gottleib - case study 1: core curriculum

Running head: CORE CURRICULUM IN HIGHER EDUCATION

Case Study #1: Core Curriculum in Higher Education

Nicole Gottleib

Loyola University Chicago

1

CORE CURRICULUM IN HIGHER EDUCATION

In this paper, I review the core curriculum of five institutions that are all universities I

would be interested in working at in the future, with the exception of one, which is my

undergraduate institution. I begin by summarizing each institution’s core curriculum and

describing the requirements and why the institution has deemed them necessary. Following this

descriptive analysis, I then compare and contrast the five different core curricula and identify

themes and similarities among them, as well as identify any unique qualities. Throughout this

comparative analysis, I also highlight how the overall use of core curriculum is supported and

challenged in literature.

Description of Each Institution’s Core Curriculum

The first institution I reviewed is Northwestern University. Northwestern University is

unique among the five institutions because it requires that students enroll directly into a specific

college at the university, and each college sets its own requirements. Therefore, I chose to look

at the Weinberg College of Arts and Sciences (WCAS), as this is the most general of the colleges

– for example, other options are the McCormick School of Engineering and Applied Science, the

Medill School of Journalism, and the Bienen School of Music. WCAS requires that students

take “two (one-quarter) courses in each of the six broad areas of intellectual inquiry”

(“Northwestern University Weinberg College of Arts and Sciences Distribution Requirements,”

n.d.). These six areas are as follows: natural sciences; formal studies, which includes

mathematics, statistics, and linguistics courses, and primarily emphasizes the concept of

inference; social and behavioral sciences; historical studies; ethics and values, which includes

philosophy and religious studies courses (alongside others from various disciplines); and

literature and fine art. WCAS requires all students to take these “distribution requirements” in

order to “become familiar with a broad range of problems and methodologies for approaching

2


them” (“Northwestern University Weinberg College of Arts and Sciences Distribution

Requirements,” n.d.).

The second institution I reviewed is DePaul University. DePaul has a very detailed and

involved Liberal Studies Program that is required of all undergraduate students at the institution

and contains two components (“DePaul University Core Curriculum,” 2014). The first

component is the Common Core, which consists of specific requirements that must be met within

each year of a four-year undergraduate program. The First-Year Program is the most in-depth

and requires students to complete the following: Chicago Quarter, which introduces students to

both the Chicago setting of the institution and the Vincentian nature of the institution; Focal

Point Seminar, which “employs a multi-disciplinary approach to investigate a significant person,

place, event, text, or idea” (“DePaul University Focal Point Seminar,” 2014); Quantitative

Reasoning and Technological Literacy, which are two courses that aid students in using the

Microsoft Suite or similar programs, and to develop quantitative skills; and First Year Writing.

The remaining elements of the Common Core are the Seminar on Multiculturalism in the United

States, the Junior Year Experiential Learning course, and the Senior Year Capstone course.

In addition to the Common Core, DePaul students are also required to complete courses

within six distinct learning domains: arts and literature; philosophical inquiry; religious

dimensions; scientific inquiry; self, society, and the modern world; and understanding the past.

The Common Core and Learning Domains make up the full Liberal Studies Program at DePaul,

which “shares these four learning goals: 1) Knowledge of Human Cultures and the Physical and

Natural World, 2) Intellectual and Creative Skills, 3) Personal Responsibility and Social

Transformation, and 4) Integrative Learning” (“DePaul University Core Curriculum,” 2014).

3


The third institution I reviewed is Northeastern Illinois University. Northeastern Illinois

University (NEIU) has a very straightforward General Education Program, which requires

students to complete a minimum of 39 credit hours within five areas: four courses in

behavioral/social sciences, three courses in natural sciences, three courses in humanities, two

courses in fine arts, and one course in math/quantitative reasoning. NEIU requires the General

Education Program in order to assist students in gaining “general knowledge to enrich their lives

and enhance their academic experience” (“Northeastern Illinois University General Education

Program,” 2012).

The fourth institution I reviewed is the University of Chicago. The University of

Chicago requires all undergraduate students to complete “The Core”, which introduces students

to “the tools of inquiry used in every discipline – science, mathematics, humanities, and social

sciences,” and typically takes about a third of a student’s time at the institution (“The University

of Chicago College Admissions: The Core,” 2015). The Core includes six quarters of

coursework in humanities, civilization studies, and the arts; six quarters of coursework in natural

and mathematical sciences; three quarters of social sciences; and a language requirement.

