Information to Users

INFORMATION TO USERS

This manuscript has been reproduced from the microfilm master. UMI films the text directly from the original or copy submitted. Thus, some thesis and dissertation copies are in typewriter face, while others may be from any type of computer printer.

The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations and photographs, print bleedthrough, substandard margins, and improper alignment can adversely afreet reproduction.

In the unlikely event that the author did not send UMI a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion.

Oversize materials (e.g., maps, drawings, charts) are reproduced by sectioning the original, beginning at the upper left-hand comer and continuing from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps. Each original is also photographed in one exposure and is included in reduced form at the back of the book.

Photographs included in the original manuscript have been reproduced xerographically in this copy. Higher quality 6" x 9" black and white photographic prints are available for any photographs or illustrations appearing in this copy for an additional charge. Contact UMI directly to order.

University Microfilms international A Beil & Howell information Company 300 North Zeeb Road. Ann Arbor. Ml 48106-1346 USA 313/761-4700 800/521-0600 CURRICULUM WORK AS IDENTITY AND DIRECTION:

LESSONS AND INSIGHTS FROM HOOD COLLEGE

DISSERTATION

Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the

Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School

of The Ohio State University

Lisa Layne Koogle, B.A., M.A.

* * * * *

The Ohio State University

1995

Dissertation Committee: Approved

Mary Ann D. Sagaria Vdvisor/ Mary S. Leach Department of Educational Policy and Leadership Laurel W. Richardson College of Education UMI Number: 9526047

This microform edition is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.

UMI 300 North Zeeb Road Ann Arbor, MI 48103 Copyright by Lisa Layne Koogle 1995 Memory of Evelyn Lloyd Webber ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I extend great appreciation and affection to Dr. Mary Ann Sagaria who has served faithfully and well as my advisor, mentor, and friend. To Drs. Mary Leach and Laurel

Richardson, who provided essential guidance and encouragement in my research and writing, I also offer heartfelt gratitude.

My sincere thanks goes to the women and men at Hood College whose participation made this study possible. In particular, I thank President Martha Church and former

Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs Barbara Hetrick who granted permission to use Hood as the site for the study and provided access to documents and publications.

The greatest measure of my gratitude is extended to my parents, Barbara and Ernest

Koogle, whose faith in me never waivered, even when mine did. I felt their love and support throughout the completion of this degree as I have throughout my life. Special thanks goes to my sister, Erin, and brother, Eric, for their love and support, and to my uncle, Roland Webber, whose kitchen proved a productive place in whch to write.

Jane Fullerton, Mindy Walker, and Merrily Dunn have supported and sustained me through this lengthy process, sharing with me the gift of unconditional and abiding friendship. Each in her own unique and wonderful way has brought a greater measure of meaning and happiness to my life~and a little reality when I needed it most.

In the final hours, technical assistance and needed comic relief were ably provided by Dave Bonner and Deb Lawrence. I am much in their debt. Finally, many other persons—family, friends, and colleagues—were instrumental in helping me complete this document. I have neither space nor words to thank them adequately. VITA

March 11, 1961 Bom - Brunswick, Maryland

1983 . B.A., English Hood College Frederick, Maryland

1983-1985 Director of Residence Life Hood College Frederick, Maryland

1985-1987 . Graduate Administrative Assistant The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio

1987 . M.A., Student Affairs in Higher Education The Ohio State University Columbus, Ohio

1987-1992 Graduate Research and Administrative Assistant The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio

1992-Present . Assistant Dean of the College Russell Sage College Troy, New York

1994-Present . Assistant to the President The Sage Colleges Troy, New York

FIELDS OF STUDY

Major Field: Education TABLE OF CONTENTS

DEDICATION ...... ii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS...... iii

VITA ...... iv

PREFACE ...... 1

CHAPTER PAGE

1. INTRODUCTION ...... 6

Statement and Purpose of the Research...... 6 The Institutional Setting...... 8 The National Higher Education Context ...... 9 Conceptual Framework and Relevant Assumptions...... 10 Statement of the Problem...... 13 Competing Discourses...... 13 Complex Process...... 14 Holistic Perspective...... 16 Research Design...... 18 The Research Questions...... 18 S um m ary ...... 20

II. REVIEW OF LITERATURE...... 21

Introduction...... *...... 21 The Context of Curricular Reform...... 23 The Legacy of the 1960s...... 28 Critique of the Reform Movement...... 32 Beyond Curricular Content ...... 34 Theoretical Conceptions of Curriculum...... 35 Origins of Curriculum Study ...... 35 Contemporary Views...... 36 Feminist Perspectives...... 39 Institutional Characteristics...... 41

III. METHODOLOGY ...... 46

Introduction...... 46 Elements of the Inquiry...... 47

v The Setting ...... 50 Design Overview and Research Questions ...... 52 Data Sources...... 54 D ocum ents...... 54 In terv iew s...... 55 Data Gathering...... 56 Participants...... 59 Data Analysis ...... 62 D ocum ents...... 62 In terv iew s...... 64 Establishing Trustworthiness ...... 66 Credibility ...... 66 Transferability ...... 67 The Role of the Researcher...... 67

IV. HOOD COLLEGE: CURRICULUM CHANGE IN HISTORICAL AND CONTEMPORARY CONTEXT...... 72

Introduction...... 72 Founding of the College...... 74 Impact of Contemporary Society on Campus...... 75 A New President Focuses on Careers for Women...... 77 A second New President Faces New Problems ...... 80 Curriculum Change - the Discussions Begins ...... 82 Implementation and Evaluation...... 87 The Decision to Create a New Core...... 90 Institutional Climate of the 1980s...... 92 Positive Factors...... 97 Changes in Academic Leadership ...... 98 Creation of Core Curriculum II...... 99 S um m ary ...... 110

V. CURRICULUM WORK FROM THE INSIDE: THE PARTICIPANTS' POINT OF VIEW ...... 114

In tro d u ctio n ...... 114 The Journey Metaphor Emerges...... 116 Teaching - The Journey Begins...... 119 Theme: The Primacy of Teaching...... 124 Relationship of Teaching to Other Aspects of Faculty Role...... 126 Curricular Expertise ...... 128 Curricular Structure, Liberal Arts Education, and the Nature of K now ledge...... 132 Student Characteristics ...... 142 Impact of Student Abilities ...... 143 Impact of Diversity - Race, Ethnicity, and Culture ...... 145 Impact of Diversity - Non-traditional Students...... 148 Impact of Sex and Gender ...... 152 Theme: Relationships...... 159 Formal and Informal Groups...... 161

vi Academic Politics and Turf Battles ...... 167 Curricular Compromise and Relationship Maintenance...... 171 Theme: The Struggle for Institutional Identity ...... 177

VI. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS...... 187

S um m ary ...... 187 T each in g ...... 189 Relationships...... 191 Id e n tity ...... 193 Curriculum Reflects Identity and Direction ...... 194 A Journey Across Inner and Outer Landscapes ...... 195 Competing Discourses-Destination Unknown...... 196 Implications of the Study...... 200 Further Research ...... 203

APPENDICES

A. D efin itio n s...... 204 B. Hood College Statements of Mission...... 206 C. Core Curriculum I & II ...... 210 D. Core Curriculum Committee...... 222 E. Interview Guides ...... 226

HOOD COLLEGE PUBLICATIONS AND DOCUMENTS...... 231

REFERENCES...... 236

vii PREFACE

In August 1979,1 began as a freshman at Hood College, a women's college of some 1000 students located in a small Maryland town. I chose to attend Hood largely for two reasons: first, because it was close to my home and family, and second, because it promised individual attention to students. I was a first generation college student from a small rural high school and felt uncertain about my potential for success in college.

Early my first semester at Hood I was unexpectedly elected Freshman

Representative to the Faculty. A longstanding tradition at Hood, students are represented on most college committees and have a voice in matters of importance to the institution.

The responsibilities of the class representatives to the faculty were to attend the monthly faculty meetings, report matters of interest and/or concern back to the student government leadership, and to represent the views of the students to the faculty. I assumed this position with some trepidation for, as is true of many first-year students, I was in awe of the faculty. At the same time, I was curious and excited to have the opportunity to be a spectator in what I imagined were important meetings in which weighty college issues were decided.

Hood faculty meetings, held on the first Friday afternoon of every month, were presided over by the President and the Provost and Dean of Academic Affairs. Faculty

1 2

tended to be active participants in these meetings. The setting was a large classroom used

by choral groups for rehearsal; chairs were usually set up theatre style with the President

and Provost taking positions at the front of the classroom facing the 60 or so faculty in

attendance.

During that year the Hood faculty were embroiled in the important though difficult

process of developing a core curriculum to be required of all Hood students. At the time,

the idea of the core curriculum i tself was of minimal personal interest or importance to me;

1 was already a student and thus would not be affected by any new requirements. What

did capture my attention were the intense, heated debates that took place in the faculty

meetings during which the proposed core curriculum was discussed. What stood out for

me (and still does) was the manner in which faculty members spoke to each other—with

passion, frustration, even anger, present in their voices. The "core," as it was called, was

clearly of great significance to the faculty, although it was readily apparent even to a

freshman that there was little agreement among them about how it should be structured,

what content it should include, or even what its various components should be called.

I do not pretend to recall with any great precision the events of those meetings and

I am certain that my recollections have changed over time. What seems interesting to me though is the fact that I remember them at all. One memory in particular seems more vivid than any other. That particular Friday, there was considerable disagreement among faculty about the original names or titles (e.g. Ethical Inquiry, World Cultures, and so on) to be used for the categories of courses to be included in the core. Whether their concerns were conceptual, aesthetic, political or otherwise motivated I did not understand at the time. What I did understand was that tempers were flaring and the only point of agreement seemed to be that the proposed categories were not suitable. At some point in 3

the meeting, one faculty member who had participated in drafting the original proposal offered an alternative set of titles that he had apparently created during the afternoon's debate. The initial reaction from the faculty was positive, as though any set would be better than the original. Before the meeting had ended, however, these categories also were shot down. There was some sentiment among faculty that they were being coerced into making decisions without sufficient time to evaluate the alternatives. I remember feeling sorry for the person who had offered up these new ideas in the midst of a room full of people who, it seemed to me, were being rather critical and somewhat harsh.

The spectre of this and other similar faculty debates remains with me even today, more than a decade later. It serves, in a very real and direct way, as the point of entry for this dissertation research. I went to those faculty meetings expecting to witness intellectual and philosophical discussions regarding college matters. I did witness such discussions but I also experienced much more. At the time I had no significant understanding of the complex drama being played out before me. I was genuinely surprised at the vehemence with which these teachers from whom I learned and to whom

I looked up would argue with each other.

From my contemporary vantage point I recognize that what I saw was a house divided against itself over a critically important and highly political and divisive issue— curriculum. Later, I came to realize that the interactions I observed were my first lessons in the complex and intriguing processes of institutional governance and change. I witnessed, for example, the difficulty of making decisions within a large and highly opinionated group of people all of whom had some investment in the matter at hand. I saw the interested and forceful participation of some people as well as the apparent apathy and virtual non-participation of others. 4

What follows here is an account, one of many possible accounts, of curricular

change in one institution. It is a story based on historical "facts," documented evidence of

events, and the commentaries (including opinions, beliefs, descriptions, recollections and

reactions) of people involved in and/or affected by the process and outcomes of curricular

change. While curriculum is at the heart of this study, it is about much more than

curriculum. It is a story of institutional evolution, of forced change, and of natural

adaptation to social climate and institutional conditions. It is also the story of one

institution's struggle for identity. At the same time, it is the story of this Freshman

Representative-tumed-student of higher education trying to understand the institution that

was my introduction to higher education.

The story told is based largely on interview and document data interpreted in

relationship to relevant curricular and feminist literature. But the story is also shaped by

both the memory and the contemporary view of the storyteller. I experienced the

institution both as an insider (first as a student and then as a student affairs administrator)

and as an outsider (in the role of researcher). My time at Hood was very positive, and I

hold the same nostalgic notions, recollections and biases many college graduates hold

regarding their alma mater. At the same time, I bring to the story the critical eye of a

committed feminist researcher eager to understand and explain the complex phenomena of

institutional culture, politics, and curricular change. Finally, I tell the story as someone

who is steadfastly commited to the education of women and believes in the need for

women's colleges.

The study was intended to be emergent in the manner encouraged by qualitative research designs. Stories, however, do not emerge from data as the Phoenix from ashes.

There was no rarified moment of inspiration nor any shattering epiphany that led to this 5

particular telling of the story. There were moments of hope, days of frustration, months of inconclusiveness, and, through it all, my yearning to tell a meaningful tale. CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

Statement and Purpose of the Research

This study examines how core curricula were constructed and reconstructed

between 1978 and 1990 at Hood College, a women's college with a tradition of providing

both liberal arts and career-oriented education. In 1971, Hood eliminated nearly all of its

general education requirements (see appendix A for definitions) responding, as did many

other colleges and universities in this country, to various social and economic forces. By

the end of the decade, however, observing on students' academic transcripts an imbalance

between their coursework in the liberal arts and specialized learning, faculty and

administrators became dissatisfied. In response, they began a lengthy process to design a core curriculum for all students. That core curriculum, first implemented in 1981, met

with mixed reaction from faculty and was replaced by a second core in 1990.

My purpose here is to tell a story of curricular construction and reconstruction--

what happened, why it happened, what sense was made of it by the people who were

involved, and what meaning might be made of it by those of us who are committed to

understanding better the nature of curriculum in higher education. Using participant

interviews and document analysis, my research chronicles the activities and events that

6 7

occurred just prior to and during the twelve year period and examines the institutional

context including relevant external and internal influences on the College. I have

highlighted especially the perceptions and perspectives of individual faculty and

administrators regarding their work, their relationships with each other, and the nature of

the institution.

I have used an expanded conceptualization of curriculum in this research. As a

result, it was necessary to locate a term that would adequately represent this concept.

Myriad activities related both directly and indirectly to the creation and recreation of a core curriculum took place almost daily at Hood College for more than a decade. These activities included formal group or committee meetings and work sessions as well as

informal discussions. The goal of the activities varied over time. Initially, most work involved designing new curricula. Subsequently, attention was devoted to evaluating existing curricula. Later, most efforts were spent in changing or creating new curricula.

By themselves, each of these activities is inadequate to describe what went on. I have selected instead the terminology "curriculum work" to encompass the entire process, both formal and informal including philosophical discussions, conceptualization and design, implementation, evaluation, and revision. The term curriculum work more accurately reflects the scope of the institution's efforts by representing all of these elements and allowing for consideration of related concepts and issues. The term also reflects an important characteristic of the process-the work-for individuals within the

College did work at curriculum which they viewed as part of their larger responsibility in the institution. 8

The Institutional Setting

Hood College, founded in 1893, is a small, private, women's college located in

Frederick, Maryland. At the time of the study, Hood offered Bachelor of Arts, Bachelor of Science, and several masters degree programs to some 2000 full- and part-time students. Until the early 1980s, the student population at Hood primarily had been traditional age, full-time, resident, and female. Enrollment patterns changed drastically throughout the decade, however, as the College experienced external influences, including a decreasing national cohort of traditional age college students. The subsequent shifts in Hood's enrollment included increasing numbers of commuting, part-time, evening and male students.

In 1971, as colleges and universities across the country were reducing rigid curricular requirements and providing students with greater freedom, Hood abolished virtually all graduation requirements outside of the major; only English composition and physical education remained from the former system of distribution requirements. Six years later, the College discovered that many students were graduating with a large accumulation of credits in their major fields rather than a balanced program of liberal arts courses as well as credits in the major. At the urging of a new Provost and Dean for

Academic Affairs, the faculty began to consider reinstituting a system of requirements that would ensure all Hood graduates' exposure to the liberal arts. Beginning formally in

1978, the College embarked on what would become a long odyssey of curriculum conceptualization, design, implementation, evaluation, and redesign. The end point of

Hood's work, for purposes of this study, is September 1990, when a second generation of the College's core curriculum was first implemented. (Faculty had voted to implement 9

the new core for all freshman students in the 1990 fall semester, although a few elements relative to upper level requirements had not been finalized at the time.)

The period 1978 to 1990 was important for Hood, and its curriculum work was a key initiative in the life of the College during that time. Through their lengthy and, at times, tempestuous work to design and implement general education requirements, the faculty and academic administrators addressed some rather difficult issues of institutional identity and purpose. The development of curriculum, with its requisite philosophical debates and committee meetings, provided a formal mechanism for raising important questions regarding the nature and future of the institution.

The National Higher Education Context

Hood was not the only college in the country to struggle with curricular issues in the late 1970s and the 1980s. By the late 1960s, many colleges and universities had abandoned or greatly reduced general education requirements leaving only a handful of standard courses required for graduation. The result, frequently, was that students no longer were systematically exposed to the liberal arts. In addition, students, who faced stiff competition in the workplace, demanded more specialized preparation and higher level skills to help them attain jobs (Hall & Kevles, 1982; Grant & Riesman, 1978). As colleges and universities began to recognize the loss of focus and cohesion in the curriculum as well as the lack of broad educational exposure among graduates, they undertook extensive curricular revisions. Gaff (1989) reports, for example, that during the 1980s nearly 90% of institutions planned or implemented changes in undergraduate general education requirements. 10

Pressure for curricular change and educational improvements came also from the

broader public arena. During the 1980s, a number of highly publicized reports were issued regarding the condition of education. Large-scale studies and national reports such as Involvement in Learning (Study Group on the Conditions of Excellence in American

Higher Education, 1984), To Reclaim a Legacy (Bennett, 1984), and A Nation at Risk, gave the public the perception that education in the U.S. was in distress. That public concern has intensified in the 1990s as test scores have continued to slump and schools are forced to spend greater time and resources dealing with drugs, violence and other serious problems that impede student learning. Critics perceive in higher education a short-sighted undergraduate curriculum that has lost sight of its intellectual roots and fosters too much specialization, leaving college graduates without the broad educational background necessary to succeed beyond the entry level and subject to early obsolescence in a rapidly advancing technology and information-oriented society.

Conceptual Framework and Relevant Assumptions

Myriad definitions and ways of viewing curriculum exist. For purposes of this research, curriculum is seen as a cultural construction, an artifact that is continually redefined within the particular social and historical milieu of the institution (Grundy,

1987). The traditional or rational view of curriculum holds that knowledge exists "out there" as neutral, objective reality which can be quantified and transmitted unchanged from teacher to students (Tonjes, 1992). Such a view assumes that the most important elements of curriculum are structure and content, i.e., determining the best configuration of courses through which to impart the most important knowledge. 11

In contrast, more contemporary views of curriculum assert that neither knowledge

nor curriculum are ideologically neutral (Tierney, 1989; Martin, 1994; Gumport, 1987).

Knowledge is socially constructed and, as such, is inherently biased. Specifically, the

knowledge base is most reflective of the values, intellectual interests and preferred

methodologies of the dominant culture. Similarly, curriculum is viewed as a cultural

construction, a way of organizing educational experiences that reflects the social, political,

and intellectual contexts in which it is practiced (Grundy, 1987).

In the contemporary view, curriculum does not exist apart from human interaction; although the focus of most research thus far has been on the interactions of groups rather

than individuals. In fact, Grundy asserts that "to think about curriculum is to think about

how groups of people act and interact in certain situations" (1987, p. 6). Tierney (1989) reinforces the usefulness of focusing on groups reporting that they enable us to see what competing interests are represented, how access to power differs across groups, and whose voices are silenced in the curricular process. Feminist research points out that the silenced voices frequently belong to women and that the dominant meaning system underlying knowledge in this society is based almost exclusively on the experiences of privileged white men from western cultures (Schuster & Van Dyne, 1986). Minnich argues that the dominant story, that is man's story, must be "undone so that the logics of connection, concreteness, context and community can emerge" (1990, p. 36).

Taking this point farther, the history of curriculum research and theorizing showcases the work of men. Theories have been constructed by men primarily based on research carried out in coeducational institutions with typically little input from women and little or no consideration of gender issues (Martin, 1994; Minnich, 1990). Even recent conceptualizations of curriculum which are based on the tenets of critical theory and 12

look at curriculum as the site of contested knowledge seem to stop short of a fully

contextualized, more inclusive, thus more human exploration of the subject. This study

attempts to take the examination and analysis a step further by looking at curriculum as a

site for contesting gender as well as other deeply held assumptions, including the

importance of one's work, the nature of interactions and relationships within one's work

setting, and individual commitment to and participation in institutional identity.

As a women's college, Hood serves as a valuable site for considering curriculum.

Gender issues are raised in a unique way, both as an educational issue, in light of the primarily female student population, and as an ideological issue on the part of individual faculty and administrators. Curriculum reflects, among other things, an institution's purpose(s) (e.g., service-oriented, liberal arts) and its primary constituents (e.g., historically black colleges, land grant institutions, community colleges). Studying a women's college allowed me to explore how gender, as an enactment of institutional mission and purpose, influenced curriculum. In other words, how did institutional awareness and explicit consideration of a primarily female student population affect either the content or structure of curriculum. Any institution, regardless of the composition of its student body, can infuse its curriculum with the knowledge emerging from feminist scholarship.

