The Application of Design-Based Curriculum Analysis to General Education

18 THE APPLICATION OF DESIGN-BASED CURRICULUM ANALYSIS TO GENERAL EDUCATION by William Toombs Center for the Study of Higher Education* The Pennsylvania State University This paper sets forth a rationale for curriculum analysis based on the concept of design as opposed to formal theory, presents a schema based on that rationale, and makes an exploratory application of that schema to some of the curricular introductions in the field of general education. The New Relevance of Curriculum After a decade or more of mild indifference the collegiate curriculum has reappeared as a priority topic in the literary lists of higher education. This revival comes after a period of eclipse by matters of management, plan­ ning, governance, and educational technology. The eclipse was only partial and a steady stream of works kept alive the traditional issues such as gene­ ral education (Bell, 1966; McGrath, 1976; Hook, 1975), the relevance of con­ tent, (Axelrod, 1969; Phenix, 1964; Kaysen, 1973; Ford, 1964), and the nature of student choice (Mayhew, 1969; Stern, 1970; Knoell, 1973). Recently, how­ ever, the Carnegie Council in its role as agenda-maker for higher education has moved to erase aly impression of neglect toward the curriculum that might have been generated by critics of the Commission studies. Three separate beams of scholarship have been focused on the curriculum under Carnegie auspices. Blackburn, et al. , (1976) audited and analyzed the structure of the college curriculum as it is revealed by patterns of credits, requirements, time distribution, and electives. The enumerative phase of this work updated one part of analysis presented by Dressel and DeLisle (1970) and sustained a tradition of several earlier summaries made in the disciplines (Tuttle, 1965; Lindquist, 1965; and Snow, 1907). In the complex environment of today the value of these monitoring studies and the normative interpretations developed from them can be accepted as proven. The second approach, an historical narrative of curricular change, elab­ orated by analyses of the societal forces influencing that change, has always been well received. Rudolph's (1977) new work joins a useful shelf of books and articles. Butts, 1939; Hofstadter, 1952; Veysey, 1965; Stone, 1974; and Grant and Riesman, 1975 have brought scholarly distinction to this approach. A third form is found in the descriptive essay or, more accurately, an anthology of essays. A collection of views from prominent spokesmen and spe­ cialized observers, though loosely connected, provides a state-of-the-art summary. It permits the inclusion of important issues as well as the neglect of quite a few others. Missions of the College Curriculum (1977) is the rep­ resentative Carnegie Council statement in this form. The excellent Winter 1974-75 editions of Daedalus and the conference papers prepared by Hook, et al., (1975), and Kaysen (1973) follow this pattern, which seems to have be­ come the chief way of dealing with the complexity of the curriculum in recent times. These studies signal that higher education has once again entered in­ to a comprehensive reconsideration of its most fundamental instrument— the college curriculum. *The assistance of Paul Farber and Judith Sanford with the analytical section of this paper is acknowledged. 19 The Trouble With Curriculum: Problems and Paradoxes Even with the new position of priority we cannot expect to instantly re­ capture the quality of the extensive debate that seemed to mark the dialogues on curriculum in the thirties and forties. Today there are substantive ob­ stacles to be recognized and dealt with before issues of importance can be joined. To begin with, faculty in postsecondary education must be persuaded to engage in serious discussion on matters of the curriculum. Since the cur­ riculum is a fundamental instrument of professional practice, coercion or circumvention of the faculty interests have almost no possibility of succeed­ ing. In this arena interactions are complex and have led to exhaustion of recent cohorts of faculty who have come to grips with the issue (Bayley, 1972) . There is no particular disagreement on a general definition of curricu­ lum: It is a set of learning experiences intentionally organized to sustain and encourage the process of learning toward certain expected outcomes. Acceptance of the concept is another matter. Curriculum is not a word that comes easily to...