Blueprint for the future. (Featured Topic).

HOW CAN PUBLIC COMPREHENSIVE UNIVERSITIES reinvigorate the notion of liberal education? While it is true that institutions of higher education in the United States have made the goals of liberal education a standard part of the undergraduate degree, we have observed that these goals are seldom realized by the time students are awarded their diplomas. To move beyond this state of "dreams yet unfulfilled," we suggest that public comprehensive colleges and universities transcend the structural constraints of the distribution-breadth model of general education to adopt a more integrative mode of education that provides coherence between the major area of study and general education.

The integrative model has traditionally been ascribed to the mission of liberal arts colleges--and seen as largely incompatible with the scale and diversity of public comprehensives. We disagree. We do not argue that public comprehensives jettison their professional and technical programs. Rather, we advance the notion that the task of educating the whole person for lifelong intellectual pursuit and responsible citizenship in a multicultural society must be incorporated into the major as well as the general education program. In other words, the ideals of liberal education must be university-wide goals for which all members of the faculty are responsible.

Looking back: limitations of a distribution-breadth model

In its simplest form, the distribution-breadth model of general education was designed to provide a wide range of skills and knowledge by having students fulfill requirements within major fields of study, such as art, humanities, social sciences, and natural sciences. This model was a viable alternative to the core curriculum model that required all students to enroll in common courses-an approach viewed as too narrowly focused to adequately address the educational needs of students entering technical and professional disciplines, such as business administration, engineering, and health sciences.

The growth of the distribution-breadth model can also be seen as a logical extension of the professionalization of the academy. Its design shares an affinity with a notion from scientific disciplines that the complex can best be comprehended by first reducing it to its smallest units of knowledge; once these components are understood, then comprehensible fragments can be reaggregated--resulting in a better understanding of the whole. While this model may have contributed to our knowledge about the physical environment, it has been less effective for comprehending the complexity of human endeavor.

The deficiency of applying this model to liberal education lies not in its fragmentation but in the failure to rejoin the disparate pieces of knowledge into a comprehensive understanding of the whole. It is not necessarily a flaw of the model, but in the incompleteness of its execution--in practice, students are seldom provided the opportunity to utilize all their learning in order to make sense of the whole.

The goal of educating the whole person was further eroded by emotional and intellectual distance between those who taught the liberal arts and those who taught the applied disciplines. To the undergraduate, for example, there often seems to be no connection between the two. The courses were usually taught in different parts of the campus, and professors had little knowledge of their colleagues' subject matter. Students regularly conveyed the expressions of disdain with which their professors in the applied fields would refer to mandated course work in general education. One's major field of study was given more importance, an area of study that required focused attention in order to master. This was contrasted with general education in which students were expected to be introduced to the wide breadth of human knowledge and to develop some appreciation for it.

Because this curriculum was designed to be introductory, the depth of learning was expected to be shallow. Critics of the distribution-breadth model of general education were quick to point out that the curriculum provided little intellectual engagement or challenge. In fact, many students and their professors regarded general education requirements as an unwelcome diversion from the more important pursuit of the major.

Looking forward: the search for a meaningful definition

Compounding the problem of meaningful liberal education are the demographic characteristics of students attending today's public comprehensive colleges and universities. When compared with "traditional" college students, these students tend to be older, racially and ethnically more diverse, commuter rather than residential, part-time rather than full-time, and they are much more likely to be the first in their families to attend college. Because the majority of these students carve out time to attend college from other compelling areas of their lives, such as jobs and families, college is not always their singular, or even their primary, focus. Rather than viewing college as a developmental life experience, a rite of passage into the company of the educated, these students are more prone to view college in discrete segments of required course work that will, upon completion, offer enhanced career opportunities and a better way of life.

For such students, dividing degree requirements into two separate components would seem to facilitate their educational ambitions. Whether this curricular design achieved the goals of producing educated graduates prepared for good citizenship in a complex world was a question many educators assumed could be answered affirmatively because of the required curriculum in general education. However, when some educators, among them representatives of regional accrediting bodies, began to ask for evidence of this assertion, few institutions could provide substantiating documentation. It was this question--mote than any other factor--which led faculty to examine whether their graduates were indeed educated individuals.

Other developments contributed to this institutional examination. Public demand for accountability, the development of information technology, and the conceptual shift from teaching to learning have propelled holistic assessment of the effectiveness of student learning and renewed faculty engagement regarding the shape, content, and pedagogy of undergraduate education. Much of this reform effort holds great promise for addressing the learning needs of the current generation of students.

A significant development is the emphasis on how students are involved in the learning process: active learning, collaborative and cooperative learning, service learning, interdisciplinary problem-based learning. In general education, the discussion on pedagogy has resulted in a shift in emphasis from the content or "domains of knowledge" to intellectual skills that enable critical use of these bodies of knowledge: analytical thinking, communication, problem solving, and value judgment.