Drawing from the narratives of both female and male participants in the research, I examine the extent to which feminist epistemology and awareness of new scholarship influenced individuals' curricular decision-making. I intentionally refrain from comparative analysis between women and men participants, assuming that a range of gender consciousness and commitment to feminist educational values exists among both sexes. 13

Statement of the Problem

Curriculum represents, at least in part, an institution's collective beliefs about the nature of knowledge, learning, and education. Any attempt to depict these collective beliefs (e.g., a formal description in the institution's catalog), however, hides the differences that exist among individuals within the institution. In fact, such a statement may misrepresent a number of important aspects of curriculum. First, the way in which curriculum operates as the site of competing discourses about knowledge and ideology is concealed (Tierney, 1989). Second, the complex process by which collective curricular structures and formats are achieved is obscured (Gaff, 1989). Finally, the holistic nature of curriculum in the life of the institution is masked.

Competing Discourses. The individuals within an institution who design and implement curriculum represent a variety of perspectives. Each person subscribes to a particular ideology, a framework for understanding the world. Such frameworks are not benign; they are belief systems, value-laden and context-bound. Similarly, the institution can be said to have a belief system that guides its work. This institutional ideology represents a collective view, constructed by members of the community, but not necessarily agreed upon by all the members (Tierney, 1991; Gumport, 1987). Dissenting or differing perspectives may exist within the institution, individuals whose views are not seen or understood publicly. Their perspectives are obscured or silenced by the dominant view. A faculty member, for example, may subscribe to feminist values and believe that curriculum should be used as a platform for enhancing students' understanding of gender bias in society. The institution in which the faculty member teaches, however, may be 14

committed to a more traditionally male-centered curriculum, one that evidences no commitment to feminist values other than the existence of a few women's studies courses.

Traditional studies of curriculum have treated the institutional or dominant view as the valid one. Some contemporary analyses have examined the dominant view as well as other discernible perspectives (Tonjes, 1992; Tierney, 1991; Gumport, 1987). They have done so, typically, by identifying groups within the institution whose beliefs differ from the dominant view articulated by the institution. Uncovering these silenced voices is necessary in order to see and understand the underlying assumptions of curriculum, particularly any college-wide curriculum such as a core or a set of general education requirements. Often, the goal in such curricula, particularly within a liberal arts college, is to convey knowledge that will result in the production of an "educated person," i.e., the combination of knowledge, skills, and appreciation for culture that is widely believed to prepare an individual for productive citizenship. Underlying this goal, is the belief that the creation of an "educated person" is accomplished by exposing her or him to the best and most important existing knowledge. Reaching agreement on what represents the best and most important frequently becomes a difficult, if not impossible, task as individual ideologies clash. In this study, I examine several ways in which curriculum serves as the site of competing ideologies including differences among faculty regarding the nature of knowledge and how students learn.

Complex Process. Colleges and universities have invested a great deal of time, energy, and resources in recent years designing new and/or revising existing curricula.

Concommitantly, researchers and other observers and overseers of higher education have analyzed with great care both the product as well as the process of curriculum change. In 15

the past, many theories and models of curriculum-as-product have focused on the formal

and, less frequently, the informal or hidden aspects of curriculum. Curriculum is viewed

primarily as a means of organizing and presenting academic knowledge. Most of these

models and theories assume a rational view of knowledge, i.e., knowledge is "out there,"

either known or knowable, and is value-free (Gumport, 1987). Curriculum models

steeped in this view assume ideological neutrality. They focus on the content and

structure of the curriculum, ignoring the various influences which affect the outcome of

curricular decision-making (Tierney, 1989).

Even studies focused on the process rather than the outcome of curriculum work

have not sufficiently dealt with the complexity. Accounts of the process of curricular

change have depicted the marked, sometimes virulent disagreements among faculty as

they debate the merits of particular content areas or various structural arrangements.

Given the vast epistemological and ontological differences that exist among the various

academic disciplines, no one would expect to witness widespread agreement or easily achieved consensus during curriculum building, particular a college-wide curriculum such as general education requirements. The shortcoming of these accounts, however, is that they characterize curriculum disagreements as a rather simple matter of rational debate among learned and committed professionals all of whom have equal power to influence decisions. As Tierney points out, however, curriculum dialogues are "more than rational deliberations over the merits of various possible texts or courses" (1989, p. 77).

In addition to the impact of ideology described above, we must consider the extent to which both the process and the outcome of curriculum work are influenced by a variety of social, material, and political factors, e.g., enrollment patterns, student demands, organizational culture, resource availability, faculty expertise, institutional leadership, 16

evolution of knowledge, labor markets and career trends, and so on. Beyond the societal

and institutional factors which inform their views, individuals themselves influence

decision-making. First, there is a balance of power within institutions which functions to

allow some individuals greater authority and control over decisions than others. Second,

individuals are trained within specific academic traditions, have roles and responsibilities

to uphold in the institution, and have unique values and personal experiences that shape

their thinking about curricular issues. All these factors are frequently and complexly

related. As a result, tracing their impact separately or outside of the context of the whole

is neither possible nor desirable.

In addition, all work on the curriculum is conducted within an organization historically governed by both collegial and bureaucratic practices. Thus, creating a process by which curriculum can be debated and agreed upon within an institution is no small feat. Similarly, designing and implementing curriculum which takes into account the many variables affecting it is equally challenging. At Hood College, the work of designing, evaluating, and redesigning a core curriculum engaged many people in the institution for twelve years. In this study, I attempt to reconstruct that very lengthy and complex process by examining the actions of individuals, some of the many factors which influenced those actions, and relevant structural and governance characteristics of the organization.

Holistic Perspective. Viewing curriculum holistically is a key aspect of this study.

Curriculum is not seen as a separate and distinct element of Hood College. It does not exist in any meaningful sense except as it is defined and implemented by individuals within the institution. In other words, curriculum is rooted in individual beliefs and 17

behaviors. As one example, curriculum is carried out, in part, through classroom teaching. Thus, in my efforts to understand how Hood faculty members make curricular decisions, 1 examine how they view their responsibilities as teachers- teachers of women, teachers of liberal arts and/or professional programs, teachers in a specific institution in a particular historical moment, and so on.

Prior to being manifested through teaching, curriculum is constructed and at least publicly agreed upon by institutional participants. Reaching such an agreement on curricular matters frequently requires negotiation and compromise. In this study, I explore the nature of professional relationships and interactions among Hood faculty and administrators relative to the process of designing and redesigning curriculum. Whether between individuals or within formal working groups, personal interactions and behaviors clearly have an impact on how curricular decisions are made and implemented.

In addition, curriculum both shapes and is shaped by an institution's mission and identity. In this case, the institution's primary identity as a college for women is at times overshadowed by concerns regarding other aspects of its identity, i.e., as a liberal arts institution, brought on by the reality of a changing student body. My research examines how individuals view various facets of the institution's identity.

Making apparent the competing voices, the complex process, and the holistic nature of curriculum work enables us to move beyond traditional views. Moreover, using a broad, institutional perspective as well as the more focused view of individual participants' is an intentional strategy to further our understanding of curriculum work.

Tierney states that "the organization's participants are at the center of understanding curricular content and meaning" (1989, p.76). The participants, i.e., Hood faculty and administrators, are indeed at the center of this study. Their personal narratives provide an 18

important opportunity to examine the "logic of individual courses of action and the effects

of system-level constraints" on those actions (Personal Narratives Group, 1989, p. 6).

The combination of the institution and the individuals is critical as our ability to

understand either is hampered without examination of the other. Thus, any exploration of curriculum without both is incomplete as the "contexts of lives vary enormously and to neglect context is to risk misunderstanding, misinterpreting" (Personal Narratives Group,

1989, p. 19).

Research Design

The research was conducted using qualitative methods, including participant interviews and document analysis, in an emergent design. Lincoln and Guba characterize the emergent research process: "as the inquiry proceeds it becomes more focused, salient elements begin to emerge, insights form, and theory begins to be grounded" (1985, p.

209). Consistent with the goals of qualitative research, the intention of this study was to search for meaning and patterns of understanding rather than for prediction and control of behavior (Lather, class notes, 1986). The study provides descriptive information regarding the process of curricular work at Hood College and, more importantly, explores that work in light of the specific institutional context and perceptions of individual participants.

The Research Questions

As is common in emergent research design, the questions guiding the early phases of the research were intentionally broad to allow important concepts to emerge (Strauss & 19

Corbin, 1990). These questions were informed, in part, by my prior knowledge of the institution.

1) What changes were made in the general education curriculum of Hood College from 1978 to 1990?

2) What rationale is given by the institution and participants for these changes?

3) What, if any, impact did the institution's identity and mission as a women's college have on the changes made?

As data were collected and analyzed, I further refined the questions to reflect the complex nature of the curricular process in this particular institution and to bring into focus the transitional status of the institution's identity. Of these initial questions, the third question proved troublesome as it became clear that Hood's identity as a women's college was peculiarly compounded by some dramatic changes in student composition.

Thus, the third question was reframed to allow for exploration of other aspects of institutional identity. In addition, early analysis of the transcripts showed that an expanded definition of curriculum change was necessary to fully capture the breadth of the institution's efforts relative to curriculum as well as to accurately represent the extent to which decisions about curriculum were integral to other aspects of individual's work.

The following question was added to guide the final stages of analysis and writing for the project:

4) How does "curriculum work" function as a site for contesting beliefs regarding individual and institutional identity? 20

Summary

What follows is the story of Hood College and its extensive curriculum work carried out from approximately 1978 to 1990 in an effort to address some of the internal changes as well as the external pressures it faced. The initial intention in conducting this study was to chronicle the specific curricular changes and to determine what had influenced them. What became evident through the emergent process of the study, and will become increasingly clear throughout the document, is that the story of Hood College during this period reaches far beyond curriculum as we have been accustomed to thinking about it.

"Story" is used purposefully to describe what I have presented here. In many ways, this is the composite story of 18 research participants, as told to me and supplemented by information I garnered from institutional documents and relevant external publications. This research, presented here via case study format, not only documents the events and efforts that led to the curricular changes, but it also focuses a great deal of attention on why the work unfolded as it did and how the participants reacted to and felt about it. The study reaches farther than other curriculum studies by listening to the voices and examining the thoughts of the participants and by providing both institutional and individual perspectives on the events. The result is a multi-dimensional, multi-textured understanding of the institution using curriculum as the focal point. CHAPTER II

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

Introduction

Both during and preceding the years in which Hood College undertook its own curriculum work (1978-1990), important changes were taking place in the nation. It was an era of reform in higher education as institutions found themselves responding to a variety of social issues as well as to demographic changes. Many of the reforms, particularly those focused on curriculum, are relevant to this study as they show the national context and external events to which Hood was reacting.

In this chapter, I examine that context of national higher education reform. The most relevant aspects of that context, specifically changes regarding general education, the liberal arts, and the nature of curricular requirements are highlighted. In addition, both traditional and contemporary theoretical perspectives of curriculum are examined in order to touch upon the need for broader and more inclusive thinking about the nature of curriculum work. Finally, specific institutional characteristics which are relevant to the study are briefly explored. Specifically, the nature of women's colleges and the role of institutional mission and identity are examined.

21 22

The Context of Curricular Reform

As I describe in Chapter four, curriculum work at Hood College was influenced by Hood's unique internal circumstances as well as the broader context of changes that were occurring nationally in higher education. In Ttie Perpetual Dream (1978), Grant and

Riesman provide a partial social history of curricular and related reforms of higher education with a particular focus on the 1950s and 1960s. Hall and Kevles (1982) also describe national events and trends which influenced major changes in higher education from World War II on. These and other accounts of the years preceding 1978 provide a valuable historical perspective for this study.

Grant and Riesman characterize two broad types of reform in American higher education: telic reform and popular reform. Telic reforms are those which attempt to recast the nature and indeed the goal of undergraduate education. Likened to "social movements or generic protests against contemporary American life," they create alternatives to tradition and to the status quo (Grant & Riesman, 1978, p 15).

Popular reforms, on the other hand, are characterized as less sweeping or radical change. Popular reforms are modifications of form and content in undergraduate education made in response to changing demography, the needs of the job market, and student needs and demands. Intended to fix what was perceived as wrong with higher

u education, popular reforms, particularly those occuring in the late 1960s and early 1970s, resulted in "a general loosening of the curriculum" (Grant & Riesman, 1978, p. 15).

According to Hall and Kevles, virtually all curricular reform might be categorized as popular given that "changes in undergraduate curriculum are generated not by the academic profession, but by significant social, political, and cultural forces at work throughout society" (1982, p. 13). 23

There were indeed social, political, and cultural forces at work during the years

prior to Hood's curriculum work. With the assassination of President Kennedy in 1963

as a symbolic turning point, the nation increasingly experienced domestic turmoil.

Previously invisible groups including blacks and women asserted new political power.

The changing demography was felt on campus as the student body grew more diverse and less satisfied with traditional undergraduate education.

This new and more diverse population of students pushed for greater access to higher education as well as changes in policy and curricular content. They succeeded in altering traditional relationships between students and faculty as well as between students and the institutions. Specific reforms included gaining broader access to education for groups other than traditional age and wealthy white students, the elimination of curricular requirements, the introduction of credit for out-of-class learning experiences, and greater autonomy for students in designing their academic experiences.

When we think about upheaval on college campuses, we typically envision the

1960s and the protests against U.S. involvement in the Vietnam war. The 60s was not the only decade with a legacy, however. During the preceding years, a variety of social and economic forces had influenced higher education in important ways (Grant &

Riesman, 1978).

World War II is an important marker in contemporary higher education history.

Prior to WWII, college curricula had focused on providing a relatively elite population of students with a breadth of knowledge and "broadly applicable intellectual skills" (Hall &

Kevles, 1982, p. 14). After the war, however, the college curriculum adapted to meet the needs of a growing industry and economy. An increasing demand was placed upon institutions to produce well-educated and well-rounded young executives who could fill 24

the ranks of expanding corporations and new government agencies. As on-campus

recruiting became popular in the 1950s, college curricula reflected a growing emphasis on

business and management skills. Companies also required persons (typically young,

white men) who had sufficiently broad educational backgrounds to put them at ease in a

variety of social and business settings. Influences on the curriculum included increasing

demand for general education and wider reliance on distribution requirements and other

structural means to ensure students' exposure to the tradtional arts and sciences.

Other influences were also at work in the 1950s. The G.I. bill, for example, had

brought large numbers of non-traditional students to campus. In addition, colleges and

universities felt the effects of a massive infusion of state and federal funding especially in support of teacher education, science, and technology for national security and the space

race which intensified with the 1957 launching of Sputnik by the, then, Soviet Union

(Hall & Kevles, 1982). Universities competed for government-sponsored research projects and brought research scientists to campus. The increased emphasis on research encouraged growth of science, mathematics and other technical areas. Spillover occurred elsewhere within institutions as the methods and perspectives of scientists led to greater specialization throughout the curriculum, an increased emphasis on preparation in the academic major, and the growth of the department as the locus of curricular control (Hall

& Kevles, 1982). As the "hard" sciences grew in stature, the social sciences and other disciplines began to adopt some of their methodological and pedagogical practices, for example, a reliance on hypothesis testing and quantitative data as the legitimate means of inquiry, and the higherarchical arrangement of knowledge through the sequencing of courses. All of these trends "trickled down" to smaller colleges as they hired new Ph.D.s 25

trained in university graduate schools and as the colleges themselves entered into the

competition for available research grant funds.

In the post-war period, higher education was a growth industry. By the end of

the 1950s, college enrollments had doubled and faculty size had tripled (Grant &

Riesman, 1978). The U.S. was on a path toward universal higher education, at least for

whites. The civil rights movement had begun to raise questions of equal access, but U.S.

involvement in the Vietnam war was not yet a controversial issue on campus and would

not emerge until 1965 with the threat of selective service.

The country, with a new generation of baby boomers, was focused on its youth

and the future. Virtually every existing college and scores of newly emerging institutions

stood ready to benefit from greater numbers of students pursuing higher education and

from available government funding. This combination-an abundance of students and

external funding-proved a critical influence in a series of important changes that emerged

over the next decade. Grant and Riesman (1978) assert that it was during this period of

abundance that faculty began to raise standards and expectations for students, in part

setting the stage for later protests. Students faced increasing requirements in class and

increasing pressure to perform, to distinguish themselves from peers.

Increased expectations of student performance were supported in several ways,

including the increasing availability and popularity of standardized tests (Grant &

Riesman, 1978). In 1948, only 79 colleges belonged to the College Entrance

Examination Board. By 1966, that number had increased nearly ten-fold to 709. Only

the top five percent of high school students were eligible to compete for the National Merit

Scholarship competition when it was first offered in 1956. During the following decade, however, the competition was opened to any student who took the Scholastic Aptitude 26

Test or SAT (now called the Scholastic Achievement Test), increasing the number of

eligible competitors to the tens of thousands.

In addition, the furor over Sputnik led to a variety of special programs and new

initiatives among schools and colleges. A surge of newly created honors programs,

accelerated curricula, and a general focus on increased standards of performance at all

levels of education were seen as the U.S. attempted to reassure its global standing in the

production and use of knowledge (Grant & Riesman, 1978).

The concept of institutional prestige and ranking or hierarchy of institutions is a

fairly recent phenomenon, coming into existence after World War II. By the 1960s,

however, perceptions of prestige and attempts to measure it were of increasing importance

both to the institutions and to the growing numbers of students who wanted to gain the

most from their educational investment. Eventually, students' resentment of increasing

competition in all aspects of undergraduate education fueled their push for greater autonomy from regulation and curricular requirements as well as greater voice in institutional policies, often taking the form of public protests during the late 1960s and early 1970s.

Through the latter half of the 1960s, issues regarding civil rights and the Vietnam war dominated many campuses. It is important to note that while we typically think of and refer to them as "student" protests, campus demonstrations and other activities were frequently supported and sometimes driven by faculty and older graduate students (Grant

& Riesman, 1978). It also is important to note that many, perhaps the majority of students during that era did not protest at all. The vocal and visible minority who protested included wealthy Christian student and Jewish students who were rebelling against standards of expectations and excessive regulation as much as anything else. Such 27

regulation came to be seen as another example of institutional control over the lives of individuals. In many ways, it was a ready topic for protest; it was far easier to change institutional regulation regarding curricular requirements or grading policies than to extract

U.S. troops from Vietnam.

Students began to question virtually every aspect of college policy: admissions standards, curricular form and content, the use of grades, and regulation of student behavior. As a result of their scrutiny and opposition, students gained greater voice in college policy-making and a greater degree of autonomy including the ability to plan their own course of study. By the early 1970s, a striking change had occured. Grant and

Riesman describe it in this way: "the most important change was the virtual or complete abolition of fixed requirements in many departments and of mandatory distribution requirements, whether of breadth or depth, including class attendance and the time, mode, and kinds of credits needed to secure a baccalaureate degree" (1978, p. 188).

The change was discernible across the country. In 1967, general education requirements had comprised 43 percent of a student's undergraduate program (Grant &

Riesman, 1978). By 1974, such requirements had fallen to 33 percent. By 1972,115 of the most selective institutions indicated that students were free to design their own path to the baccaluareate degree.

Faculty as well as students found benefit in diminished requirements, particularly in the loss of distribution requirements and other forms of general education curricula.

Faculty who were no longer required to offer basic courses on a regular basis were free to pursue their own research and curricular interests. More courses were offered with increasingly narrow and specialized subject matter. 28

The difficulty with such expanded course offerings was that students could "vote

with their feet." Thus, the popularity of a course rather than its educational value

frequently determined its success. This phenomenon contributed to grade inflation across

the next several years as faculty eased course assignments and expectations and

experimented with new topics and formats to attract students (Grant & Riesman, 1978).

The result was a slow but steady upward movement of grades and a corresponding change in the meaning assigned to them. In the early 1960s, a C had been widely

considered an acceptable grade. By the end of the decade, however, C was largely seen

as unacceptable, tantamount to failing.

Increasingly, the emphasis on competition and reliance on grades and standardized

tests were called into question. The movement was away from the meritocratic ideology that had characterized higher education for so long. Legislation continued to make higher education increasingly accessible to previously underserved populations of students. At the same time, many students resisted the idea of education for productive citizenship, questioning the value of general education courses whose traditional content areas seemed to bear little relationship to the social upheaval of the 1960s. Students sought courses that were more "socially relevant," more reflective of the diverse population, and less focused on Western thought and tradition.

The Legacy of the 1960s

Throughout the 1940s, 1950s, and early 1960s, the needs of government and industry had mutually reinforced a standard "breadth and depth" curriculum (Hall &

Kevles, 1982). The need for effective managers as well as productive scientists led to a 29

curricular combination of general education requirements and increased specialization

within the disciplines.

In the late 1960s and early 1970s, students protested in favor of greater curricular

and other freedoms. Under increasing pressure, particularly as greater numbers of

working class, adult, and racial and ethnic minority students came to campus, colleges

relinquished control over the content and sequencing of students' educational programs.

At the same time, the growth and expansion of higher education had led to a burgeoning

knowledge base including new areas of study such as women's studies, black studies, and ethnic studies. The proliferation of courses and the absence of requirements to guide

student choices resulted in widespread curricular incoherence and imbalance in student

preparation.

By the end of the 1970s, institutions had begun to recognize the difficulties created by unchecked proliferation of courses and the lack of curricular requirements.

Hall and Kevles describe faculty feelings of guilt regarding earlier decisions to abandon requirements and embarassment over the "chaotic curricula" that has resulted (1982, p.