According to the University of Chicago website, students typically spend most of their first year

working on completing the Core requirements prior to beginning their major coursework, but

that is not the mandatory process (“The University of Chicago College Admissions: The Core,”

2015).

Finally, the fifth institution I chose to review is my undergraduate institution, the

University of Wisconsin-Madison. The University of Wisconsin-Madison (UW-Madison) has

set General Education Requirements that every undergraduate is required to complete. These

general education requirements establish “a foundation for living a productive life, being a

4


citizen of the world, appreciating aesthetic values, and engaging in lifelong learning in a

continually changing world” (“University of Wisconsin-Madison General Education

Requirements,” 2014). The requirements include four areas: the breadth, which consists of 13-

15 credits of coursework over three areas – four to six credits of natural science (including a

laboratory component), six credits of humanities/literature/arts, and 3 credits of social studies;

three to six credits of communication; three credits of ethnic studies, and three to six credits of

quantitative reasoning. Schools and colleges at UW-Madison may also have additional

requirements that go beyond these basic institutional ones, or may require students to fulfill the

general education requirements in a particular order.

Comparison of Core Curriculum

In reviewing each institution’s core curriculum, a few similarities as well as a few

differences pop out. These similarities and differences are not simply related to the topics

included within each institution, but the way they address and explain their concept of core

curriculum and the reasons and goals for requiring such courses. A few of the themes found

while analyzing these institution’s programs include the depth of explanation included on the

institution’s websites and what that implies about the programs, the common areas of study at

each institution and why those similarities exist, and the concept of learning how to learn.

One of the easiest things to notice when comparing and contrasting each institution’s core

curriculum is the level of detail used to describe each program. The explanations ranged from

very detailed, as seen with DePaul University, to fairly simple, as seen with NEIU. I found that

in this small sampling, the level of explanation correlated with the institution’s implied view on

the importance of the core curriculum in their undergraduate programs. Not only that, but more

detail and description also implied that the institution values the education students receive

5


through core curriculum beyond just viewing it as a common practice and/or way to make sure

students are all on the same level within the first year or two of their undergraduate program.

My personal experience with following UW-Madison’s general education requirements was that

I needed to count credits and keep track of which courses counted for which requirement as I

went along through my program. Even if I was gaining new knowledge from those courses, I did

not connect them all together as beneficial for my holistic education – and UW-Madison had one

of the least description explanations out of the five institutions. This lack of understanding

behind why I was, for example, required to take a lab science on astronomy during my theatre

program did not allow me to view such a course as beneficial and instead created a sense of

dread because it was simply a requirement I had to get through. Additionally, the information

gained in the class is almost entirely lost 10 years later.

This lack of connection to a student’s overall education goals, which I interpret to be

implied in core curriculum programs that are briefly described on institutional websites, relates

to the topics addressed in the book How People Learn (Bransford, Brown, & Cocking, 1999). In

their book, they discuss how “knowledge of a large set of disconnected facts is not sufficient”

and such kinds of education do not lead to competence in the area being studied (Bransford,

Brown, & Cocking, 1999, p. 16). Therefore, core curriculum that is briefly addressed and

explained to students, yet required, is not going to achieve full knowledge and competence,

which should be the goal of all education.

However, in direct contrast to UW-Madison’s and NEIU’s core curriculum, DePaul

University stands out as an example of in-depth core curriculum, spread out across a student’s

time at the institution, well-defined and explained, and connected to their entire education,

including their specific major. Additionally, DePaul outlines how the Common Core aspect of

6


their Liberal Studies Program includes experiential learning in various forms, which has been

highlighted by Fink (2013) as a way for students to engage in more active learning and to have

more experience in using the information they are learning. Additonally, Brandford, Brown, and

Cocking (1999) address the concept of transferring information learned within school to the

student’s “everyday environment” as the “ultimate purpose of school-based learning” (p. 78).

DePaul is addressing both of these concepts in the way they outline their core curriculum on their

website and the fact they have tied their core curriculum so completely to a student’s education,

no matter the program in which they choose to major.

Another theme I was able to find while analyzing all five institutions’ core curriculum are

the areas of study addressed. Each institution’s curriculum cover a very similar breadth of

topics, including some sort of science (likely both natural sciences as well as social sciences),

math or reasoning courses, arts or humanities courses, and writing or communication. This

overlapping of topics – though often only in general concepts, as students seem to have a

plethora of course options to choose from that meet the requirements – provides students with a

common knowledge base across almost all institutions of higher education. Nilson (2010)

addresses this concept when discussing the transition higher education experienced moving out

of the 1980s and 1990s, where the goal changed from weeding out “the best and the brightest”

from the rest of society and instead became a focus on educating as many people as possible (p.