This emphasis on "thinking skills" is making general education more pertinent to students whose competing priorities interfere with learning that is not tangibly linked to their daily reality of "getting ahead" in the job market. The focus on intellectual skills is reinforced by institutions recasting general education requirements in terms of "learning outcomes" and in explicit statements about how these objectives will be measured. This practice has grounded the abstract distribution-breadth model requirements in skill sets that are part of an intellectual foundation that students can apply in multiple life situations.

While not all of the learning outcomes in the distribution area may have immediate application in students' majors, the carryover of thinking skills is significant. More institutions are involving faculty from the professional programs in designing and teaching general education. This collaboration results in greater interdisciplinarity of the curricular content and, simultaneously, gains the confidence of faculty in the professional programs that students are intellectually prepared for course work in their majors. Because professional program faculty members are familiar with the learning-outcomes goals of general education, they are better able to incorporate these objectives into the major course work.

Liberal Education in the California State University 

An institution whose faculty has been active in transforming how and what their students learn to ensure competency in liberal learning is the nation's largest public university, the California State University. In a 1997 study conducted by its Statewide Academic Senate, "Review of the Baccalaureate in the California State University," the authors make a case for facilitating the integration of general education and the major by clearly defining expected learning outcomes and developing more meaningful assessment of both areas of study. The Senate suggests that a common capstone experience would ensure completion of that integration.

The Academic Senate document delineates four major purposes of the baccalaureate. Students completing this course of study should possess advanced skills and understandings necessary for lifelong intellectual endeavor, in becoming a productive member of society, and to participate in democratic decision-making processes and global civil society. Moreover, their graduates should be learned in values and ethics for using their knowledge and skills in ways that contribute positively to their communities.

These goals are consistent with the traditional view of liberal learning stated in the voice of application, the voice of students whom this institution serves. As Martha Nussbaum in Cultivating Humanity (1997, 8) reminds us, "Our campuses are producing citizens, and this means that we must ask what a good citizen of the present day should be and should know." We would add that, as the CSU study demonstrates, we must also know who our students are and how they might best learn the lessons of liberal education.

A case study: liberal education at California State University, Monterey Bay 

In order to assess the impact of the report upon the future of liberal education in the California State University, it is important to note that the university is composed of twenty-three separate campuses, including two polytechnics and a maritime academy. Since each campus has a high degree of autonomy and independence, as evidenced by individual systems of governance, one should expect tremendous variation across campuses. The paper was authored by representatives from all campuses who were also participants in numerous other discussions about how campuses could be assured that their graduates would be adequately prepared for enlightened participation in a changing society.

Of particular interest is the model for baccalaureate education offered by one of the newest campuses in the CSU System, California State University, Monterey Bay (CSUMB). The notion of integrating the goals of liberal education into students' majors was taken seriously. From the beginning, the faculty specified university-wide learning goals. These are outcomes that all students are expected to demonstrate. Examples include: cross-culturally competent citizenship in a pluralistic and global society; creative expression in the service of transforming culture; holistic and creative sense of self; technological, aural, and visual literacy; effective and ethical communication; scientific sophistication and value for the earth and earth systems; ethics, social justice, and care for one another. Undergirding these overall goals are more specific learning outcomes that students are required to demonstrate. These learning outcomes include community participation, ethics, science, vibrancy, culture, and equity. Becau se of its commitment to outcomes-based education, students are permitted to demonstrate competency in a number of ways that facilitate interdisciplinary learning. The CSUMB Capstone experience ensures that students and faculty alike maintain focus on the overall learning goals of the university. The Capstone provides the forum for students to demonstrate the competencies of a "liberally educated" individual.

Promise for the future

We believe that the CSU, Monterey Bay design of the baccalaureate holds much promise for the future of liberal education in public comprehensive universities. It addresses the separation between general education and the major in a structural manner by making all members of the faculty responsible for university-wide learning goals. It joins students and faculty in a mutually collective effort to demonstrate that these goals have been achieved before the degree is conferred.

This case study highlights the key role of leadership in educational reform. The CSU Statewide Academic Senate performed a valuable service by educating their colleagues about the need to reemphasize the centrality of liberal education at a time when its utility was being seriously questioned. The Senate engaged its colleagues in exploring ways they could improve the process of teaching and learning. While we do not anticipate many campuses taking the holistic approach of CSUMB, we are encouraged by their example.

RAYMOND LOU is vice chancellor for academic affairs at the University of Washington, Bothell. KAREN L MENDONCA is vice president for student affairs, California State University, Monterey Bay