32). Grant and Riesman (1978) describe faculty at the decade's turn as poised for change, desiring greater structure and coherence as well as a greater sense of community within the institution. Throughout the next several years, a national debate ensued as faculty and others argued over how the curriculum could and should be reconstructed.

Gaff (1991) dates the beginning of the public debate to 1977 and three confluent events. The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching published Missions o f the College Curriculum, which held that undergraduate education was deeply troubled.

Also in 1977, the U.S. Commissioner of Education, Ernest Boyer, published Educating for Survival, calling for a common core curriculum that would ensure students’ exposure 30

to those issues and ideas central to human societies. Finally, Harvard's Task Force on

the Core Curriculum, after several years of study, recommended to the faculty an overhaul of the general education program.

Media attention and public awareness of the issues grew and throughout the next several years many more reports and opinions were rendered regarding the ills of higher education as well as the potential solutions. Much of the focus was on the liberal arts and the general education curriculum as graduates were perceived as lacking in the fundamental knowledge, skills, and personal attributes once thought to be the most important result of a college education. Institutions were blamed for giving students too much freedom to choose and for fostering specialization at the expense of broader and more integrated education. Among the solutions proposed were calls for a return to classical education and the so-called great books (Bloom, 1987), a re-emphasis of

Western ideas represented in the traditional humanities disciplines (Bennett, 1984), and a focus on "cultural literacy," wherein all students would be conversant in the historical events, people, artifacts, and ideas that represent common cultural heritage (Hirsch,

1987).

As the public debated, individual institutions began to make changes. Their approaches were varied although not necessarily inventive, including returning to distribution requirements, providing a core curriculum or common set of courses to be taken by all students, creating curricular experiences for a particular subset of students such as freshmen, and so on. From these efforts as well as from the larger discourse on reform, four basic but complex issues emerged as central: content, coherence, commonality vs. individuality, and comprehensiveness (Gaff, 1991). 31

Yet, even as the need to modify and strengthen the undergraduate curriculum became clear and the work began through various task forces and study groups, institutions were facing new external forces. Aware of the economic recession and facing a highly competitive job market, students became even more intent on their area of specialization rather than on gaining a broad base of knowledge and skills.

Of perhaps greater long-term importance were flat enrollments and the impending declines that would eventually reverse the previous period of increased enrollments.

Following the baby boom, population growth slowed resulting in a significant decline in the numbers of traditional age college students. For small colleges this was a particularly serious development. Institutions who may have wanted to restructure curricular and graduation requirements had to consider the impact of such requirements on their ability to recruit new students. Only the most selective institutions could afford to reinstitute rigid curricular requirements without fear of any potential loss of students (Grant & Riesman,

1978).

Institutions faced the reality that a revival of old curricular requirements was not likely to be accepted by the current generation of students any more than it had been accepted by the previous generation. Moreover, even as the growth of new students slowed, the diversity represented within student populations continued to increase. Thus, a significant challenge was present in creating a curriculum that was coherent and would meet the needs of a diverse student body as well as those of the workplace. From their perspective at the beginning of the reform movem, Grant and Riesman prophecied the difficulty in this way: "it would take the zeal of a St. John's faculty to create newly coherent curriculum out of the shards left over from the 1960s" (1978, p. 217). 32

Critique of the Reform Movement

Scholarly analysis and commentary on the general education reform movement of the late 1970s and the 1980s, has been focused at the macro level. Gaff (1991, 1989) critiques the debate and its impact on the college curriculum. Perceived shortcomings include the negative influence of partisan politics (i.e., conservative vs. liberal ideology), strong emphasis on the formal curriculum, inadequate consideration of the needs and purposes of diverse institutions, and a tendency to define issues and pose solutions in terms of mutually exclusive categories. As an example of the latter, the teaching of civilization courses became defined as an issue of choosing between western civilization or non-western civilization rather than assuming both could and should be experienced by students. Gaff also points out the debate focused primarily on the content of curriculum rather than on who was being taught or who was making curricular decisions.

Despite these shortcomings, Gaff assesses a positive impact from the debate.

Higher education maintained a place on the broad social agenda. In addition, the continuing discourse "provided the impetus and direction for a large amount of curriculum change on college campuses" (1991, p. 30). Gaff does not make it clear how direction was provided to individual institutions particularly since there was very little agreement among debate participants beyond a recognition that the curriculum had diminished and students were being disadvantaged.

Based on an extensive survey of institutions, Gaff (1991,1983) summarizes several national curricular trends. These include renewed focus on liberal arts and sciences, fundamental skills, higher standards and increased requirements, tighter 33

curricular structures, experiences for first year and senior students, global studies and cultural diversity, integration of knowledge, moral reflection, active learning, assessment, and the extension of general education beyond the first two years of undergraduate study.

Overall, the changes reemphasize education as broad preparation for life and reinstitute curricular structures to ensure such preparation for each student.

Taken together, these trends are "transforming the nature of the undergraduate curriculum," according to Gaff (1991, p. 63). From his perspective, the cumulative effect of the trends is key. Small-scale change within an institution does not constitute real reform. Instead, change at the institutional level is dismissed as piecemeal, cosmetic, and modest, while the work of the faculty is characterized as "tinkerings" (Gaff, 1991, p.

23).

There is some agreement on this point and an indictment of the practices of faculty which inhibit real change. The Association of American Colleges (1985) takes particular aim at curriculum committees who tolerate turf protection and other self-serving activities and behaviors among academic departments. Curriculum committees are characterized as being "paralyzed by external forces" such as regulation, accreditation, and the nature of education in primary and secondary schools, instead of focusing on the larger questions of educational goals, institutional mission, and the integrity of undergraduate degree programs (AAC, 1985). In short, faculty are accused of responding with popular reform when telic reform is needed. The analysis is shortsighted, however, in that faculty and institutions no longer have, if indeed they ever had, the luxury of contemplating broad educational questions without consideration for practical issues such as regulation and the preparation of entering students. 34

There is further irony in that the critique of curricular reform is tightly focused on content and structural elements as though these are the essential considerations. The critique has failed to take into account fully the historical and material conditions of individual institutions, the missions they serve, or the complex contemporary environments within which they operate. In addition, little useful examination has been done of the role of faculty in curricular change beyond accusations of paralysis or turf protection. That faculty represent diverse value systems, epistemological traditions, and even political beliefs has been acknowledged (Lattuca & Stark, 1994; Gaff, 1991, 1989).

Little examination has been conducted, however, of the effect the imbalance of power has on the ways in which individuals are included or excluded from the discussion and decision-making.

Beyond Curricular Content

Grant and Riesman (1978) suggest that as faculty and others searched for a valid means to restore curricular coherence, they were, and perhaps still are, searching for their own sense of identity and community. By exploring the motivations of faculty as they work individually and in groups to shape curriculum, they introduce both psychological and psychosocial dimensions that are relatively unexplored throughout the literature.

Their suggestion, for example, that faculty struggle to find ways to restore requirements without compromising access, introduces a moral question distinct from the intellectual debate that has been the focal point of much of the critique.

Refocusing the analysis to include individuals as well as institutions will enhance our understanding curriculum reform. Larry Goodwin suggests that "The key to curriculum reform is faculty development. We do not really revise-or better, reform-a 35

curriculum just by adding or subtracting courses. What is required for a reformation is the energy that is bom of common commitment to a common goal" (quoted in Gaff,

1991, p. 121). Goodwin's point is only partially valid as his statement denies the reality that a single common commitment is not likely to emerge even in the best of circumstances. Faculty represent diverse perspectives and values. They also speak from positions of differential power and influence.

Theoretical Conceptions of Curriculum

The relatively recent advent of critical perspectives in the analysis of curriculum reform reflects the long-held traditional theoretical underpinnings of higher education curriculum. Traditional views have presented curriculum in its formal sense, as a tangible document or list of what topics should be taught, to whom, and in what order. Content and structure are seen as the most important elements of curriculum. Knowledge is believed to exist "out there" as neutral, objective, discrete and quantifiable. Following from this view, curriculum is the means by which knowledge is separated into formal segments or units to be transmitted from faculty member to student. The transmission is seen as largely one-directional and allows knowledge to remain intact, unchallenged and unchanged, by either faculty or students.

Origins of Curriculum Study. Curriculum as a field of study has its orgins in

"administrative convenience" and, as a result, has been "powerfully dominated by administrative notions" (Giroux, Penna, & Pinar, 1981, p. 2). From its early days, the study of curriculum has focused on organization, efficiency, and control. Using the manufactoring industry as a guiding metaphor, early curricularists such as Bobbitt and

Charters saw schools as factories which produced students who were prepared for life 36

and work (Giroux, Penna, & Pinar, 1981). Curriculum was a critical production tool, the

means by which students gained knowledge and skills most appropriate to 20th century society. To function effectively as a tool, curriculum had to be efficient. As a result, strong emphasis was placed on organization, that is, dividing curriculum into units and determining the most effective arrangement of such units for teaching the necessary subjects and skills.

In Basic Principles o f Curriculum and Instruction, Ralph Tyler raised four questions which reflect the fundamental concern with content and structure that has shaped the history of curricular study: 1) What educational purposes should the school seek to attain? 2) How can learning experiences be selected that are likely to be useful in attaining these objectives? 3) How can learning experiences be organized for effective instruction? and 4) How can the effectiveness of learning experiences be evaluated?

(Giroux, Penna, & Pinar, 1981). Absent from these questions is any indication of historical or political inflluences on curriculum. Curriculum was viewed as a "structured series of intended learning outcomes" where the primary goal was to prescribe and achieve particular results (Johnson, 1981, p. 73). Clearly, in such traditional views, there is no analysis of ideology, no recognition of the difference between formal curriculum and the curriculum that is experienced and shaped by both faculty and students in the classroom. In fact, there is virtually no human presence taken into account nor any recognition of the holistic nature and complexity of curriculum in these early conceptions.

Contemporary Views. Theories of curriculum have evolved significantly from the earlier and more limited perspectives. While a great deal of attention is still paid to content and structure, these elements, for the most part, are no longer viewed as ahistorical and/or 37

apolitical. In most contemporary conceptualizations, content and structure, i.e., the

formal curriculum, are no longer the only consideration. Various attempts to reveal and

understand the "informal" curriculum, the "hidden" curriculum, and other phenomena suggest that curricula are not constant and do not reflect objective reality (Giroux, Penna,

& Pinar, 1981).

Most relevant to this study are those contemporary views of curriculum which take into account various factors that influence curriculum within an institution. Tierney

(1989,1991, etc.) is most representative of such perspectives. The foundation of his and other contemporary theories is the recognition that curriculum is an institutional artifact, constructed by faculty and others in the institution. Further, because curriculum is socially constructed in this way, it necessarily reflects ideology and is inherently biased.

As an example of contemporary theorists, Grundy (1987) defines her view of curriculum as cultural rather than conceptual. While concerned primarily with content, as many earlier theories were, Grundy's perspective differs in that, for her, content reflects the ways in which people experience the curriculum. In other words, the practice of curriculum, how it is enacted, matters more than its form. Because practice takes place within specific historical circumstances, it reflects a particular social milieu. More importantly, practice reflects individual ideology and human interactions which give it shape and definition.

Using a framework based on Habermas' conception of knowledge-constitutive interests (i.e., technical, practical, and emancipatory), Grundy shows the impact on curriculum in the classroom by revealing the influence of particular beliefs on the generation and organization of knowledge. When knowledge is guided by a technical interest, for example, the emphasis is on empiricism and the discovery of laws governing 38

behavior and other phenomena. By contrast, when the orientation is emancipatory, the emphasis is on reflexive knowledge and development of critical perspectives from which to identify and reflect on distortion and bias.

Tierney's approach to curriculum is emancipatory. Much of his work is devoted to exposing "whose interests are served by the way we define knowledge and whose are silenced?" (1991, p. 213). He describes curriculum as a "powerful act" that influences how institutional members think about, organize, and present knowledge. The power is derived from ideology, the set of beliefs that shape consciousness and guide actions

(1989b). Ideology influences curriculum which functions as a filter; giving greater voice and visibility to the views of the dominant interests within the institution than those of less powerful groups and individuals (1991).

Ideology is a key component of institutional culture. An amorphous concept, culture may be best described as the "web of patterns and meanings" enacted and experienced by institutional members through various symbols, ceremonies and rituals

(Tierney, 1990, p. 42). Because neither ideology nor culture are understood and experienced in the same way by everyone, curriculum functions as the site of "competing discourses" about the nature and content of academic knowledge (1989, p. 72).

Tierney's research illustrates how varying attitudes, beliefs and perceptions can co-exist within an institution as well as how such differences can disrupt the curriculum and an institution's ability to define and understand itself.

Tierney's body of work to date contributes substantially to the evolution of thinking about curriculum. He demonstrates persuasively that neither knowledge, curriculum, nor the theories by which curriculum is analyzed and understood, are ideologically neutral. Tierney's own work serves as an example of the latter. He clearly 39

subscribes to a particular position, advocating for a critical approach to curriculum. In

Curricular Landscapes, Democratic Vistas (1989), for example, Tierney asserts that the function of a college education should be to teach the essential lessons of democracy, i.e., students and faculty alike should struggle with matters of social justice, equality, diversity, and equal empowerment of individuals. As a result, curriculum must enable individuals, both faculty and students, to see how knowledge is created and to understand the impact of that knowledge on people and practices.

Feminist Perspectives. Feminist scholars and researchers have been very active in their efforts to reveal how knowledge is created. In particular, they have focused on the absence of historical accounts of women's lives, the absence of and/or bias against women in empirical research, and the "gatekeeping" mechanisms that traditionally and, in many cases, continue to make it difficult for women's ideas and research to be considered seriously. Based on a "false universalization" of the perceptions and experiences of privileged white western men, much existing knowledge is innacurate (Minnich, 1990, p.

2). And, since curriculum is, in part, a representation of knowledge, it too is flawed.

Minnich summarizes it in this way: "Women's lives have been invisible or greatly obscured in the body of knowledge passed on by educational and research institutions whose purview is supposed to be the preservation, transmission, and enrichment of humankind's knowledge (1990, p. 27).

Feminist research has attempted to disrupt the routines and traditions of knowledge generation in various ways including studying women's lives and experiences as central rather than marginal, identifying and exploring the consequences of sexism, reconceptualizing the relationships between and among women and men, and questioning 40

assumptions regarding differences between and among women and men (Spanier,

Bloom, and Boroviak, 1984). Feminists and others also have worked to disrupt the process of knowledge transmission, i.e., the curriculum. Using the language of transformation, educators have begun to reconstruct the traditional curriculum by including new information regarding women's experience and by reconceptualizing existing ideas and theories from more inclusive perspectives (Higginbotham, 1990;

Tetreault, 1985).

A major barrier to achieving real curricular transformation has been the disciplinary practice of knowledge within institutions (Minnich, 1990). Academic disciplines and their institutional counterparts, academic departments, have well- established beliefs regarding what counts as knowledge. To achieve curricular change, institutions must encourage and enable faculty to reconceptualize knowledge within their own fields of study. Thus, faculty development activities have been an important part of the various curricular transformation projects undertaken by colleges and universities throughout the U.S.

Less attention has been paid to the impact of women as a group in constructing curriculum. Feminist educators and scholars, in their efforts to construct the field of women's studies and to reconstruct other disciplines, have viewed knowledge as socially- constructed and frequently use multi- and inter-disciplinary perspectives. Beyond these characteristics, however, little is known about how women participate in curricular decision-making either as individual instructors or as members of formal groups who have responsibility for institutional curricula. Women have had a voice in curricular matters both within institutions and at the national level. Lynne Cheney, for example, both during and after her tenure as chair of the National Endowment for the Humanities, 41

has been a visible participant in the national debate regarding the liberal arts curriculum in particular. Greater understanding of the activities of women in shaping institutional curricula, including general education, is needed. Including women in the study of curriculum, as in the study of other subjects, is necessary to full understanding. As

Minnich suggests, "to uncover what women were doing is to locate and ground a different and more truthful coherence (1990, p. 36).

Institutional Characteristics

In addition to the broad framing of curriculum history and theory, a brief examination of characteristics that help to define the essential nature of colleges will further develop the conceptual context within which to understand the curriculum work of

Hood College. The most obvious of these characteristics, in the case of Hood, is the institution's status as a women's college. Some of the history of women's colleges has been recorded; although it is clearly not as well known as the history of other institutions

(i.e., those initially created for men). Female seminaries and other precursors to the contemporary women's college were founded as early as 1742. Women's colleges numbered more than 150 by the start of the 20th century and reached a peak in 1960 with some 214 four-year institutions as well as a number of two-year colleges (Tidball, 1994).

Women's colleges were created to provide educational opportunities for young women who initially could not gain admission to other institutions (Riordan, 1994). It is surprising to some, however, that coeducation in U.S. colleges was prevalent as early as the beginning of this century when 71 percent of colleges admitted at least some women students (Tidball, 1994). Since the turn of the century, and particularly in the 1960s, coeducational opportunities for women have increased with a corresponding decrease in 42

the number of women attending single sex institutions. And yet, many women's colleges have remained relatively successful in attracting and educating students. The reason for their success has been a subject of some debate in recent years, but continues not to be particularly well understood.

The most noted among the early female seminaries and women's colleges offered their students radical curricula; female students were exposed to the same subjects as men including languages, natural sciences, history, religion and philosophy (Tidball, 1994).

Some early women's colleges intentially prepared their students for life and work outside of the home and women's traditional roles. Others provided a more traditional curriculum and held more traditional expectations for their students. Curricular content and the formal language of institutional missions, however, have not been central to the debate regarding the nature of women's colleges. Instead, the discussion has centered on the value of the single sex experience and its impact on women. That value has been described in some detail but remains, for many, amorphous and difficult to fully understand.

Advocates of women's colleges have long argued that such institutions excel at preparing women to succeed in education, in their communities, and in their professional lives (Tidball, 1989). Early research suggested that women's college graduates experienced greater educational and professional success than their coeducational counterparts (Tidball, 1986 & 1980.) Follow-up studies challenged these earlier findings, asserting that results had been biased by comparing students from elite women's colleges with women graduates of less prestigious coeducational institutions (Rice &

Hemmings, 1988; Oates & Williamson, 1986). Other studies, however, provide additional evidence of the positive impact of single-sex education and advocates remained 43

convinced of the efficacy of the women's college experience (Riordan, 1994; Smith, Wolf

& Morrison, 1994). The critical aspects of this experience are believed to include the presence of women faculty and senior administrators and the service of such women as role models and mentors for students, the expectation that women students are capable of succeeding both in and outside of the classroom and, correspondingly, the attention granted to individual students, and opportunities for women to participate in leadership activities (Smith, Wolf, & Morrison, 1994; Whitt, 1993; Neff & Harwood, 1990;

Tidball, 1989).

Little attention has been paid to the impact of curricular elements in contemporary women's colleges such as the use of scholarship by and about women in the classroom, or to the prevalence of feminist values among faculty, staff, or students. Nor has there been any systematic exploration of the impact of formal college mission statements on the experiences of women's college students or on the design and shape of the curriculum in these institutions. There have been, however, a few isolated studies of institutional mission statements and descriptive articles that bear some relevance to this research

(Lundquist & Rice, 1991; Bazin, 1991). In such cases, the focus typically has been on the relationship of the broad institutional mission to specific initiatives such as curricular transformation projects or the presence of women's studies programs. Bazin (1991) describes the work of one institution in developing a new mission statement as part of a comprehensive initiative to transform its curriculum. The mission statement and strategic goals of the institution were revised to emphasize equity and the importance of curriculum reflecting gender as well as racial, ethnic, and cultural diversity. Including the language of equity in the highly visible institutional mission was both practically and symbolically important to the success of the overall project. 44

Lundquist and Rice (1991) compared mission statements of women's colleges

with those of coeducational institutions that had women's studies programs and found

that mission statements of women's colleges typically reflected "greater action orientation"

than coeducational institutions by using more and stronger verbs such as "develop" and

"commit" vs. "provide" (1991, p. 16). Women's college mission statements also placed

greater emphasis on development of the whole woman, i.e., both personal and cognitive

growth. No positive relationships were detected between the presence of women's studies programs on coeducational campuses and mission statements. That is, the presence of women's studies programs in coeducational institutions was not sufficient to influence language regarding educational objectives specifically for women students.

Other perspectives on institutional mission statements, that is, those not specifically focused on women's colleges, provide some useful guidance in considering the role and importance of such statements. Martin (1985), for example, considers the mission statement as an institutional revelation of identity and direction. That is, the mission statement should communicate to everyone the institution's primary educational commitments and what it intends to do. The statement should reflect ideals as well as bear some relationship to reality. Further, if the mission is clear and well-understood by all, it should inform institutional policy and practice as well as individual behavior.

In his extensive examination of institutional curricula, Tierney also has looked at the role of mission statements and, more generally, institutional identity (1990, 1989a,

1989b). He employs a critical perspective, thus his beliefs about the impact of mission statements on the institution and the individual differ sharply from Martin. Mission statements are seen as non-neutral, reflecting ideology and educational priorities that may not be held in common among all institutional participants. Mission statements typically 45

are not easily achieved nor are they easily changed. Tierney points out that such statements are debated and fought over by institutional participants and that frequently the language that emerges reflects the interests of the institution's dominant group(s) (1989b).