15). Due to the fact that students are entering higher education from all different backgrounds

and knowledge-bases, a standard core curriculum across many institutions allows students to

graduate with a similar and more broad concept of education. This is knowledge that is

supposed to aid them in being better “citizen[s] of the world” (“University of Wisconsin-

Madison General Education Requirements,” 2014), to “enrich their lives” (“Northeastern Illinois

7


University General Education Program,” 2012), to “encourages students to converse across

cultures and disciplines” (“The University of Chicago College Admissions: The Core,” 2015),

and to acquire “the breadth of interests and intellectual flexibility that are hallmarks of a well-

educated person” (“Northwestern University Weinberg College of Arts and Sciences Distribution

Requirements,” n.d.).

Related to this concept of core topics covered at each institution is the concept of learning

how to learn. Many of the subjects included in each institution’s core curriculum are topics that

aid students in learning what they need to know in order to be successful in college. DePaul

again stands out in its dedication to first-year programming within its Common Core, which

includes within the Chicago Quarter a session called the Common Hour, that addresses “issues of

transition for first-year students and introduce[s] them to the keys to college success” (“DePaul

University Chicago Quarter,” 2014). However, other institutions include requirements that

address foundational topics that need to be learned in order to continue further into a college

education, such as the ability to write papers at a college level, the ability to use technology that

is often required for coursework, and the ability to gather and analyze data and make inferences.

I find that these all relate the idea of learning how to learn, which Fink (2013) outlines as a

significant learning experience, where students determine how to be better students, how to

“create and assess different kinds of knowledge claims,” and how to become a more intentional

learner (p. 41). This concept of learning how to learn is what Fink states as one area that is

“desirable for college courses and curricula” (2013, p. 41), and the inclusion of courses that

focus on this concept highlight this very importance within higher education.

Overall, the inclusion of core curriculum in institutions of higher education indicates a

focus on the holistic education of students and the desire to provide students with significant

8


learning experiences. After all, Fink outlines that significant learning enhances students’ lives,

their social interactions, their ability to be thoughtful and informed citizens, and prepare them for

the working world (2013, p. 8) – which each of the five institutions essentially highlighted as

goals and purposes of including core curriculum in their undergraduate programs. However, the

question that remains – as I can only base this analysis on what is listed on institutional websites

and not what occurs within each classroom – is, are the course offerings included within an

institution’s core curriculum actually achieving those goals? Are the students “connecting what

they learn in [their] courses with their ‘life file’ rather than just with their ‘course file’” (Fink,

2013, p. 7), and are students taught in ways that fit how they best learn rather than how they

simply memorize (Nilson, 2010)? I would like to see more DePaul University-like examples in

the future in order to feel confident that core curriculum is actually meeting the goals outlined by

each institution, rather than just adding yet another set of courses that aid in students graduating

“with less academic motivation and openness to diversity than when they started (Fink, 2013, p.

3).

9


References

Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (Eds.) (1999). How people learn: Brain, mind,

experience, and school. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

DePaul University Chicago Quarter. (2014). Retrieved from http://academics.depaul.edu/liberal-

studies/first-year-program/Pages/chicago-quarter.aspx

DePaul University Core Curriculum. (2014). Retrieved from

http://www.depaul.edu/academics/undergraduate/Pages/core-curriculum.aspx

DePaul University Focal Point Seminar. (2014). Retrieved from

http://academics.depaul.edu/liberal-studies/first-year-program/Pages/focal-point-

seminar.aspx

Fink, D. L. (2013). Creating significant learning experiences: An integrated approach to

designing college courses. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Nilson, L. B. (2010). Understanding your students and how they learn. In Teaching at its best: A

research-based resource for college instructors (p. 3-15). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-

Bass.

Northeastern Illinois University General Education Program. (2012). Retrieved from

http://gamut.neiu.edu/Academics/College%20of%20Arts_Sciences/General

%20Education%20Program/General_Education_Program.html

Northwestern University Weinberg College of Arts and Sciences Distribution Requirements.

(n.d.). Retrieved from

http://www.weinberg.northwestern.edu/handbook/degree/distribution-requirements/

The University of Chicago College Admissions: The Core. (2015). Retrieved from

https://collegeadmissions.uchicago.edu/academics/core

10


University of Wisconsin-Madison General Education Requirements. (2014). Retrieved from

http://www.ls.wisc.edu/gened/

11

gottleib - case study 1: core curriculum

Documents