7 percent mentioned a negative reason (e.g., “Why would I pay more for General Education when these classes aren’t my focus, and I can get the credits cheaper/out of the way/easier classes somewhere else?”). All students were asked to describe the general education curriculum requirements at OU to a friend who was not familiar with the university. Of the 578 total coded responses, 50 percent of the qualitative responses were coded as neutral (e.g., “They are essentially the ‘basics’”), 20 percent were coded as negative (e.g., “They are a waste of time, it’s like repeating high school”), and 30 percent were coded as positive (e.g., “They aid you in choosing a major and help you see what you are really interested in!”). Some students reported that they did not have enough information about the GE curriculum to describe it adequately to a friend (2 percent of coded responses).
Conceptual Model of Correlations We conducted multiple correlations to gain a conceptual understanding of the data. The following statements were analyzed for their correlations with the selected variables: At least one adviser or instructor has clearly explained the GE requirements (AdvExp), GE helps students become more well-rounded and responsible citizens (Purpose), and GE instructors challenge students to think about relevancy to careers/major (InstChal). The selected variables were Knowledge (composite of correct responses on the GE statements, hours requirement, and core areas covered), GE courses help/will help me decide my major (HelpChoose), GE courses are easier than courses required for my major (Easier), Prefer additional major courses to GE courses (PrefMajor), and Would not take GE courses if not required (NotReq). To control for extraneous variables influencing the missing data, cases were deleted list-wise for missing values for each variable that composed the Knowledge factor (GE statements, hours, core areas). We controlled for family-wise error using the Bonferroni criterion of 0.003 (0.05/15). The correlation matrix is presented in Table 5, and Figure 1 depicts the associations among the variables. To explore the directionality of influence among our correlated variables, a standard multiple regression analysis was conducted to examine whether these variables predicted participants’ agreement with the statement “The main purpose of General Education courses is to help students become more
No Surprises? 287
table 5 Correlation Between Variables. Variable
InstChal
InstChal
—
Purpose
0.328**
—
AdvExp
0.215**
0.112**
Knowledge
–0.017
Purpose
0.032 0.131**
AdvExp
— 0.045
HelpChoose
0.295**
Easier
0.023
–0.090*
–0.006
0.063
PrefMajor
–0.040
–0.175**
–0.031
NotReq
–0.245**
–0.142**
–0.085*
Significant at p < .05.
*
Significant after Bonferroni criterion.
**
figure 1: Model of the significant associations and strengths of variables. well-rounded individuals and responsible citizens.” This analysis revealed that the variables in the model accounted for 14.6 percent of the variance (adjusted R 2 = 13.3 percent). The multiple R for the regression was significantly different from zero, F(7, 558) = 13.66, p < .0001, indicating that our set of predictors reliably accounted for Purpose. However, only three of the predictors—InstChal (β = 0.31, t[558] = 7.21, p