In addition, mission statements are not understood or interpreted in the same way by everyone, thus they do not guide individual action or shape institutional identity as Martin would suggest. CHAPTER III

METHODOLOGY

Introduction

This study examines the process of curricular development and change as it

occurred within Hood College between 1978 and 1990. My intention from the beginning

was to employ what Patton (1990) terms a "qualitative inquiry strategy" to understand

human experience in context. Looking well beyond curricular content and structure, I

wanted to examine and understand how the individuals involved in curriculum work

constructed their reality and how those constructions were manifest in their work and

relationships. In doing so, I assumed that the values and beliefs individuals held, the way

they experienced their environment, and the meaning they attached to events and

behaviors of others influenced the way they went about their work and the decisions they

made.

This inquiry proceeds from an interpretive view or paradigm which assumes that

the aim of theory is to understand and interpret, rather than explain or predict behavior or

other phenomena (Culbertson, 1981). Theory is drawn from patterns of meaning and action which are socially constructed and contextually bound (Carr & Kemmis, 1983).

The interpretive research approach seeks to "understand human experience in context- specific settings" (Patton, 1990).

4 6 47

During the original conceptualization of this study, I considered examining curricular changes in several women's colleges. To gain sufficient level of understanding of human experience in context, however, I shifted my attention to a single institution in which I would examine, in some depth, both the internal and external environment of the institution as well as the perceptions and experiences of individuals within the College.

Elements of the Inquiry

The use of qualitative methods in an "emergent design" (Lincoln & Guba, 1985) provided an effective means of achieving the level of understanding I sought regarding both individual and institutional considerations relative to curriculum work at Hood

College. As there are myriad ways in which qualitative research can be carried out, a brief discussion of the several basic elements and the role they played in this study is in order. Following the framework established by Patton (1990), I will address ten such elements: naturalistic inquiry, inductive analysis, holistic perspective, qualitative data, personal contact and insight, dynamic systems, unique case orientation, context sensitivity, empathic neutrality, design flexibility.

First is the importance of studying the phenomenon in its natural setting to the extent possible. Obviously, the research process disrupts and disturbs any setting to some degree, but the object of naturalistic inquiry is to study the setting and action without attempting to control or manipulate either the people or the place. In this study, I examined an historical period and series of events through the perceptions of individuals.

I have influenced the events and the perceptions through my interpretations of them, through the telling of the story. Efforts were made to temper that influence by encouraging research participants to speak for themselves and grounding the analysis in 48

the words of the individuals. This process follows from Patton's second element-

inductive analysis-in which the analysis begins with the specific and moves outward

toward more general concepts and understandings.

Following Patton, qualitative inquiry attempts to understand phenomena as a

whole rather than as a series of independent variables. In this study, a holistic approach

to the concept of curriculum is used, defining it as a complex, multifacted process rather

than according to single dimensions such as curricular change, development, or

evaluation. Relatively little attention is paid to the structure and content of the curriculum

itself; instead a broad and inclusive approach is used in which curriculum is viewed as

part of a larger system of action and meaning.

A fourth element is the importance and effectiveness of qualitative data. Data

obtained through qualitative methods are characterized by a depth and richness seldom

achieved with quantitative data. In this particular study, both document and interview

data were used complementarity to portray the context as well as to capture the complexity

of curriculum work and the multi-dimensional aspects of individual's lives and work.

Using the interview data as narrative provided an effective way to construct the events and

portray the meaning they held for participants in the study.

Necessarily then, the study relied on my personal contact and insights into the

people and the setting. Such contact and insights were critical to this study as a means of

advancing the most informed view of curriculum work, and of helping me gain a view of

the institution as it currently functioned. My historical knowledge of the setting was

important, but I also needed to understand how it had changed since I left and to see how

the participants' perceptions of the institution were both similar to and different than my own. 49

A sixth element was the importance of attending to the process. In conducting research, a great deal of information and insight can be gained by examining the process as well as the outcome of particular phenomena. Since change is expected in formal organizations, the focus in this study was not on discovering whether change occurred, but how, or by what process, change occurred and what meaning was ascribed to it by the participants.

Seeing each case as unique and being sensitive to the social and historical context of each case—themes seven and eight—were intricately related and critical to this study. In traditional empirical research uniqueness, an extreme case or one that differs significantly from the rest, is distrusted and only those variables that are within the researcher's control are examined. This research was designed as a single institution case study because the setting, a women's college, and the events, an extended period of institutional and curricular change, were seen as unique. And, although the emphasis of the study was to be on the perceptions of the participants, it was necessary to understand the context within which those perceptions were formed.

Establishing what Patton calls "empathic neutrality" (p. 41) also was an important consideration in this study. Empathy refers to the researcher's ability to see the world from the participants' point of view. Neutrality refers to the "findings," that is, maintaining as much openness as possible to the concepts that emerge from the people and the data. Full researcher objectivity and value-free science are known not to exist.

Thus, the subjectivity of the researcher must be claimed from the beginning and examined in order to either minimize its impact or to more fully incorporate it into the process. I was extremely familiar with some aspects of the institution in this study having been first a student and later a professional staff member. I had been away from the institution for 50

five years, however, and was not as familiar with many of the changes and developments of the institution that had taken place in the interim. Nonetheless, I necessarily considered throughout the development of the study and the analysis what role my own reactions and interpretations were playing in the process of the research. More discussion of my role as researcher will appear later in this chapter.

The final element is the necessity of maintaining flexibility in the design. Inherent in the decision to conduct a qualitative study is an admission that "you don't know what you don't know" (Lather, class discussion, 1990). Thus, it was both appropriate and necessary for the design to emerge and be modified as the process was carried out. The basic elements of the design in this study were developed following a preliminary interview with a key informant. While the methods remained essentially the same throughout the process, the number of institutions to be studied was reduced to one and important modifications were made in the research questions based on early interpretations of the interview data. Focusing the study on one institution in order to obtain greater insight, remaining flexible and open to the data, and allowing the research questions to emerge as the study unfolded was a key to accomplishing the overarching goal of the study: to extend understanding of curriculum work in higher education.

The Setting

The setting for the study is Hood College, a small, private women's college founded in 1893. I chose to study Hood College for two reasons. First, the nature and extent of the curricular changes that had occurred over an exended period of time provided a potentially valuable opportunity to examine from both an institutional and an individual perspective what happened and why. 51

Second, as a women's college, Hood represented an opportunity to examine an institution considered by conventional standards to be atypical. Women's colleges have received limited scholarly attention and they have rarely served as the site for curriculum study. Like many women's colleges, Hood places strong emphasis on teaching and, in recent years, the College experienced significant enrollment challenges. Unlike other women's colleges, however, Hood seems to have found a formula for surviving, some might say thriving. As one of the remaining 84 women's colleges (Women's College

Coalition, 1994), Hood may offer valuable insight regarding institutional purpose and identity.

The issue of generalizability is a complex concept and is usually addressed with regard to considerations of establishing trustworthiness. In this instance, however, it is appropriate and useful to discuss it here. Traditional research paradigms held that the ability to generalize about findings and conclusions from one sample to another or to an entire population was a valuable and desirable thing. Because original conceptions of generalizability were rooted in quantitative approaches, thus tied to statististical evidence, qualitative research has struggled to find a reasonable approximation of this practice that is more consistent with its methods as well as its empirical philosophy (Donmoyer, 1990).

Lincoln & Guba (1985) attempt to address the issue by substituting the concept of transferability. They claim that findings from qualitative studies, including case studies, can be applicable or transferable when settings or contexts are relatively similar.

Donmoyer (1990) advocates another conception of generalizability, one that has more in common with learning theory than with statistical models. His idea is deceptively simple but intuitively sound: each of us has at one time transferred knowledge gained through personal experience in one setting to another. In fact, both as children and as 52

adults we frequently use experiential knowledge gained elsewhere to help us make sense of new environments. If knowledge gained through experience were not valid and transferable to other settings, Donmoyer reminds us, work experience would not be so highly prized by employers seeking new employees.

Sometimes new settings are similar to ones we have previously experienced; at other times they are quite different. In either case, however, the experiential knowledge is useful. When the settings differ, we have the opportunity to accommodate and integrate new knowledge with the old. This is an especially valid point with respect to the usefulness of single case studies. As Donmoyer points out "when we are interested in expanding cognitive structures, the outlier is prized, for the outlier has great heuristic value" (1990, p. 194).

Donmoyer suggests that we allow the case study to substitute for lived experience, that we learn or gain experiential knowledge through the narratives and the researcher's interpretative accounts of others. The case study provides access to places and situations we might not otherwise have the opportunity to see and, as a result, may be particularly useful in "the forming of questions rather than the finding of answers" (1990, p. 182).

Design Overview and Research Questions

After gathering preliminary information at Hood, I developed an initial set of research questions and a design intended to elicit both factual and narrative (interpretive) information. These initial questions were intentionally broad to allow concepts to emerge

(Strauss & Corbin, 1991).

1) What changes were made i n the general education curriculum of Hood College from approximately 1978 until 1990? 53

2) What rationale is given by the institution and participant for these changes?

3) What, if any, impact did the institution's identity and mission as a women's college have on the changes made?

As concepts emerged during the data analysis phase, I added a fourth question:

4) How does curriculum work function as a site contesting beliefs regarding individual and institutional identity?

Document and interview data served as the basis for reconstructing the years 1978 to 1990. Using the interviews as narratives, I shaped an interpretive account not just of what "happened," but of how people felt about it and what meaning they made of it for themselves and for the institution. This was accomplished by using first a broad lens to take in the larger institutional context and later a more tightly focused approach looking specifically at the individual participants. Information garnered from individuals was carefully examined and interpreted in light of its bearing on the institution.

In this study, I have used qualitative methods of inquiry to enhance and extend the contemporary view of higher education curriculum. The whole of the inquiry, design, methods, and analysis, was intended to place greater emphasis on specific institutional context and on the individual participants in understanding how curriculum development and change occurs. Within the interpretive paradigm, emphasis on individuals and context is critical as "actions have meaning in relation to the understandings, purposes and intentions of the actor, and the actor's interpretations of the significance of the context of the action" (Carr & Kemmis, 1983, p. 92). 54

Data Sources

Data were gathered from multiple sources in three phases over the course of six

months. The two principle sources were institutional documents and participant

interviews.

Documents. For purposes of this study, I used Lincoln & Guba's (1985)

definition of document, as distinguished from record. A record is "any written or

recorded statement prepared by an individual or institution for the purpose of attesting to an event or providing an accounting" (p. 277). A document, by contrast, is "any written or recorded material other than a record that was not prepared specifically in response to a request from the inquirer" (p. 277). The kinds of documents used in this study include minutes from committee meetings, formal reports, correspondence, and catalogs.

Documents and records are valuable to the qualitative research design for several reasons (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). They are frequently available, relatively easy to obtain, and are typically inexpensive or free. They provide a stable source of information; that is, they "accurately reflect situations that occurred at some time in the past" (Lincoln &

Guba, 1985, p. 277). The ability to locate and confirm events was particularly important in this study where research participants were asked to reconstruct events of the past but were not relied upon to pinpoint dates with any specificity. In addition, documents are a

"rich source of information" as they are "grounded in the context they represent" (p.

277). Again, this characteristic was helpful as I intended the study to be more contextually grounded than is usual in curriculum research.

Despite their value, documents also have limitations (Lincoln & Guba, 1985).

Unless reporting verbatim accounts, documents represent the thoughts and interpretations 55

of an author or recorder. In addition, any information gleaned from documents represents another level of interpretation, specifically, that of the researcher.

Interviews. The interviews with research participants, including faculty and administrators, were the most important source of data for the interview. Believing what

Bertaux said "If given a chance to talk freely, people appear to know a lot about what is going on," (1981, p. 39), I was determined to learn not just about the work, but about the participants in relation to the work. The term research participant is an intentional one as I considered each individual's conversation, or semi-structured interview with me to be an act of engagement or active participation in the construction of a story I would later commit to paper.

Through the interviews I learned how individuals felt about the process and the outcomes of curriculum work, how they had participated, how they viewed the participation of others. Prior to the interviews, I had formed some preliminary ideas about what might be important to consider in the context of this study, but, by encouraging individuals to reflect on and talk about their experiences, I learned what they thought was important about the events relative to curriculum as well as the other important changes and issues experienced by the College. I had wanted to understand curriculum within the context of the institution; providing the participants freedom to explore seemingly peripheral or unrelated topics in the interview brought far greater insight and a more richly detailed sense of the context than I could have gotten from another source.

Most important, I learned about the people themselves. I had, as Seidman describes, an "interest in understanding the experience of other people and the meaning 56

they make of that experience" (1991, p. 3). In my roles as researcher, interpreter, and ultimately as storyteller, I needed to understand how the participants made meaning of the actions and events of their lives. My storytelling was made possible because they first told me their stories. Telling the stories of one's life or work is a process of meaning- making: "people must reflect on their own experience. It is in this process of selecting constitutive details of experience, reflecting on them, giving them order, and thereby making sense of them that makes telling stories a meaning-making experience" (Seidman,

1991, p. 1).

Time was a limitation with regard to gathering interview data. I was not conducting in depth interviews, which Seidman (1991) defines as four to six hours across three or more interview sessions. Thus, participants had to cover a lot of ground, so to speak, in an hour or two. Nonetheless, because each of multiple participants was talking, for the most part, about the same time period and set of events, a composite story, or what Richardson (1988) calls the "collective story" eventually emerged.

Data Gathering

Data were gathered during three visits to the campus between June and December

1990. During the first visit, in June, I conducted an informal interview with a member of the Hood faculty who would function as a key informant for the study. I called this individual to request his participation because I knew that he had been involved in the initial curricular work conducted at the insitution beginning in the late 1970s. In fact, he had served as the chairperson of the Task Force to Study Degree Requirements and had authored the group's final report which had served, in essence, as the plan for implementing the first core curriculum. The interview was informal in that no structured 57

or semi-structured interview guide was used. Although the session was not taped, field notes were taken at the time. I provided the participant with an overview of the research project which was in a very formative stage at that time. He was then asked to talk about his recollections and perceptions of the process surrounding development of the core curricula from the late 1970s to the time of the interview. The interview was purposely broad-ranging as I tried to explore a variety of issues and perceptions. I had two objectives for the interview: 1) to help determine if the proposed research was a valid area of inquiry and whether Hood College, with its extended period of curricular change, would prove fruitful as the subject of the study, 2) to aid in formulating the design of the research project by uncovering important ideas, concepts, and questions. The interview met these objectives.

Following the preliminary interview, I wrote to the Provost and Vice President for

Academic Affairs explaining the intended study and requesting formal permission to use

Hood as the subject of the research. I worked purposefully to gain entree to the research site via a ranking official in the institution as I needed approval to make campus visits, access to useful documents, and permission to solicit research participants from among the faculty and staff (Seidman, 1991). Several days after sending the letter, I called the

Provost, as the letter had indicated I would. At that time, I provided a more detailed explanation and tentative timeline of the project as well as the requirements for the collection of both document and interview. The Provost granted formal permission to conduct the study on the Hood campus, pending approval of the President which the

Provost said she would solicit. We tentatively arranged a time in September when I would visit the campus. I later sent a letter confirming the September visit which was to 58

include an interview with the Provost and the opportunity to examine a variety of institutional documents.

I visited the campus for two days in mid-September. On the first morning, I interviewed the Provost using an early version of the interview guide that would be further refined and used later in the rest of the participant interviews. An audio recording was made of the interview and field notes were taken.

The remaining time of the visit was spent reviewing institutional documents. The

Provost had granted access to a wide range of documents including materials from the

Task Force to Study Degree requirements, Curriculum Committee minutes, Core

Curriculum Committee minutes, Strategic Planning materials (which included information about institutional mission and restructuring), and a variety of relevant correspondence between members of the institution. The Provost also had provided me with office space and access to a copy machine. I reviewed several hundred documents looking for broad references to curriculum work (including process, content, or structure) conducted on campus, references that suggested epistemological beliefs of the institution, references to gender and/or discussion of women's issues, and any discussion of institutional mission and/or identity. As I reviewed the documents, I made photocopies of those that appeared most relevant to the study. Some 70 documents and partial documents (approximately

415 pages) were copied and retained for further use in the study.

The information gained from the Provost's interview and the documents was used to construct an initial timeline of curricular and related events and to narrow the scope of the project. I also used the documents to create a list of possible research participants as minutes and reports typically listed committee members. Further description of the participants will be provided later in this chapter. 59

In November, I arranged with the Provost to make a third and final visit to campus in early December. Once I received formal approval for the research methodology from the Human Subjects Review Committee at The Ohio State University,

I contacted, first by letter and later by telephone, potential research participants, including

Hood faculty members and several academic administrators, to determine their willingness to be interviewed for the study. The goal was to obtain 15 to 20 interviews with research participants, both female and male, who would represent a variety of academic disciplines and administrative units. Upon my arrival on campus in December,

16 interviews had been scheduled. One additional interview was arranged during the week for a total of 18 interviews, including the earlier session with the Provost. All interviews were audiotaped with permission of the participant who had been assured of the confidential nature of their remarks. The sessions ranged from just under one hour to slightly more than two hours in length, depending on the participants' schedule and her/his willingness to continue talking.

The interview guide provided a basic structure for the interviews although the direction of each session was dictated somewhat by the interests of the participant. In keeping with the emergent research design, interviews were intentionally flexible allowing more exploration in areas about which participants had strong feelings as well as any new or unanticipated topics that were raised.

Participants

Because significant emphasis in the study was to be placed on the perceptions and perspectives of individuals who had participated in the development of curriculum at

Hood during the years encompassed by the study, it was necessary to identify individuals 60

who were willing to talk about their experiences and to serve as research participants. I developed a list of potential participants using institutional documents which provided membership lists for key committees including the Special Task Force to Study Degree requirements, Core Curriculum Committee (whose membership changed annually), and the ad hoc groups which had developed proposals for the second core curriculum.

Twenty-two faculty members were identified as having served on one or more of these committees. Since I intended to interview administrators as well as faculty with an overall goal of 15-20 interviews, I chose not to contact each of the twenty-two faculty members identified. Fourteen individuals were called to solicit their participation. One of these individuals was the faculty member whom I had interviewed informally during the formative stages of the project and was to serve as a key informant. The other thirteen were chosen according to no strict criteria, although I did attempt to include participants from a variety of academic departments and to include more women than men, to be consistent with the composition of the Hood faculty. Of the fourteen, twelve agreed to participate and interviews were scheduled. One individual proved extremely difficult to reach by telephone and another said she was unable to participate as she was not on campus that semester. The faculty participants included eight women and four men and represented eleven academic departments: art; foreign languages and literatures; education; sociology and social work; history and political science; home economics; chemistry, physics, and astronomy; physical education, recreation and leisure studies; mathematics and computer science; religion and philosophy; and English. All were tenured and represented the ranks of assistant professor (n=l), associate professor (n=4), and full professor (n=7). Two were serving as chairpersons in their respective departments at the time of the interviews. 61

Academic administrators who were asked to participate had either participated formally in committee work or because their institutional responsibilities were expected to provide a useful perspective on the work that had been done. Six administrators were solicited for participation and all agreed. They included the Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs, who was interviewed earlier on in the project; the President; the

Registrar and Associate Dean for Academic Affairs; the Vice President for Computing,

Planning, and Research; the Dean of Arts and Sciences; and the Associate Dean of

Academic Affairs for Adult Learning Services. These participants included five women and one man. All but one held faculty rank in the College.

I was at least slightly acquainted with all but one of the participants prior to beginning the study, either through my years as a student or later as a member of the professional staff of the College. I purposely excluded as research participants any individuals with whom I had worked directly. I was not able, nor did I particularly want, to exclude faculty with whom I had studied. My level of familiarity with the participants ranged from very slight to more significant, tempered in all cases by the fact that I had been absent from the institution for five years when the study began.

The total research participant group included thirteen women and five men. All but two of the participants had been at Hood throughout the twelve years encompassed by the study, although a few individuals had been relatively new to the institution when the first discussions about developing a core curriculum had begun. A number of participants had served in both faculty and administrative roles at various points during their time at

Hood. In addition, some number had also attained a degree(s) from Hood. Because of the small size of the institution, it is not possible to provide further specific information about the study participants and still protect the confidentiality of the study. 62

After the eighteen interviews were taped and transcribed, I assigned each

participant a first name pseudonym to ensure confidentiality. First names, rather than a

title and pseudonym last name (e.g. Professor Jones), were used intentionally as they reflect more accurately the informal and interpersonal nature of the institution.

Pseudonyms were assigned using alphabetical order and bear no particular relationship to the individual they represent. Direct quotes from the participants appear throughout the document. In only a very few instances are quotes used without the pseudonym. This was done because linking the pseudonym with the content in those particular instances might have given away the identity of the individual.

Data Analysis

Documents. The documents that had been copied and removed from the Hood campus were reviewed and organized in chronological order according to the date they were produced or written. Once documents were organized in this fashion, information was extracted and used to construct a timeline of actions and events related to curriculum as well as other institutional events that I believed to be significant and/or relevant to the research project. The timeline included a brief description of the event or action, the date or general timeframe in which it took place, the document source for the information, and, where possible, my notation and interpretations of the meaning of the event or action.

Upon completion, the timeline stretched from 1971, when Hood College faculty voted to eliminate the system of general education requirements, to May 1990, when the faculty were making final arrangements for implementing the new (i.e., second) core curriculum.

The timeline served as the frame around which chapter four was developed. Once the sequence of events had been established, the documents were resorted into four broad 63

categories according to the primary emphasis of their content: 1) mission statement, 2) institutional history and/or description, 3) instructional structure and/or planning, and 4) curriculum. Reviewing the documents using this kind of categorization enabled me to move beyond the events themselves and begin to construct a broader, more contextualized view. I was aided in this effort by several publications that were specific to Hood College but had not been collected during the data gathering phase of the study. Of particular value were two articles about Hood, one written by President Church, and several issues of theHood College Alumnae Magazine that provided information about the College's history. All of these materials, along with the interviews that were later analyzed, provided sufficient information to develop a detailed description of twenty years in the life of the institution in relation to its curriculum work.

The documents retrieved from the institution were a valuable source of information for the study. While they were gathered in large part to help formulate the interview guide and bring greater focus to the study, they were useful in several other ways. First, they provided verification as to when events had taken place, whereas participants who were asked to recall events from up to twelve years earlier frequently could identify only in general terms when an event had occurred. Second, many of the documents provided descriptive information about procedures and process, e.g., the Core

Curriculum Committee minutes often contained references to how it conducted its work.

This descriptive information was helpful sometimes in that 1 did not have to spend valuable interview time asking for details about processes used in designing or implementing curriculum. At other times, this information led me to ask questions or follow up during interviews on topics that otherwise might not have been raised in the interview setting. Using the information in this manner let the respondent know that I 64

was familiar with the process. Finally, the use of documents was part of the triangulation

of data sources, a critical step in establishing the trustworthiness of the study (Lincoln &

Guba, 1985). Trustworthiness will be addressed in further detail later in this chapter.

Interviews. Audio tapes from the participant interviews were transcribed soon

after I returned from the third campus visit. The tape from one faculty interview was

virtually impossible to transcribe due to audio difficulties. Upon discovering the

difficulty, I had made more extensive field notes of that particular session. From the

remaining tapes, a total of 388 pages of transcript data were produced, 137 pages from

the administrator interviews and 251 pages from the faculty interviews.

The analysis of the interview data began even as I transcribed the tapes. I listened

again to the voices of the individuals who had spoken quite openly with me about their

perceptions. I noted again that individuals had spoken with interest and emotion about the

topics addressed; there was nothing one-dimensional, detached, or impersonal about the

exchanges. In fact, early on in the process of transcription and analysis, I was surprised

how passionate people had been in those sessions. I noted in particular a great deal of

frustration as well as some sense of disappointment about the process and outcome of the

curricular procedings of the last twelve years.

Once the transcriptions were completed, the coding began. I read each transcript,

marking content and writing summary notes at the end. In consultation with Dr. Laurel

Richardson, I continued to review the transcripts using a three-tiered approach in which I noted 1) the content of what was said, 2) abstract concepts that were either named or implied by the content, and 3) my own commentary and reactions to the data. Following this process, I constructed a composite list of the content issues and more abstract 65

concepts that I had located in the data. From the composite list, the issues and concepts

were tentatively sorted into several larger categories which were then used as a loose

schema for further review and exploration of the transcripts. From those several

categories, I ultimately derived the three themes that are the focus of chapter five. The

credibility of these themes was reinforced through feedback from research participants.

Two participants were asked to provide member checks by reading a draft of the study

and commenting on the accuracy of events portrayed as well as the interpretation of

broader themes and issues.

The specific method used in coding, sorting, and analyzing the data is best

described as a melding of practices suggested by the prevailing authorities, specifically

Glaser (1978), Strauss and Corbin (1990). Following the "initial searching phase"

(Glaser, 1978) or what Strauss and Corbin (1990) refer to as "open" coding, I continued

to revise and refine the categories through what I characterize as a series of "visits" with

the transcripts. The later stages of the process incorporated what Glaser (1978) calls

"focused coding" as well as some elements of Strauss and Corbin's (1990) process of

"selective coding." In both processes, the intention is to gain increasing focus and clarity

in the coding, moving from the specific content-oriented elements first identified in the data to more conceptual categories. Selective coding adds another element to the process by presuming of story telling as an intended outcome of the coding and analysis. The conceptual categories must be woven into an overarching story; thus, the process requires increasing attention to drawing out the relationships among those categories.

Strauss and Corbin (1985) point out that coding and analyzing data are not lockstep, linear processes; rather the researcher moves back and forth as insight and inspiration emerge from the data, from relevant literature, and from her. It is important to 66

note here that the process of analyzing the interview data for this study was drawn out over three years with significant breaks in between periods of more intensive work.

While this approach was not intentional, the periods of inactivity, i.e., no hands-on analysis or writing conducted, were useful for each time I returned to the data I saw and heard new insights. These fresh looks at familiar data brought into sharper focus the larger themes emphasized in the analysis. In a late stage of the analysis, I also was aided by input from the member checks. Ultimately, I was able to create the more factual, event-oriented description that appears in chapter four which serves as a backdrop for the themes that are examined in chapter five.

Establishing Trustworthiness

In all research, evaluation is a necessity. There must be a mechanism(s) and criteria by which to determine whether a researcher accomplished what she set out to do, whether her findings are what they appear to be, and, if they are, what meaning they hold in light of other knowledge. In other words, it must be determined if the study is worth our attention. Enabling a reader to make such a determination about one's qualitative research project is a complex process and differs depending on the specific type of qualitative inquiry being implemented. Lincoln and Guba (1985) suggest a number of issues to be addressed in order for the researcher to establish trustworthiness.

Credibility. The researcher must convey the credibility of the study, indicating by what means she reached conclusions and constructed an account of her findings that will be perceived as accurate by the participants. Lincoln and Guba (1985) describe several means of achieving credible interpretations including triangulation and member checks. 67

Triangulation is carried out to ensure credibility of data while member checks help to establish the credibility of the interpretations and judgements of the researcher. In this study, I used triangulation of data sources, specifically document and interview data, to verify events and themes. Member checks were conducted with faculty and administrative participants. A draft copy of the document, including introductory, methodological, descriptive, and analytical chapters were sent to two members who responded with comments.

Transferability. Lincoln and Guba (1985) assert that the researcher is responsible only for revealing her method and providing sufficiently ''thick'1 description to allow the reader to draw her own conclusions regarding the applicability of findings to other settings. I have provided both in the documentation of this study. Elsewhere in the chapter I also have provided an alternative perspective of the concept of transferability specifically as it relates to case study.

The Role of the Researcher

Although researchers have made significant strides in recognizing and addressing the influences of subjectivity, it remains a difficult element in the research process. For, as Peshkin (1988) tells us, we cannot simply proclaim our subjectivity, we have to examine it reflect on it, and be explicit in describing how it has affected our work.

Further, Patton (1990) concludes that, while there is no "definitive list of questions to be addressed" a researcher is obligated to "report any personal and professional information that may have affected data collection, analysis, and interpretation" (p. 472). Although related, the two scholar's concerns are somewhat different. Peshkin's focus is 68

epistemological; how we come to know and understand a thing is inevitably influenced by

our preexisting ideas, new experiences, and so on. As researchers who are presenting the

results of our work, we are obliged to examine and expose those influences. Patton's emphasis is more empirical in nature. He suggests revealing possible influences to the reader so the reader may decide whether or not they affect the researcher's credibility.

In this case study, I faced two challenges with respect to my subjectivity. First, I had prior knowledge of the institution and most of the participants. Second, as a feminist whose professional realm is higher education, I was interested in conducting research in which women were participants and where issues related to gender in higher education were a central consideration.

I was a student at Hood College from 1979 until 1983. While a student, I was not directly affected by the curricular changes as they were implemented after I had begun my course of study. I did, however, witness some of the faculty discussions about the proposals under consideration in 1979 through the early 1980s. Following my graduation, I was hired by the institution to serve as its Director of Residence Life. As a member of the student affairs staff who reported to the Dean of Student Affairs, I was not responsible for or directly connected to any curricular activities of the College. Again, however, I did have some knowledge of the curricular developments and changes that took place during the years of my employment, 1983 to 1985.

While there is no way to be certain, I believe that my prior acquaintance status with participants resulted in better, i.e., more detailed and revealing data. I sensed intuitively that some participants said more to me than they might have with another researcher. I was perceived as an "insider," someone who could understand and relate to the culture of the institution. I encouraged this perception by informing some 69

participants, for example, that I had witnessed intense faculty discussions about

curriculum during my days as a student.

Early on in the process of analyzing the data, I felt a keen sense of hesitancy. I

was worried not so much about "finding" something unpleasant or unflattering through

the research, but of revealing to the participants that I had interpreted in a negative light

some aspect of their lives and work. The prospect of using member checks both

alleviated and enhanced my discomfort. By having participants review the analysis before

producing a final version of the document, I would have benefit of their review of my

accounts of faculty events as well as reaction to my interpretations of the themes which

had emerged from the data. On the other hand, I could potentially meet with disagreement

and resistance to my interpretations and written accounts.

The uneasiness I felt early on abated over time as I moved farther along in the

analysis. What became clear was that what I viewed as flattering and unflattering aspects

of the participants appeared side by side in the data and ultimately created what I had

hoped to see-multidimensional people living out multiple roles within a complex

environment. In other words, what I "found" was a version of real life as it occurs at

Hood College. As a result, I tried to depict that real life in the writing phase of the

project, intentionally including both positive and negative narrative statements from the

interview data.

The second aspect of my subjectivity had more to do with my orientation to

research and the topic of the study than the people. I consider myself a feminist which

influences my views in my professional as well as my private life. Because women as a class of people and gender as category of analysis have been ignored for so long in our scholarly traditions, I am particularly commited to advancing research in which women 70

are subjects and/or gender is a central consideration. I have continuing interests in curriculum, in women's colleges, and in discovering the ways gender matters specifically within higher education. Thus, I intentionally chose a topic and designed a study that would incorporate these areas of personal and professional interest.

In preparing for and conducting this study, I did not assume that women's colleges are feminist institutions; nor did I assume that individuals who work in women's colleges hold feminist values or beliefs. However, based on my personal experiences as well as my theoretical understanding of institutional culture and identity, I did believe it was valid to examine the impact of gender on institutional curriculum. Specifically, I wanted to know whether and how an institution's formal identity as a women's college might influence the structure and context of its general education curriculum.

Early in the interview and data analysis I was disappointed when it seemed, according to most participants, that during their long span of curriculum work, there was little consideration of the College's mission to educate women or overt discussion of how women should be educated in a contemporary society. What I discovered over time, after repeated visits with the data, was that issues of gender were present more than I had first believed. Moreover, it became apparent that the absence of discussion and consideration of gender issues was equally important data to consider. This realization led to the construction of an additional research question to guide the analysis and to a different and deeper examination of the participant narratives.

One final consideration, related to both subjectivity and credibility, is the way in which the study is presented here. After coming to terms with what I thought was

"missing" from the data, I worried about what was present in the data. I wanted assurance that I would be able to make meaning of the data and present it in a coherent 71

and compelling way, one that would do justice to the openness and integrity shown to me by the participants. I had characterized the writing process from the beginning as my telling of their story, or more accurately, our story. And, like any biographer or historian, I worried as much about what to leave out as what to include, how best to tell the story. I was relieved and reassured, though not completely, by the words of Paul

Atkinson:

This aspect-making it all come together-is one of the most difficult things of all, isn't it? Quite apart from actually achieving it, it is hard to inject the right mix of (a) faith that it can and will be achieved; (b) recognition that it has to be worked at, and isn't based on romantic inspiration; (c) that it isn't like a solution to a puzzle or a math problem, but has to be created; (d) that you can't always pack everything into one version, and that any one project could yield several different ways of bringing it together. (Quoted in Strauss & Corbin, 1990, p. 117.)

Atkinson's words were an important reminder that I was not searching for objective truth; rather, I was constructing a story—a story that emerged from a fluid relationship between what the research participants said and what I heard. I took considerable comfort in the reminder that some pieces get left out by virtue of the particular version of the story that is told. It is certainly the case that there was and is far more to tell about the people of Hood

College and the College itself than could ever be fully explored in one study. CHAPTER IV

HOOD COLLEGE: CURRICULUM CHANGE IN HISTORICAL AND CONTEMPORARY CONTEXT

Introduction

Elaine: I was teaching in [a] department when the decision was made to abandon all requirements. So I remember sitting through the faculty meetings when that was discussed and I know how heated it was and how concerned people were about dropping the requirements. But there was an overriding concern about what was going to happen to us as an institution because enrollment was falling and we were looking to dramatic things. And so it was indeed dramatic to drop all requirements and to have only a semester of English composition and the P.E.

In 1971, the faculty of Hood College voted to reduce its general education program from 52 credits of distribution requirements to 3 credits of English composition and 2 credits of Physical Education (See Appendix A for definitions). Many colleges and universities made similar changes in the late 1960s and early 1970s, either eliminating or greatly reducing the number of general education courses required for graduation. It was the protest era, a period of sweeping demographic change, and a time when the women's movement was opening new educational and career doors for women students.

72 73

Christina: ... when they [the faculty] abandoned the whole of degree requirements, that was the Vietnam era. There was turmoil... a whole batch of things making people nervous and unsettled. And the vote [the faculty] took, nobody can really remember how it emerged, only that it happened. And it took 6 or 8 years to realize that the absence of it was really harming students.

... I think when they voted out the degree requirements faculty claimed they could help each student develop the proper curricular approach by moral suasion, by the quality of faculty advising which faculty were pretty proud of. . . .

Hood College is a small, private, predominantly women's college whose enrollment in 1971 was approximately 700 undergraduate women, the vast majority of whom were traditional aged, full-time, residential students. Hood was, and is, primarily a teaching college focusing most of its resources on undergraduate education. Most Hood students emerge from their four year experience with a B. A. degree; although B.S. programs are offered in Home Economics and Radiological Technology. During the early 1970s, a number of professional preparation programs and concentrations, e.g.

Social Work, Communications, Recreation and Leisure Studies, were added to the traditional areas of study. These programs, created at the behest of President Ross

Pritchard (1972-75), were designed to capitalize on the women's movement and the increasing societal emphasis on expanding career options for women (Hetrick interview).

The elimination of curricular requirements at Hood in 1971 is an important marker in the College's curricular history. In the 20 years that follow that event, the College experienced a number of significant institutional changes, including new leadership and new patterns of enrollment. More specifically, the absence of curricular requirements can be seen as a significant influence in its decision to reinstitute such requirements. During a period of 12-13 years from the late 1970s through 1990, the College developed two successive core curricula. 74

Before describing the specific events relative to curricular changes at Hood during this period, it is useful to trace the institution's history and highlight some of the major forces, both internal and external, that were affecting the College just prior to and during the twelve years. A brief examination of these factors will help create a context in which to understand the events and perceptions that will be the focus of this study.

Founding of the College

The institution now known as Hood College was founded in 1893 as the

Women's College of Frederick by the pastors of the Potomac Synod of the Reformed

Church of the United States. 1 The College originated in downtown Frederick, Maryland utilizing the buildings of its antecedent institution, Frederick Female Seminary, which had been chartered in 1839 (Hood College Alumnae Magazine, 1994). The College was renamed in 1912 in honor of Margaret Scholl Hood, a graduate of the Seminary, whose gifts to the College made it possible to purchase some farm land which at that time lay just west of the town of Frederick.

Construction on the new campus began in 1914. The first academic building was occupied in fall of 1915; although the downtown campus remained in use until 1930 when a residence hall on the new campus could be completed. Over time both the College and the town grew. Today, Hood occupies the farm land more fully with some two dozen buildings. The city of Frederick has grown outward to meet the campus which is now surrounded on three sides by residential neighborhoods and on the fourth by a commercial district.

From its founding, Hood's identity and curriculum were based on the assumption that its graduates would enter professions outside the home as well as retain the roles and 75

responsibilities within the home traditionally accorded to women. According to Church

(1985), the founders organized the curriculum so that:

all students would benefit from taking foundation work in the liberal arts and from electing a major that either built upon one of the liberal arts or sciences or provided professional preparation in such fields as early childhood education and home economics (p. 235).

Church notes further that other women's colleges of that era chose a more limited kind of education for their students. In her view, Hood chose to be different by preparing women to do something other than "transmit the nation's culture to the next generation within the home" (p. 236).

Throughout its first 75 years, Hood enjoyed relative health and stability, including continuity in institutional leadership and faculty and steady enrollments of approximately

500 undergraduate women, nearly all of whom were residential students. In fact, those relatively placid decades experienced by the college left it less well-prepared to deal with the more tumultuous times in which many institutions, indeed the entire country, suddenly found itself in the late 1960s.

Impact of Contemporary Society on Campus

By the end of the 1960s the impact of several major societal phenomena— including unrest regarding the Vietnam War, the Civil Rights movement, and the beginning of a second wave of the Women's movement-was being felt on many college and university campuses. For Hood, in particular, there were three important changes

(Church, 1985). First, the College began to detect slight, incremental declines in enrollment by the 1969-70 academic year. These declines corresponded with the sudden shift, particularly in the Northeast, to coeducation among formerly all-male colleges and 76

universities. The College's response to this dilemma was to look for new leadership; a search for a new College president was begun in 1971.

A second danger signal came from the leaders of the local community college who were increasingly concerned about the possibility of a four-year state supported, or public, institution opening an extension campus somewhere in the county. The Frederick

County Board of Education, which had jurisdiction over the public school system and the local two-year community college, urged Hood to consider admitting male students.

Hood's Board of Trustees voted to begin admitting men as commuter students only beginning in 1971, citing its decision to do so as a service to the local community.

Hood's Trustees expected that only a few men from the local area might enroll in response to the College's sudden coeducational status. Hood was to retain its primary identity as a women's college and there was little discussion of any longterm impact of the decision.

The third significant event for the college was its decision in 1971 to eliminate all degree requirements outside the major except three credits of English composition and two credits of physical education. Students across the country were resisting what they considered rigid and outmoded traditional curricula. Many colleges responded by eliminating curricular requirements and providing students with much greater freedom to structure their academic programs. In Hood's case, that sweeping curricular change combined with several other factors and events, set the College on a course whose effects would still be felt nearly 20 years later.

Despite the fact that the Hood faculty voted to eliminate its distribution requirements without significant debate (Church, 1985), some faculty members expressed concern at the time that without structured requirements in place students would not 77

receive a well-rounded education in the liberal arts. Other faculty saw curricular structure as a formality and believed that all Hood faculty were committed to the idea and value of liberal arts education. The latter group felt confident that faculty advising could be relied upon to ensure that each student's basic education needs were met and that each student would, by the time she graduated, achieve a balance of general and specialized learning.

At the time, the College identified itself in its published materials as a liberal arts institution.

A New President Focuses on Careers for Women

Hood experienced changes in key academic administrative leadership during the early 1970s. Spring 1971 saw the departure of both the President and academic dean

(chief academic officer of the college). For the 1971-72 academic year, the Board of

Trustees appointed a retired faculty member to serve as interim president. Three faculty members were appointed to share responsibilities as Acting Deans of Academic Affairs.

By the Fall Semester 1972 a new President and new Dean had been selected. The

President would remain at Hood for three years, while the Dean stayed for four years.

The new President, Ross Pritchard, was to leave a legacy at Hood. In two years he made significant changes including more than doubling the new student enrollment, reaffirming the college's commitment to educate women, completing a marketing survey designed to help the College evaluate and respond to market perceptions, and creating a continuing education program for women 25 years and older. Perhaps the most significant impact he had was on the curriculum. Here his influence was felt throughout the college and remained in evidence nearly two decades later. 78

His plan, in essence, was to capitalize on the growing momentum of the women's movement, which was pressing for greater access to careers for women among other goals. The President instructed each of the academic departments of the College to develop career oriented programs or emphases in addition to their standard offerings. The result was new concentrations as well as some entirely new programs of study including art therapy, medical technology, environmental studies, special education, consumer studies, law and society, social work, and recreation and leisure studies (Hetrick interview). Many of these new programs were interdisciplinary.

In response to the President's mandate, there was some resentment and resistance from faculty who saw this new career thrust as too vocational and thus in conflict with

Hood's strong liberal arts commitment. There was, however, some irony in the faculty's perceptions given the intentions of the College's founders as described earlier. That is,

President Pritchard's goal to create more career-oriented programs for women might be viewed as an attempt to modernize the curriculum to reflect the goals upon which the

College had been founded: preparing graduates to work outside the home as well as within it.

There is some evidence to suggest that just prior to Pritchard's arrival at Hood in

1972, the College had suffered from a lack of presidential leadership (Church, 1985).

After decades of stability, the College suddenly discovered a pattern of small, incremental enrollment declines. That pattern raised significant concern among faculty, staff, students and alumnae and, ultimately, led the Board of Trustees to search for a new president.

At least part of Hood's enrollment decline can be attributed to increased higher educational opportunities for women that were emerging during that time. Women students were being granted access to institutions where previously they had been denied 79

admission. Futhermore, because of the women's movement, young women were being encouraged to enter these formerly male-dominated institutions.

With the birth of the Women's Studies as an academic field in the late 1960s serving as the academic arm of the larger women's movement, there was growing sentiment that separate spheres no longer served women well. Women, the movement proclaimed, should not relegated to the private sphere of the home or limited to caretaking roles as they had been traditionally. Instead, women should be full participants in public as well private life, and enjoy the same rights accorded to men in society. The women's movement, primarily led by privileged white women, fought for equal access and opportunities primarily for women like themselves, i.e., white and middle-class. These women believed that the kinds of opportunities they sought-access to a greater range of careers, equal pay, and so on—were most likely to be gained in those arenas controlled by men. As a result, support for women's colleges declined significantly as more than 150 women's colleges closed between 1960 and 1973 (Hood Case Study, 1977).

The President's directive to modify the curriculum by incorporating more career- oriented programs was in direct response to these societal trends. Attention to these larger issues and an assessment of perceptions held by prospective students and parents helped the college to design an aggressive marketing campaign to reverse enrollment declines.

The campaign began to stress the career education available at Hood. While the campaign primarily was aimed at traditional aged students, the College also initiated a new continuing education program and began actively to recruit students 25 years or older.

The women's movement also was having an impact on adult women. Middle class white women, in particular, were increasingly motivated to return to college for a variety of reasons: 1) to complete degrees interrupted by marriage and family 80

responsibilities; 2) to pursue careers that would enable them to make an independent living following a divorce or separation, 3) to change careers or enhance their chances for mobility in their current field; and 4) to reexamine their personal goals and determine ways to achieve greater personal fulfillment. Hood's new career-oriented curricular thrust, in combination with its small size and personal attention to students, met the educational and personal needs of this new and potentially large student population.

Enrollment improved markedly during Pritchard's tenure as President as well as an unmistakable and lasting change in the formal curriculum of the college. If the previous years had been characterized by somewhat lackluster leadership, this president apparently was well able to provide strong guidance and to galvanize the faculty, staff, students, and alumnae around institution-wide concerns. His leadership, however, was not completely well received and his strategies for resolving short-term fiscal difficulties ultimately created longer-term financial challenges for the institution. He resigned in 1975 to become the president of another institution.

A Second New President Faces New Problems

When a new President began work in 1975, Hood's budget was $300,000 in the red. Funds originally intended for other purposes had been diverted to the operations budget leaving the long term stability of the College in jeopardy (Church, 1985). To mask the impending financial trouble of the institution from faculty and the board,

Pritchard had taken greater control and bypassed Hood's tradition of democratic decision making. Faculty and administrators had become distrustful. The curriculum had grown by leaps and bounds; some 400 curricular changes (e.g., new courses, programs added, internships newly offered) had taken place between 1972 and 1974 (Hood case study, 81

1977). In addition, the aggressive marketing campaign to change public perception of

Hood and increase enrollment had worked very well, almost too well, as the substantial growth had not been planned for and was stretching the already limited institutional resources. Finally, the passage of Title IX legislation in 1972 raised new questions regarding Hood's 1970 decision to admit male commuting students and the potential for equal access liability claims.

This was the situation facing Hood's new President, Dr. Martha Church, upon her arrival in 1975. Church moved quickly to identify the most pressing needs of the institution and begin to address them. She sought to provide leadership that would enable

Hood to "build on the college's basic strengths—its mission as a women's college, its trustees, its faculty and staff, its curricular program and services, its loyal alumnae, and its position of respect in the Middle Atlantic area" (Church, 1985, pp. 240-241).

Church instituted a comprehensive Long Range Planning process that involved students, faculty, staff, and Trustees in a review of the College's mission statement. A revised and expanded mission statement was adopted by the Board of Trustees in

November 1976 (see Appendix B for mission statement). The new statement outlined the two broad roles of the institution which were to serve "first and foremost as a contemporary liberal arts college for women and secondly as a major educational resource for women and men living in the Frederick Area" (Church, 1985, p. 241). As a measure of protection against potential Title IX challenges, an agreement was reached with the president of the local community college for male Hood students to have access to facilities and services of its Physical Educational department. In addition, a graduate program designed primarily to serve area educators was also established by Hood in

1976. 82

Finally, under the new President efforts were directed at structuring a more open, inclusive budget process for the college, adapting student services and staffing patterns to meet the needs of the larger student body, and evaluating and revising the faculty code to allow for more systematic participation of faculty in institutional governance.

Between 1978 and 1983, Hood was successful in securing a number of major grants from the federal government, the state of Maryland, and several private philanthropic organizations (Church, 1985). These funds helped Hood regain some financial stability providing resources necessary to carry out long range planning, upgrade facilities, expand programs, and increase scholarships for students.

While President Church worked to restructure administrative processes and mechanisms to regain faculty trust and achieve greater institutional stability, the new

Provost, who had arrived in 1976, focused her attention on Hood's curriculum. She began in the Spring of 1977 by inviting a group of faculty to discuss potential curricular changes including instituting a core curriculum as well as developing some interdisciplinary courses.

Curriculum Change - the Discussion Begins

Christina: ... we did a study of transcripts of the class of 76 and 77. And you had students who hadn't been near the science department or scientists who hadn't really done anything in art. It was classically lopsided; you had students with as many as 90 hours in art and virtually nothing else. .. .these transcript studies that were done were really shocking and that led the faculty to start.. to discuss degree requirements.

Six years after the Hood faculty voted to eliminate its general education requirements, Hood's new Provost and Dean of Academic Affairs, Dr. Mary Metz, 83

invited a small group of faculty to meet and begin considering whether the college should increase its requirements or perhaps design a core curriculum to be required of all Hood students. She saw an important opportunity for curricular innovation and initiated the dialogue, but she did so in a way that gave faculty both voice and responsibility from the very first discussions. This informal group met for nearly a year and then voted to disband, agreeing that "the basic question of degree requirements needed to be addressed in a systematic way by a representative faculty task force" (Report from the Task Force,

May 1980, p. 4).

In April 1978, the Special Task Force to Study Degree Requirements, a faculty group with representation from each department, was first convened. The formal charge to the Task Force from the Dean was two-fold: 1) "to evaluate the effectiveness and appropriateness of Hood's degree requirements", and 2) to "recommend to the faculty either the continuation or modification of those requirements" (Report from the Task

Force, 1980, p. 4). Through both formal assessment and informal evaluation, the Task

Force determined that the curricular structure was not serving the students well despite the institution's emphasis on faculty advising. A transcript analysis showed that students were emerging from Hood with narrow educational experiences having sought specialized knowledge in one or two areas rather than designing more broadly based programs of study.

Students' transcripts stood in contrast to Hood's longstanding commitment to providing women a balanced education. According to its mission statement "Hood

College is a contemporary liberal arts college for women." With respect to curriculum, the mission statement concludes "There is no need for a forced choice between liberal education and career preparation. Each can be accomplished in ways that augment the 84

degree to which the objectives of the other are attained. Hood believes that the best foundation for either employment or further academic training is an education which is balanced between general and specialized." (Hood College 1990-1991 Catalog, p.3)

Once the patterns of imbalance in student programs became evident, faculty began to agree that Hood students needed a structured set of curricular experiences that would expose them to the liberal arts as well as support their more specific career aspirations. In addition to their concerns regarding balance, faculty saw an increased need among students for developing certain skills including writing, critical thinking, and computation.

The Task Force set about the lengthy and complex process of creating and designing a core curriculum. The group began by soliciting from each academic department a definition of a liberal arts education. The departmental offerings were compiled and used to construct a single working definition which included four broad purposes: 1) to develop the capacity and desire to learn, 2) to foster language skills and promote the importance of language, 3) to provide a broad foundation of knowledge via exposure to the disciplines, and 4) to develop the capacity to use learning as a tool for lifelong growth.

This working definition of a liberal arts education became the foundation and springboard for the design of the core curriculum. The Task Force members created lists of "ideal" curricular requirements. Through a process of detailed discussion, these lists were merged into a single list which then became the basis for creating a proposed curricular format and content. The proposal was revised by the Task Force and then submitted to the full faculty for their consideration.2 85

After much more debate and revision by the full faculty, they voted to adopt a 32 credit, 2-part core curriculum to be required of all B.A. students. Part 1 of the core--

Basic Courses—required 14 credits in courses that focused on such skills as writing, computation, physical activity, and language. Part 2 of the core—Breadth and Integration-

-was intended to ground students in the traditional disciplines as well as to expose them to interdisciplinary work and encourage integration of knowledge beyond traditional disciplinary boundaries. Students were required to complete a total of 18 credits or a minimum of 3 credits in each of the six categories that comprised this section of the core.

(See Appendix C for a description of the Core.)

Students pursuing a B.S. degree in Home Economics would complete a slightly different set of curricular requirements. The "Home Ec Core," as it was called, required students to complete 24-25 credi ts of general education which combined some elements of parts 1 and 2 of the newly created "B.A." core curriculum. In addition, Home Economics students took 14 credits of standard Home Economics courses. The number of general education credits required were reduced in order to accommodate the already stringent major requirements imposed on the department by its accrediting body. The prospect of a separate core for Home Economics students was a particularly difficult and devisive issue, one that was debated at length but ultimately agreed to by the full faculty.

The Task Force saw the new two-part B.A. core as an appropriate curricular response to the specific needs of Hood students as well as a means to meet several fundamental educational objectives: 1) to ensure broad exposure to the liberal arts, 2) to encourage interest and ability outside the narrow range of a student's major, 3) to enable students to synthesize material across disciplines, and 4) to increase the student's capacity 86

to understand and evaluate herself within a broad perspective (Report from the Task

Force).

The faculty voted to accept the core in March 1980. In May of that year, the

Board of Trustees added its formal support to the faculty's decision. Implementation was to begin in the Autumn semester of 1981. According to the Chair of the Task Force:

... the vote to institute a new core curriculum prescribing a set of graduation requirements for all students in the B.A. program involved more than 2 years of meetings, research, draft proposals, discussions, revisions, disagreements, and much preliminary voting (A New Curriculum to Strengthen the Liberal Arts, p. 1).

The Chair actually understates the case. The creation of Hood's core curriculum from exploration to conceptualization and design took nearly three years (1977 to 1980).

Before implementation could take place a fourth year would be required to determine which among the existing courses could be adapted for use in the core, to design new courses, and to make necessary accomodations in the organizational structure. Moreover, the project from start to finish had demanded time, attention, and energy from nearly the entire faculty as well as the academic administration. Although the Task Force had been vested with responsibility for recommending curricular changes, the faculty retained full curricular authority as evidenced by their lengthy and often heated deliberations, requests for revisions, alternative proposals, and so on.

The Task Force report portrays the core curriculum as non-partisan, an endeavor jointly created and owned by faculty. It characterizes the core as responsive to student needs and reflective of Hood's educational values rather than as a product of campus politics.

The response at Hood to these problems has been a creative one. The new curriculum addresses not only the question of basic skills... but also the issues of breadth and integration, and does so in new and imaginative 87

ways. It is to the faculty's credit that the final result is a reflection of the educational needs of the student rather than the territorial interests of individual departments. The clear faculty approval by the faculty of the program and the enthusiastic endorsement by the Board of Trustees thus launches a new curriculum aimed at strengthening our unchanging commitment to liberal education, (p. 8)

The final curriculum proposal, as revised by the faculty, refers only briefly to the separate core curriculum created for Home Economic students.

The Core Curriculum as approved by the faculty will apply to all Bachelor of Arts students. Departments offering Bachelor of Science degrees may:

a. elect to adopt the approved core curriculum; b. submit an alternative core curriculum to the faculty for approval.

The Department of Biology has decided that its B.S. students will follow the core curriculum as approved by the faculty. The Department of Home Economics is developing a slightly modified core curriculum for its majors.

Implementation and Evaluation

Upon the recommendation of the task force, the faculty voted to create a new committee that would be responsible for implementing and evaluating the core curriculum.

This new Core Curriculum Committee was to be comprised of six elected faculty members, one student representative, and the Dean of Academic Affairs. In August

1980, Dean Metz issued a memorandum summarizing the Committee's responsibilities and expectations as agreed upon by the faculty. Specifically the Committee was charged with approving or disapproving core course proposals, periodically evaluating courses to ensure standards, monitoring the number of courses offered in each category of the Core, coordinating development of new core courses, and approving exceptions to requirements as needed by transfer students or others, (see Appendix D for the membership and 88

responsibilities of the Core Curriculum Committee). With respect to evaluation of the core, the Provost indicated that a specific format had not yet been determined.

The Core Curriculum Committee (CCC) worked in the early 1980s to interpret the categories of the core, particularly the Breadth and Integration section, in order to determine which courses proposed by faculty would satisfy which core requirements.

From the beginning, the CCC had difficulty interpreting the meaning of the terms Breadth and Integration as well as clarifying the intent of the six categories and establishing firm criteria for accepting courses into each category.

Ian: The idea was, the core curriculum committee was established at that point, and would then in a sense, monitor the core. They had the say over what courses would be allowed into the various categories of the core, which ones wouldn't... And they were also charged in the faculty handbook with the idea of doing an assessment of it and reporting back to the faculty... I don't think the second thing ever got done.

... it was very difficult for the Core Curriculum Committee to monitor which courses went in because it was very difficult to tell the department that their courses weren't good enough ... and so instead of a positive thing it became a negative thing - if you couldn't find a reason to reject a course, you approved. And so there was a floodgate of courses and it started getting out of hand.

The initial core proposal from the Task Force report had provided only broad descriptions of the dimensions of the new core. As the proposal was more fully developed by the faculty, a definition and statement of purpose was written for each of the six categories. Even these definitions, however, did not facilitate either the implementation or evaluation tasks of the CCC. As a result, there was a proliferation of courses within a number of the categories. Moreover, there seemed to be an inherent tension in trying to achieve both breadth and integration in a single course. 89

Genie: We had tried to be very liberal in what could be in those categories in the core and it turned out we were almost too liberal. In turned out somebody could take English courses, for example, to satisfy three different areas of what should be the Breadth and Integration part. It also was difficult to handle Breadth and Integration all at once.

While the requirements had not been named after or designed to correspond with content of individual departments, some departments did seem to become more closely associated with a given requirement. Patterns developed such that course lists in a particular category were dominated by offerings from one or two departments. In addition, it was sometimes the case that one or two courses in a category enrolled the vast majority of students seeking credit for that requirement. These patterns caused frustration among faculty and the committee alike.

In February 1983, the CCC sought clarification regarding its charge from the

Committee on Committees, an oversight group within the College's faculty governance

(CCC minutes, February 3,1983). The Committee on Committees requested a formal, written statement from the CCC to be passed on to the full faculty. To the original statement they had received from the Provost, the CCC proposed three items be added to their charge: 1) evaluate of the outcomes and impact of the core, 2) clarify of the category definitions, and 3) provide recommendations to the faculty regarding core curriculum development.

In March of that year, the CCC minutes reflect the Committees' ongoing difficulty in establishing a reasonable means for carrying out the task of evaluating the Core.

In a discussion of the feasibility of evaluating core courses via program reviews, the committee returned to the recurring problem of the vagueness of core category objectives. After much discussion, it seemed easier to evaluate the courses by category rather than by department, and that the Core Curriculum Committee would ask all instructors teaching in the Core to submit current syllabi of their coures, with the understanding 90

that individual instructors will be invited to attend the meetings, should more information be needed (minutes, March 17,1983)

In an effort to develop a systematic means for evaluating and accepting courses proposed for the core, the Core Curriculum Committee sought additional input from the faculty regarding criteria. The CCC believed that faculty reacted with hostility and resistance to this request. The appeal for information was interpreted by the faculty as intrusive and the CCC was seen as devising a method to "pass judgement" on individual courses.

Sensitive to the faculty's response, the Committee became hesitant to assert its authority (which had been vested legitimately by the faculty) and carry out a full-fledged evaluation of the core or individual courses. Ultimately, this issue became one of the primary reasons for creating a new core rather than adjusting or modifying the first one.

When the Committee did finally report the findings of its evaluative efforts, it did so only in a rather general way, citing them almost as prefatory remarks to a proposal for a new core in Fall 1987 (October 27,1987 memorandum to faculty).

Ian: There was some feeling that the way departments were getting courses in there was they would "fix up" the syllabus so that it looked right. And then, of course, a lot of this was anecdotal information because we never did a rigorous, comprehensive study on evaluating the core. I think in many ways the Core Curriculum Committee just stopped, maybe not consciously, but that's in effect what happened. Whenever the idea came up of doing a rigorous evaluation of the core, which meant evaluating individual courses in the core, you immediately ran against a lot of complaints from faculty. 'Oh , you don't trust us. You want to snoop into our teaching.'... so that never really got done, that evaluation.

The Decision to Create a New Core

As a result of faculty resistance and the problems inherent in the implementation of the core, the Core Curriculum Committee changed its timeline, its process, and, 91

ultimately, its expectations regarding evaluation of the core. When the committee began its work, an evaluation was expected in 2-3 years. This time frame was first modified to five years in order to coincide with the institution's self-study/accreditation schedule and thus make use of the departmental program review reports and documentation generated as part of the formal accreditation process.

The five year plan was then abandoned when the CCC determined that the intended department-based evaluation would not be effective. Some Committee members suggested that the Breadth and Integration sections of the core be evaluated category by category with an assessment or examination of each course that previously had been approved for core credit.

Despite faculty resistance, the CCC began to gather course enrollment and other data in Spring 1984 and, eventually, was able to detect some trends and answer some of the questions that had been raised about the impact of the core on students. With respect to course enrollment, for example, the data showed that one or two courses, those most

"popular" among students, in each category were getting the highest enrollments. Other findings indicated that students still were taking courses from relatively few disciplines and that more than half of the requirements were being completed in a student's first two years.

While the CCC did examine the core using some data as well as a lot of anecdotal information, it was unable to complete as thorough an evaluation of the courses within the core as it had originally be charged to do. While it was increasingly clear that faculty were unhappy with the core, the Committee seemed unable to make any qualitative judgements about the impact of the core on students' educational experience at Hood. 92

By Spring of 1985, the Committee was actively considering a proposal for a new kind of core curriculum. The absence of a comprehensive statement of evaluation and impact may have contributed to the faculty's move, ultimately, to design a new core rather than revise the first one.

Gerrie: I happened to be in the minority of thinking maybe we should see what's wrong with the old core and fix it up instead of starting from ground zero, but we started from ground zero again - you know, designing a core curriculum from the ground up.

Institutional Climate of the 1980s

During the early to mid 1980s, while the Core Curriculum I was in place and the

Core Curriculum Committee was beginning to recognize the problems inherent both in the

Core itself and the ways in which it was being implemented, the College experienced some important changes. As in the previous decade, the 1980s proved to be a challenging time for private higher education.

Among the external forces affecting the College was a continuing decline in the available pool of traditional age students. Fortunately for Hood, the overall enrollment had changed relatively little from its peak enrollments of the late 1970s. The composition of Hood's student population, however, was dramatically different. According to the

1989 Hood College Strategic Plan:

Hood may have changed very little in the type of traditional-aged students it enrolls, but the College as a whole has changed a great deal. In 1976, the continuing education population comprised 7% of the total FTE population; by 1988, the figure rose to 23% (35% headcount). Where we once were basically a homogneous population of traditional-aged students with a small number of adult learners,we are now comprised of two large and significantly different populations.

... Ostensibly, we are a four year college and a graduate school; actually, we are a four year college, a two year upper division college, and a graduate school (p.3). 93

The loss of traditional age resident students, particularly within the residential population, had been offset by increases in the number of continuing education (i.e., those students 25 years or older), commuter, and graduate students. In 1976, commuters represented less than half of the total undergraduate population. In 1987, the number of commuter and residential students were virtually equal, and, byl988, commuters had taken a slight lead in the headcount figures. The number of continuing education students nearly quadrupled from 111 students (headcount) in 1976 to 404 students in 1988. In addition, graduate enrollments had grown substantially from 483 in 1977, the second year of the program, to 713 in 1988. Finally, the number of male students attending the institution also had increased, though less dramatically, over the years from 42.4 full-time equivalents (FTE) in 1976 to 53.8 FTE in 1988 (Planning Documents).

Hood also faced the difficulty shared by most small, private, tuition-driven institutions: necessary increases in tuition required that a greater proportion of institutional resources be made available for student financial aid. In 1973, the College spent 5.2% of its total resources on financial aid; by 1988 that figure had reached 13.2%.

Annual tuition increases had become problematic for Hood and projections that increases might continue at an average rate of 9% per year, greater than the rate of inflation, spelled potential disaster in two ways. First, it would be increasingly difficult, given the other fiscal needs and realities of the institution, to offset the increasing financial need of students by allocating a greater proportion of institutional resources. Second,

Hood's growing population of non-traditional age students was affected even more dramatically by increases in tuition. The majority of these women, because they were older and/or were married with some source of income, did not qualify for many of the various forms of financial aid available to the typical undergraduate student. These 94

women had to finance their own education; thus substantial increases in tuition had the potential to render Hood unaffordable to them. The possible loss of these students was made more worrisome by continuing threats of encroachment by public four-year institutions into the area.

The changes in student enrollment were affecting the institution in other ways as well. There was an unmistakable shift in interest from the traditional liberal arts to more career and professionally-oriented programs. Majors such as management and computer science, first instituted in the 1970s, were drawing large numbers of students from all populations. By 1988, more than half (54%) of the traditional student population was majoring in professionally-oriented programs while 46% had liberal arts majors. The imbalance was greater in the continuing education population where only 25% of students had liberal arts majors and 75% were pursuing career-oriented fields (Planning

Documents).

The impact on the College of these changes in student population and choice of academic field was considerable. One of the greatest challenges was in scheduling classes. Prior to the implementation of the Core Curriculum, classes for the traditional professionally-oriented programs such as early childhood education, secondary education, and home economics, had been offered during the day. Some of the newer career-oriented programs, e.g. marketing, computer science, had course offerings both during the day and in the evening to accommodate the growing interest in these fields among part-time commuting students.

The 1989 Strategic Plan credits extensive evening course offerings as a primary factor in the success of attracting and maintaining much of the non-traditional student population. 95

One reason for our success in attracting large numbers of continuing education students has been the decision to offer an extensive evening program in which students are guaranteed that they will be able to graduate with a major in economics, management, or computer science by taking evening courses alone. This means that liberal arts courses have had to be offered in the evening as well as a full contingent of courses in the three majors. Because of our limited resources, we have had to shift courses which normally would be taught during the day to the evening in order to honor this commitment (p. 5-6).

The Plan also suggests that the evening schedule expanded because more double numbered undergraduate/graduate courses were being offered to support the growth of graduate programs. The overall result was that, by 1988, approximately one quarter of the continuing education students attended Hood only in the evening. Even more startling was the fact that two-thirds of the full-time, traditional age students enrolled in at least one evening course each semester. And, of course, evening course enrollments were much more frequent for students majoring in the three evening-oriented programs.

These course enrollment trends had an impact on the nature of student life, particularly the co-curricular life among the residential student population. Put simply, the College was moving farther away from the traditional residential college profile it had once maintained.

Beyond considering the impact of the class schedule on student life, the faculty faced a greater concern. In the early 1980s, the College had been mandated by the Board of Trustees to raise its student/faculty ratio from 11-1 to 12-1. In addition, there was some discussion beginning inl984 regarding a reduction in the standard teaching load from 24 credits per year (an average of four courses per semester) to 21 or perhaps even

18 credits per year. Thus, the College found itself with opposing needs: to offer more courses in the evening without increasing the overall number of courses being taught and 96

lo meet the needs of evening students without greatly infringing upon the traditional experiences of the residential student population.

For the most part, the College historically had employed a traditional day-time teaching faculty. Adjunct faculty were hired as needed to teach in the programs that required particular expertise or to cover the growing number of evening courses. As efficiencies in the College professoriate dictated that fewer adjuncts be hired, the alternative was to assign traditional day-time faculty to teach in the evenings.

In addition, the need to achieve the higher student/faculty ratio had resulted in the elimination of several programs from the College. Faculty associated with those programs were relocated where possible, but some eventually left the College. These losses, in conjunction with the other shifts occurring created an environment of apprension and anxiety particularly among faculty.

The strain on the College as a whole was undeniable. The 1989 Strategic Plan captured in concise language the difficult task faced by the institution and the limitations that size placed on the ability to respond.

The growing commuting and graduate populations have caused a division of the College into many significantly different but overlapping components: commuters and residents; traditional-aged and continuing education; undergraduate and graduate; professional and liberal arts; day and evening; women and men; part-time and full-time.

At large comprehensive institutions it is possible to deal with this complexity through a division into separate colleges.... At Hood, a single faculty and administration must deal with all populations simultaneously. A single faculty member might teach two day courses for traditional-aged female students, an evening course composed primarily of male continuing education students, and a graduate course consisting of people who work all day and attend Hood one course at a time in the evening. Administrators attempt to resolve problems in one area at the College only to find that the best solution leads to problems for another area (p. 6-7). 97

Positive Factors

While the circumstances presented a number of challenges to the College, there also were some positive factors to consider. Hood's endowment increased from $5.7 million in 1973 to $32 million in 1989. Compared to its situation in 1975 when Dr.

Church assumed the presidency, the Institution reported itself as being in relatively good financial standing (1989 Strategic Plan).

By the end of the decade, the College had nearly fifteen years experience with long range and strategic planning. The process that evolved was complex and multi layered; true to Dr. Church's intention, it required the participation of the various constituencies of the College. The process was built on the College's two-fold mission statement. That is, the planning process began by reasserting Hood's mission first, as a college for women and, second, as an institution serving the local/regional community.

The process was a primary vehicle for reminding the entire Hood community of its goals and priorities.

Througout the 1980s, Hood gained recognition in some of the popular press' annual college "ratings." In 1982, Hood was ranked in Every Woman's Guide to

Colleges and Universities. In 1985, Hood was rated as the number one small college in the East by U.S. News and World Report in their annual issue rating institutions across the country. For the next several years, Hood routinely appeared in the U.S. News and

World Report rankings, despite the fact that the College continued to change "categories" within those rankings due to its programmatic and structural adaptations.

Due, in part, to this kind of recognition, Hood enhanced its reputation, particularly at the national level. National name recognition is an important achievement for any college but even moreso for women's colleges who have a smaller potential 98

market. Moreover, the product of the College, i.e., its blend of liberal arts and career preparation for women was proving a successful and attactive product to all of its various constituencies. Thus far, a delicate balance had been achieved by maintaining the quality of the curriculum for all of its constituencies and providing adequate opportunities and services for the other aspects of the students' lives at Hood.

Overall, the College appeared to be healthy and stable throughout the 1980s. As

Hood approached its centennial in 1993, the College was looking forward, billing its capital campaign "The Second Century," investing resources in a new state-of-the-art library and information technology facility/services, and generating plans to create a student center that would better accommodate the needs of Hood's increasingly diverse student body.

Changes in Academic Leadership

Important personnel changes occurred throughout the 1980s. Just as the College prepared to implement Core Curriculum 1, the Dean who had initiated the project left

Hood to assume the presidency of another women's college. After a national search, the

College named Dr. Christine Young as the new Provost and Dean of Academic Affairs in

1982. Dr. Young remained in the position for two years during which time she worked with the faculty toward achieving the 12-1 student/faculty ratio mandated by the Board of

Trustrees.

When Dr. Young left the institution in 1984, two Hood faculty members, Dr. Paul

Gowen, of the Mathematics and Computer Science department, and Dr. Barbara Hetrick, of the Sociology and Social Work department, were appointed to share the role of acting

Deans of Academic Affairs for 1984-85. Dr. Hetrick became an internal candidate for the 99

position and, at the conclusion of the national search, was selected as the new chief academic officer for the institution. Dr. Hetrick began her appointment in the summer of

1984.

Prior to her role as acting Dean, Dr. Hetrick had worked directly with the Core

Curriculum Committee. She had served for one semester during 1982-83 in an administrative leadership capacity with that committee as part of an American Council on

Education fellowship.

Creation of Core Curriculum II

In April 1985, an ad hoc group of faculty brought to the Core Curriculum

Committee a proposal for a new core curriculum. The proposal called for an elimination of the kind of distribution requirements that had been the essential design of Core I. In the new design, students would participate in a series of four courses (perhaps each one a year long seminar) that would be interdisciplinary and integrative in nature rather than traditional, single-discipline courses. The courses would be designed to enable students to develop progressively sophisticated skills in analysis, critical thinking, and writing.

The courses would be taken by all students thus ensuring a common educational experience more typical of a true core curriculum.

The proposal did not receive widespread enthusiasm from the faculty. The proposal was seen as a radical departure from the kind of educational experience the faculty had tried to implement through the original core. Faculty were immediately concerned about the cost of such a proposal which required team teaching and promoted a highly integrative approach to knowledge. In addition, faculty were of varying opinions 100

with regard to students' ability to integrate knowledge, particularly in the first year or two of college.

Faculty members offer several different perspectives on why it was not an acceptable proposal. One individual felt that faculty resisted the proposal because they believed that it had come from the Dean rather than from the faculty.

Jonathon: ... the Dean played a big role, both positive and negative, I think. The Dean was very much identified with that [proposed] curriculum... She identified with that and she had a hard time getting over that in her mind. She did her best because she knew she had to - that was gone and there wasn't going to be anything. But I still hear her speak nostalgically about what got trashed. So that, in a sense, what we did, while the Dean supported it, it had, the inspiration, in a sense, had to come from the faculty.

Other individuals believe that the faculty found the new proposal too threatening, that the interdisciplinary courses would require too much change, too much collaborative effort.

Frank: ... it was highly integrated with courses in different sections that were taught by many different faculty... It was beautiful, it was really nice. But it would have demanded a great-you know faculty are loners-it would have demanded that they work with each other and set up really interesting courses.... They all thought it was more important to teach Soc. 101 and Psych 101 rather than combine the two and focus it toward some question in modem society. All right, let's look at this question of hunger from 10 different directions and see what we come up with. That was a threat to them.

A.J.: ... almost from the beginning the faculty took after it. Who knows? They didn't like it because it was interdisciplinary... one of the things about the core we had operated under is that it pretty much included all departments so all departments could be secure in the knowledge that they would have numbers, core requirements. Anyway, there were lots of reasons, but almost from the beginning they shot it down and they put... the Core Curriculum Committee really on the spot. 101

Following the strong reaction against the Spring 1985 proposal, the Core

Curriculum Committee sought to create another proposal that would be more acceptable to the faculty. In Fall 1985, they asked the faculty directly for their suggestions and then, using smaller working groups within the Committee, combined the suggestions into three different proposals which they put before the faculty in Spring 1986 for their reaction.

In creating the first core curriculum, the Task Force had solicited faculty opinion regarding the definition of liberal arts to be used as the foundation for their work. This time there was no formal call for definitions and no attempt to reach consensus. Each of the three proposals generated, however, begin with a statement of rationale (Faculty survey, May 7,1986). Inherent in each statement was a definition and philosophical perspective. The first "sample" core, as they were called, had a simple statement of rationale: "This sample core is based upon the belief that Hood students need certain basic skills and a solid foundation in the liberal arts in order to function well in today's world." The second sample core had a more complex perspective based on the "belief that a liberal arts college has certain responsibilities." These responsibilities included 1) ensuring that the liberal arts comprise 50% of a students' degree; 2) encouraging college- level work in all basic areas of the liberal arts; 3) ensuring competence in all skills vital to life in contemporary society; 4) exposing students to works that have had significant impact on their own or other cultures; 5) helping students develop a sense of social responsibility; and 6) encouraging appreciation for diverse cultures. The third proposal took a sharply different approach stipulating that "one way to design a core is to begin with a relatively specific thematic statement which determines the core's sub-themes and its structure." 102

While working on the various proposals, the Committee considered a number of issues and concerns that, given the diverse nature of the student body, would need to be adequately addressed in any new core curriulum. The Committee began to question whether it was possible or desirable to have one core curriculum for all students.

... questions included: do we want to have a core for all students, for part-time students, for continuing education students? Members recognized that more and more students coming to Hood are not going to fall into the traditional-aged, full-time category, and thus wondered if we should design a core appropriate for everyone. If so, what would be appropriate for everyone? A core, then, must be practical and realistic as well as idealistic... (minutes, April 10,1986).

In a survey of the faculty, response (n=43) to the three proposals was mixed with no overwhelming majority in favor of any proposal. When asked if the various proposed core curricula should be given further consideration, 56% of those surveyed felt strongly in favor of exploring proposal one, 35% were inclined to pursue proposal two, 21% were favorably disposed toward proposal three, and, finally, only 7% were inclined to keep the current core with minor changes.

Faculty also were asked several questions related to core curricula in general.

When asked about the possibility of having an alternate core for evening students, onlyl4% of respondents were in favor of this option. 16% agreed that there should be one interdisciplinary course, to be taken by all students, in each category of the core.

Only 14% believed that, except for skills courses, the core should consist of specially designed interdisciplinary courses.

In September 1986, the Core Curriculum Committee and the Curriculum

Committee of the College atttended a two-day, off-site retreat the purpose of which was

"to establish a plan for curriculum development, change, review, and improvement"

(retreat agenda). The participants discussed a variety of issues including curricular 103

structure and content; they considered what should be expected of Hood College

graduates and how liberal arts and career preparation might be integrated into the total

college curriculum in a manner consistent with Hood's mission. There was discussion of

the possibility of a college-wide honors program as well as of the nature of knowledge

integration and how it might be achieved.

The group also raised questions about such issues as who held primary

responsibility for curricular change and development at the College, who had authority to

design the new core, and what were the specific roles and functions of the two curriculum

committees. Finally, the retreat raised two critical questions: "Is the faculty ready to

design a new core curriculum?" and "Should 1986-87 be devoted to educating the faculty,

bringing curriculum experts to the college?" (retreat agenda, 1986)

In the weeks following the retreat, the Dean received a proposal for a college-wide

honors program. The proposal had been developed during the summer by an ad hoc

group of faculty. The basic concept being proposed was for a series of year-long,

interdisciplinary seminars that would attempt to help students integrate knowledge from

various perspectives. The program also would be designed to encourage maximum

student involvement in learning by utilizing collaborative and participatory teaching and

learning techniques.

As faculty began to consider the honors proposal, the Core Curriculum Committee continued its struggle to find the an acceptable design for a new core curriculum. The

group faced a number of concerns, both old and new, including the current difficulty in scheduling sufficient core courses in the evening, strong feelings both in favor of and against instituting a foreign language requirement, the need for greater emphasis on 104

writing across the curriculum, and how the presence of an honors program would affect any or all aspects of the core curriculum.

In February 1987, the Dean provided to the Core Curriculum Committee a draft of a proposal outlining an integrated core and honors curriculum. The proposal was an attempt to merge the work of three campus groups—the CCC, the Curriculum Committee, and the ad hoc Honors Program Committee. The Dean cited the importance of using the

College's mission statement as the philosophical base for any curriculum. She added that specific learning objectives should be determined which then would serve as the concrete basis from which to develop the specific elements of an effective core.

The Mission forms an eloquent philosophical base which describes the highest intellectual ideals of the College, but it lacks the specificity needed to articulate and motivate curriculum. What I feel is needed before substantive work can be done on the curriculum is a list of basic competencies which we would like every student to have acquired upon graduation and which can form a basis from which the curriculum can be developed. The following list is a combination of the AAC's minimum required curriculum (from Integrity in the College Curriculum), Alexander Astin's list of suggested educational outcomes, and the combined wisdom of the Hood College Curriculum and Core Curriculum Committees as discussed at the retreat in the Fall of 1986.

The list is broken into three parts: Content, Skills, and Values... . please note that the list is not based on specific courses, departments, or disciplines. It is an attempt to define the content of a college curriculum in the broadest sense. (Core Curriculum/Honors Program, February, 1987).

The Dean's synthesis of the various groups' work on curriculum called for continued study and discussion among the faculty. Not until the following October did the Core Curriculum sent a revised version of the Dean's proposal to the full faculty along with a summary of their evaluation of Core Curriculum I. In short, their report stated that the first core had "failed to meet the faculty's original expectations" ( October 26,

1987, Memorandum to the Faculty). While the Committee was able to reaffirm "the 105

educational philosophy and intent of the original core," they "rejected the structure and implementation" of it. Moreover, the Committee "concluded that the Core is failing to meet its objectives and that no amount of 'tinkering and fine-tuning1 would enable the

Curriculum to meet the purposes of a liberal education as defined by the faculty.

While the proposed new core retained some key elements of Core I, it also added new components and modified the structure. The proposal prominently displayed the intention to have a single core serve all students:

All candidates for the degrees of Bachelor of Arts, Bachelor of Science in Medical Technology, and Bachelor of Science in Home Economics must fulfill the requirements of the Core Curriculum (The Core Curriculum proposal).

Instead of two primary components—Foundations and Breadth & Integration—the new proposal called for three components: 1) Foundations -18 credits, 2) Breadth - 18 credits, and 3) Integration - 8 credits. Within the Breadth component, the proposal called for maintaining the original six categories, e.g., Historical Analysis, Philosophical

Inquiry, World Cultures, and so on.

In introducing the proposal to the faculty, the Core Curriculum Committee drew attention to the similarities: "In spite of the fact that the Committee developed the proposed Core from scratch, many of the current Core elements have been retained.

This, we believe, attests to the continuing value of those elements" (October 26, 1987,

Proposal Memorandum).

Despite the similarities, there were both structural and content differences in the proposed core. The structural differences included an increase, from 32 to 44, in the total credits required, separation of Breadth and Integration into two distinct components with different functions, and several common courses to be taken by all students. Content 106

changes included an additional emphasis on writing, more interdisciplinary experiences, and two capstone courses designed to emphasize integration and synthesis of knowledge

Heeding the lessons learned from Core I, the Core Curriculum Committee took pains to articulate clearly several stipulations related to how the core would be implemented. The definitions of the six categories in the Breadth component, for example, were much more clearly defined to facilitate the course approval process. Each section of the Core also delineated several specific learning objectives to be achieved by students. The Core Curriculum Committee proposed a limit on the number of courses to be offered at any given time in each category. They stipulated that courses would be approved for a two-year period at the end of which they would be withdrawn from the core; instructors would retain the option to resubmit the course for approval. They also proposed that availability of courses for inclusion in the evening schedule would be among the criteria used in course approval.

The proposal also made provisions for faculty development of new courses and on-going professional development with respect to teaching in the new core. The proposal also contained a clear statement of the assessment and evaluation function to be carried out by the Core Curriculum Committee

In addition, the CCC submitted, along with the proposed core, guidelines and a proposed timeline to be used by the faculty in considering the proposal. The Committee suggested that the proposal would be formally introduced in the November 6 (1987) faculty meeting via a motion to adopt the proposal. Rather than attempt to discuss the proposal during regular faculty meetings, it was suggested that a series of open forums would be scheduled throughout November to allow discussion of issues and questions related to the proposal. The Committee was careful to suggest a structure, complete with 107

time limits for debate, for the open forums "in the interests of maximum faculty participation and to ensure that all elements of the proposal may be discussed" (Proposal

Memorandum).

The timeline further stipulated that the proposal be brought back to the full faculty on December 4 to discuss and vote on any amendments that had been made to the proposal and, if possible, vote on the whole core proposal. The Committee suggested that by February 1988 implementation guidelines for the new core would be distributed to faculty who, throughout the Spring and the following academic year, would be developing new course proposals. Finally, the Committee projected that the College would begin implementing the new core in Fall 1989.

Despite the CCC's intentions, consideration and adoption of a new core curriculum did not proceed according to the suggested timeline. There was considerable discussion, debate, and disagreement over the proposal as well as increasing uncertainty regarding the feasibility of creating a single core to be completed by all students. In

February 1988, President Church issued a memorandum to the faculty regarding the on going dialogue on the proposed core as well as related issues of the proposed honors program and the reduction of faculty teaching load to 9 credit hours per semester. Her opening paragraph reflected the complex issues and the difficult decisions with which the faculty and institution was faced.

Since the February faculty meeting, I have agonized over the dilemma which we clearly face—do we endorse an ideal core curriculum which reflects the faculty's best thinking about what students (in reality our younger students) must have for productive lives on into the next century; or, do we construct something possibly more practical, given the fact that you serve well (far better than on most campuses across the country) two rather different, yet very appealing, populations of students, i.e., older and much younger students. (February 28, 1988, Memorandum) 108

Not surprisingly, given the difficulty of the task at hand, the debate continued well into the following academic year without resolution. After a great deal of interaction with faculty through committees, small groups, and individual meetings, the Dean submitted to the faculty a modified proposal. She outlined the difficulties with the existing proposal as it had evolved during the previous year and a half:

There are too many required credits.... 56-58 required credits would compromise such existing programs as certain majors, the program of minors, study abroad, and internships.

The Core is boring. There is little in the proposal that could be considered intellectually stimulating, innovative, or unique. Consequently, few faculty are excited about teaching in the new Core and few students will be attracted or retained by the Core.

The Core is too costly. Full implementation of the proposal would require many additional sections beyond the staffing of the present Core. Faculty would be required to make significant adjustments in the curriculum and scheduling of courses to accommodate the new requirements. (April 18, 1989, Memorandum)

As a result of her discussions with faculty, the Dean's proposal contained revisions to reduce the number of credits, stay within the current resource structure, and encourage development of unique courses. To achieve the credit reduction, the revised proposal eliminated three credits in math and six in foreign language; a language proficiency requirement would be retained only for students participating in the honors program. Provision was made for combining some categories of the core and making greater use of interdisciplinary courses.

Finally, at the conclusion of the 1988-89 academic year, the faculty voted to accept a new core curriculum with implementation to begin in Fall 1990. This Core was somewhat different than the proposal offered by the Core Curriculum Committee in

October 1987 (See Appendix C for a description of Core Curriculum II). The new core 109

retained the structure of three components, although their names and purposes were modified to some extent. In the approved version the components were Foundation (8 credits), Methods of Inquiry (21-23 credits), and Civilization (9 credits). The primary differences included fewer requirements in the Foundation section, five rather than six categories within Methods of Inquiry, and three categories of courses in the Civilization section rather than two prescribed common courses. The minimum number of credits required in the new core was 38.

Perhaps the most important difference was that the Core was intended to serve two levels of students. The Foundation and Methods of Inquiry components were seen primarily as lower level courses to be completed by freshmen and sophomores. The

Civilization component was seen as the "upper division" of the Core. Students transferring into the institution with an associate degree would be expected already to have met most of the lower division requirements, but all students would be required to complete the upper division component of the Core at the College. With this distinction, the Core appeared to have addressed one of the most pressing and difficult issues; that is, how to maintain the integrity of a liberal arts core and simultaneously serve well the distinct populations of the College.

At the same time, the College was moving forward with a significant modification to its organizational structure. To better serve the needs of its distinct populations, the two existing academic divisions of the College-the undergraduate program and the graduate school-would be modified to create the School of Arts and Sciences and the

School of Graduate and Professional Studies. The former was intended to represent the traditional liberal arts focus of Hood College and meet the needs of the full-time, day student enrollment. The latter was a structural means of accomodating the growing 110

presence of evening and part-time students as well as the expanding needs of several professional-oriented programs.

Following formal faculty approval for the new Core, a great deal of work was left to be done on the details of implementation and on course development. As discussions and work sessions continued throughout the 1988-89 academic year, information regarding the structure and content of the new core was distributed. In an unexpected turn of events, the College received some objections from current Hood students who were opposed to the reduced mathematics and foreign language requirements of the new core. Campus-wide discussion and pressure from the students caused the faculty to revisit the issue of the language requirement. In Fall 1990, as the new core was first being implemented (and research for this study was just beginning), the faculty voted to include a one-year or introductory level language requirement in the Foundation component of the Core. This additional requirement would take effect in Fall 1991.

Summary

In the preceding pages, I attempt to describe with some clarity the key events, institutional factors and external forces that shaped the curricular changes at Hood College between 1971 and 1990. The nature of the description reaffirms the epistemological view that curriculum is not a separate and distinct part of an institution. Nor is it a flat, one dimensional document that prescribes the educational experiences of the students.

Rather, curriculum is a social artifact, perpetually constructed and reconstructed by individuals within the specific context of the institution. Curriculum affects and is affected by all other aspects of the institution. It is a part of the whole and, when examined in isolation from other parts, is less meaningful, perhaps even meaningless. I l l

The curricular decisions made at Hood, for example, are far more meaningful when understood in light of the larger societal context and dynamic nature of the two decades--the 1970s and 1980s. Still greater meaning is provided by examining the

multiple institutional forces present in the College including fluctuations in financial stability, academic leadership, and size and type of enrollments.

By looking solely at the curriculum document that exists, the rationale and description which appear in the Hood Catalog, for example, one may gain a particular understanding regarding the values and intellectual beliefs of the institution.

The purpose of the Core Curriculum is to provide students with the basic skills needed to pursue a liberal arts education, to expose them to a variety of modes of inquiry in different disciplines, and to help them develop a better sense of historical perspective in both Western and non-Westem Civilizations. (Hood College Catalog 1990-1991, p. 23)

From this perspective, Hood's curricular philosophy appears educationally sound and relatively straightforward. Inherent in the brief statement is the institution's belief about the nature of liberal arts education and the role of a core curricular experience: it should provide a foundation of skills, expose students to multiple displinary perspectives and methods, and heighten social awareness through the examination of both familiar and unfamiliar cultures.

With no indication to the contrary, one might assume that the curriculum to meet the stated goals was achieved through rational discussion and planning within the

College, an effective process of values clarification and decision-making by appropriate individuals and/or committees. Nothing in the Catalog suggests (nor would the reader, typically a prospective student, necesarily want to know) the difficult and complex issues the College had to consider in making curricular decisions or the protracted process and 112

enormous investment of institutional resources that eventually resulted in this particular set of curricular requirements.

Examining the curricular changes at Hood within its institutional context, it is possible to draw different conclusions regarding the College's educational beliefs. One may still conclude that Hood believes in the same components of liberal education, i.e., foundational skills, breadth of disciplinary orientations, and wider societal awareness. In context, however, these components reflect educational priorities for which individuals had to fight hard and sometimes compromise. In context, the curriculum can be seen as not necessarily what faculty might have chosen for a specific student or group of students, but as the best mechanism for achieving the goals of liberal education across the entire spectrum of Hood's student populations.

Examination of curricular change and development within the institutional context also points out the importance of institutional governance and the roles that individuals play in the change process. How the process is carried out and by whom has an impact on the decisions that are made and, as so clearly seen in the case of Hood's first core curriculum, how they are implemented.

There are many aspects of the curricular change process to be considered when trying to make sense of what happened at Hood, to determine what lessons can be learned from the example of this one institution. It is clear, that leadership, both faculty and administrative, played a role in the process. It also is instructive to look at how formal groups participated, specifically the special task force and the Core Curriculum

Committee, as well as to understand the role that the faculty as a whole had in the process. 113

While much of the information needed to provide context can be found in College

documents and publications, these records tell only part of the story. There is a great deal

more information and, more importantly, a very different kind of information to be

learned from talking with individuals who participated in and/or observed the events. In

examining the events and changes that occurred at Hood from the late 1970s until 1990,

the most enlightening sources of information were the people who had created and lived

through the changes.

The next chapter examines the events at hood from the perspective of the

participants. By examining their attitudes, thoughts, and reactions, the reader gains a

more expansive and detailed context within which to interpret and understand the events

that took place.

^The Reformed Church is now the United Church of Christ (UCC). Hood College currently is nonsectarian and maintains only casual ties to the UCC.

^During the years with which the study is concerned, Hood faculty met as a full body on the first Friday afternoon of each month. Attendance was expected by all faculty, FTE and part-time, but not required. The meetings were conducted in a kind of Town Hall style, led by the Provost and Dean of Academic Affairs who sat at the front of the room with the President. The meetings usually were held in the choral rehearsal room as it is one of few rooms on campus large enough to accommodate 80 or so people. The floor rose in several levels from the front of the room to the rear. People typically spoke from their seats. Some faculty participated frequently while others rarely contributed to the discussion. A voice vote ususally was sufficient for determining the outcome of an issue, proposal, etc. According to the faculty handbook,however, a written ballot was necessary for decisions affecting degree requirements. It was accepted practice that decisions of any importance to the institution must receive faculty support. CHAPTER V

CURRICULUM WORK FROM THE INSIDE: THE PARTICIPANTS' POINTS OF VIEW

Introduction

Reflecting on the years 1978 to 1990, Hood College faculty and administrators project images of a dynamic place, an institution busy with purpose. A sense of change, of movement, is evident in their words. Individuals depict an on-going evolution within the College as they describe specific events and interactions, structural changes in the organization, institutional responses to shifts in student enrollment and ability, perceived changes in the nature of the faculty. They reflect on the past and envision the future of

Hood College. Faculty and administrators alike portray the institution as a kind of work- in-progresS, conveying both a strong sense of institutional history and imagining what the future might bring.

Change was a fact of life at Hood College during the years addressed by this

study. Individuals responded in a variety of ways and ascribed different meaning to the

changes. Not surprisingly, they held widely divergent perspectives regarding the

effectiveness and appropriateness of the curricular, structural and other changes they

witnessed. Despite the disagreements as to how much and what kind of change was

needed, most participants agree that change often is necessary to achieve institutional

114 115

goals in order to remain viable as a college. Despite their divergent views, administrators

and faculty shared concern for the future of the institution, a desire for Hood not only to

remain viable but to be ahead of its peers. Some individuals were optimistic about the

future; others were less so.

The language and images used by individuals as they talk about the kind of

movement and change that has taken place or that is still needed within the institution are striking. Change is not referred to in some abstract way or in language that suggests the institution is somehow separate from the people who comprise it. On the contrary, change is discussed on the personal level-what happened to me and to my colleagues, how I participated, how we worked together or against each other. Individuals paint a very personal, an almost intimate view of institutional movement where development and growth of the college is charted and described sometimes with pride, sometimes with chagrin, sometimes with frustration. Hearing their concerns as well as their hopes was like listening to a parent discuss the growth of a child or to a teacher reflect on the development of a student.

The progression of change is described not in terms of linear movement from one level of education to another, but in terms of qualitative change, change that has come as a result of opportunities--some forced and some chosen-for self-reflection, evaluation, and decision-making. The change process is described as frustrating and exhausting. The outcomes of change, particularly curricular change, frequently are described as disappointing, as a compromise, as no one's ideal solution. Events are described in personal and emotional terms even as each is being analyzed and evaluated. One is left with the understanding that the changes, whether perceived as good or bad, had touched these people deeply on both personal and professional levels. They react to it 116

individually-what it means to them with respect to their values and attitudes, what impact

it will have on how they perform their work.

The Journey Metaphor Emerges

One of the initial goals of this research was to describe the curricular and related

changes that had taken place at Hood College within a particular 12-year period. I knew

from the outset of the study that a great deal of change had taken place and had anticipated

that the environment would be characterized by a certain level of dynamism. What

emerged from the words and voices of those interviewed at Hood, however, was more

than a description of institutional change and adaptation. Embedded in the interview

transcripts and documents was a full, rich, and complex story. It was the story of one

institution's journey across a dozen years of change, but the origin of this journey was

much farther back in time, its destination far into the future. Through a process of

reflection, change, and discovery, the institution was moving at once toward and away

from itself. The institution was recreating its identity by trying to retain important

elements of its traditional heritage and purpose while simultaneously expanding its sense of itself in order to accommodate a vastly different student body.

In actuality, the story depicts multiple journeys, not just that of the whole institution but of individuals as well. The curricular and other changes were implemented

by the institution, but decisions are made and perceptions are held by individuals. The grand narrative of the institution's journey is brought into sharper focus and made richer by the individuals who told of their own travels, their own processes of reflection and change. 117

The journey that partially will be described in the following pages was made by dozens of travelers who were fairly well-acquainted with each other. Although they knew their destination to some extent, the path they traveled in some ways was not familiar to them. They encountered a number of detours and unexpected events along the way.

Some of the events and adversity experienced by these travelers brought them closer together. Such episodes increased their understanding of each other by allowing them to see and respect the ways in which they reacted under less-than-optimal circumstances.

Other events created tension between individuals and ultimately inhibited the progress of the whole.

As individuals told their stories, many similarities emerged. Nearly everyone, for example, presented a similar chronology of events with regard to the previous 12 years.

There was consistency also in that certain incidents described by nearly all participants were believed to be significant, perhaps pivotal, events for the institution.

Despite the similarities, however, each of the travelers had a distinct view of the journey. It became evident that, although each person had experienced the same events, perceptions of those events and the meaning they held differed for many individuals.

Each person's perception was colored by her or his own experiences, attitudes, and goals.

In examining those perceptions, experiences, attitudes, and goals three primary themes emerged that provided insight into institutional change and decision-making, particularly as it relates to curriculum. First, there is a clear priority established by the institution and upheld by the individual members that teaching is the central focus of the institution and the primary purpose of all faculty. The centrality of this purpose defines 118

the very nature of the institution and influences how questions and problems are framed

as well as how decisions are made.

The second theme reflects the role that relationships played in both the process and

outcome of institutional changes. The relationships of individuals and groups to one

another as well as individuals' relationships to the institution itself strongly influenced the

process that was used to develop and implement curricular changes. The nature of these

relationships also affected how individuals interpreted and felt about that process and its

result.

The third and overarching theme is the struggle for institutional identity. By

examining the first two themes in some detail it becomes clear that the historic focus on

teaching and the traditional patterns of institutional relationships and governance

structures are directly affected by the changing nature of the institution. The lengthy and

difficult path to curricular decision-making and implementation is in some ways a direct

result of the struggle to define the institution's identity for the present and the forseeable

future. In fact, it is the struggle for identity, both for individuals and for the institution,

that is at the heart of this study.

On a methodological note, the three themes also point out clearly that both

institutional and individual perspectives are needed for greater understanding of this

lengthy and complex case study. As Tierney (1989) suggests, "institutional participants

need to link their discussions about the curriculum with the ideology of not only what they are, but also what they want to become" (1989, p. 86). 119

Teaching - The Journey Begins

It is in their descriptions of teaching that images of and language about the journey first begin to appear. As Hood faculty talk about their teaching, they describe it as an act of accompanying and/or leading students on a journey of growth and discovery. They also speak of the institution's journey, depicting a slow, continuous evolutionary process of growth and survival. They describe an institution that must live within economic constraints, but among whose human resources there is seemingly boundless energy for change, for continued and even increased commitment to the education of women.

Elaine: I think we're going to make it as an institution because we're so damned hard working here. We are also very dispersed, but in dispersing ourselves the way we do, I guess the dynamism of that movement is going to propel us into the next century. And it's almost by sheer force of will that that will happen because, and this I think has something to do with being a women's college, I think it's a Hood mentality.

Individuals also speak of more personal joumeys-the circumstances and key events that led them to teaching and to Hood, and that have shaped their professional identities since coming to the institution. Their journeys are marked by choices—choices made early on in a career as a means of combining work with family responsibilities, choices made to be a part of an educational institution whose values are consistent with one's own, choices made for one set of reasons that had positive outcomes for an entirely different set of reasons.

Helene: I was familiar with what they were doing in the program here; they were doing what I really believed in, for the average student. And that's what attracted me, a very very good basic instruction program.

Brenda: At that time I had my family, my parents in [a large Southeastern city]. I was teaching in [the West] and it was very far away. They were old, in not very good health. And it worried me that if I had to fly to be with 120

them it would take me all day, seeing as connections were so poor. So I looked for a job nearby, more or less. And so I applied to Hoiod and I was lucky to be hired.

Gerrie: I have changed a lot over the years. I mean, to me it didn't make any difference and I'd have to say still—I want to teach people who want to learn. But, in the years that I've been here, I've really been able to see what the women's college can do for a woman. The advantages, there's no question about what they say about the opportunities for development of leadership and so forth. There's no question that that's true. I've become a believer of what can be accomplished by a women's college. Before I just had no reason to even think about it.

Describing their journey seems important to many of the participants, as though it

were an acceptable and effective way of summarizing their experiences, putting them into

perspective. They recall significant events easily and describe them in such a way as to

create a smooth, seamless picture of their lives. Telling the journey is a way to let the

outsider, in this case the researcher, know what was and is important to them. The journey depicts values. It points to personal and professional philosophy. It illuminates

the multiple roles individuals have taken on and some of the key decisions made in

negotiating those roles.

Ian: One of the problems with graduate training... is that the whole emphasis is on research, your dissertations and things like that. There's no emphasis on the value of teaching. So by the time you get out of graduate school you sort of feel compelled; you've got to go to a large research- oriented institution. That's your destiny ; if you have a Ph.D. that's what you're supposed to do. And following grad school I did go to [a large public university] for a while. But I did not like the fact that there was no emphasis on teaching at all. There was no value placed on it, really. And it occurred to me that my desitiny was not to be in a large research university. I wanted to be in a small college where contact between students and teachers is valued.

An admissions publication, College with a Purpose, contains useful examples of

Hood faculty describing a kind of journey specifically as it relates to their teaching. The 121

publication includes brief biographical sketches of six "master teachers," -- six members

of Hood's faculty who have distinguished themselves through their teaching. The

teachers, three women and three men, represent various academic disciplines. Each

individual is described and quoted in terms of her/his approach and commitment to good

teaching, but it is particularly noteworthy that in the statements regarding each of the three

women faculty, the image of the journey is present whereas for the male faculty that

image is absent.

In the profiles of the three women, reference is made to some pivotal event which

changed the course of their professional lives. In one instance it was political unrest in

her homeland, Cuba, for the other two it was a classroom or academic experience that

lead them to pursue their chosen academic disciplines. Even in the brief space in which

they are related, the journeys as told reflect the way in which the multiple dimensions of

the women's lives are interrelated and how values are inextricable from those lives. Two

of the profiles are especially illustrative of this point.

In the case of Dr. Hernandez, a choice based on personal and political values changed the course of her life's journey and directly influenced her teaching practices.

Amelia Hernandez knew it was time to leave her native Cuba when the Castro regime demanded that the nation's history books be rewritten. What the history and literature professor did not leave behind was her devotion to teaching. If anything, she arrived in America in 1961 with a stronger belief in free, open education, and the determination to improve the teaching of foreign languages and literatures in her adopted country (p. 5).

For Dr. Hernandez, teaching a foreign language means far more than helping students achieve vocabulary or grammar skills; it means enabling them to venture into another culture, to understand another way of life. Her comments reflect her personal sense of loss and grief over barriers erected between people, between countries. As a 122

result of experiencing those barriers in a very personal way, she is committed to helping

students see beyond them. For her, the concept of the journey is not only relevant for her

own life and profession, but it is reflective of her view of the educational process. She

describes her role in teaching students as a mentor and companion in their learning

process — a travel companion in their educational journey.

The key to my teaching lies in opening students' eyes to other realities,1 says Hernandez... . 'Studying Spanish is much more than learning to conjugate verbs. It is an exciting cultural, political, and philosophical journey into another country's people and past.'

The Hood professor takes her students on just such a journey... . 'When you study a foreign language,' Hernandez explains, 'you discover that a pen is not just a pen ; it is also a pluma. Y ou realize that your point of view is not the only one, and that another can be as valid as yours.' In lecturing about the people of Spain through the voice of Cervantes, or in teaching about the culture of Cuba through the works of Jose Marti, Hernandez teaches her students that 'we are all human beings, separated only by artificial barriers.'

As someone who left her native country rather than compromise her political ideals, Hernandez is especially sensitive to such artificial barriers- -obstacles that have no place in her classroom. 'I act as a tutor and a friend to my students, a companion in the learning process.... The content of what I teach is important. But more important is for students to develop the joy of learning.' (p. 5)

Linda Bosmajian, a faculty member in the department of Psychology, holds a

similar view of the teaching role as a kind of travel companion.

'As far back as I can remember, I have always wanted to be a teacher,' says the energetic instructor.... 'When a student comes to me, it's an opportunity for me to share with her what I know of the world... This is her journey, but I am walking with her, pointing out some of the landmarks along the way.' (p. 8)

For Bosmajian, a transformation or fundamental change is the primary goal of the educational journey. Anyone who completes a degree or even enrolls in a single course 123

should not emerge from that experience unaffected. Moreover, while that change may

begin on an intellectual plane, she believes it will spill over into other aspects of one's

life. As she sees it, the goal in the journey is not just to change one's grasp of the facts,

but to reflect on and integrate new knowledge; thus altering one's view of the world in

qualitative ways.

'Real-life issues take on a pressing, personal relevance when students move from the classroom to the worksite.... For many of my students the internship is a transforming experience—both professionally and personally.I encourage them to take risks-to question, evaluate, and ultimately change as they come into their own in a new and different role.'

Bosmajian experienced that kind of transformation in her own college career and

incorporated the lessons learned from it into the principles and beliefs that guide her

teaching.

'Until [I took a psychology course] literature had been my favorite pastime,' she says.'But in college I discovered that literarary scholars and psychologists ask many of thesame questions: Why are we here? What motivates people? What makes them happy or sad?'

'I hope my classes shake people up... I want my students to become aware of how they look at the world, to become conscious of previously unconscious, unexamined assumptions they have had about behavior, their families, their values, their choice of major. It's an uncomfortable process. It's scary to give up the security of knowing the answer. But it's also a chance to change, an opportunity to open up to something totally new.' (p. 8)

For both Bosmajian and Hernandez, their beliefs guide their performance as teachers and provide a gauge for self-evaluation with respect to their work. Each one speaks in terms of the outcomes necessary in order to consider one's teaching successful.

In this regard, the teacher's past personal journey is tied to the present journey of her students, and presumably to her own continued journey. She evaluates her effectiveness as a teacher in terms of her ability to translate her values into successful experiences, i.e. 124

growth and change, for her students. For Dr. Hernandez, success is helping students

discover the joy of learning. For Dr. Bosmajian, success means her students are able to

question and see the world through new eyes.

These two profiles help to illustrate a point that will be further explored

throughout this chapter—the primacy of the teaching role for faculty at Hood College.

Hood obviously promotes teaching as a value and a strength of the College. But it is

perhaps more important to look closely at how individuals understand and talk about their

teaching roles. Examining individual perspectives, listening to individual voices, calls for

an exploration of the relationship between individual identity and curricular decision

making.

Theme: The Primacy of Teaching

The value placed on teaching at Hood College is unmistakable. The College

promotes teaching as its priority and faculty as its primary strength. Consider the

following excerpt from a College publication:

This college is single-minded in its purpose: to empower students to go from where they arc to where they want tobe.... The heart of Hood College is its faculty.... At Hood we have a clear ideal of the college teacher. The first requirement is a love of teaching and a natural aptitude for it. The second is a passion for—and command of—one's chosen field. In time, a woman or man with these qualities becomes a master teacher, someone who changes the way a student thinks about the world and herself for the rest of her life. (College with a Purpose, p. 1)

Beyond what the official College publications say, it is clear that individual faculty

members also believe teaching is the most important work they do for the College. They

speak of teaching in a multitude of ways: as personal commitment, as professional responsibility, as a practical matter, as a philosophical issue. They admit freely, openly, 125

happily that they love to teach. They speak disdainfully of those things they believe get in

the way of good teaching (e.g., requirements to measure outcomes). Some describe their own growth and development as teachers. Some express dismay over increasingly ill- prepared students and the impact of such students on learning.

Phrases such as "I love teaching," "There's something pure about teaching; it's just you and your students," "Teaching is what I've always liked and I'm happiest being in the classroom," and "... it was the right field for me for sure," come easily from

Hood faculty. It is clear that they like what they do and take seriously their work.

Listening to Hood faculty talk about their work and about the College, one is left with little doubt as to the primary purpose they have determined for themselves, or their level of commitment to achieving that purpose. Although the interviews addressed numerous topics, all paths seemed to lead eventually to the role and responsibilities of teaching, of educating students. Participants were asked how they had come to be at

Hood. Some came specifically for the opportunity to be in a small college focused on teaching. For others who had come for more pragmatic reasons, the emphasis on teaching often was the reason they had stayed. Whatever the specifics of their individual stories, it was clear that they had chosen faculty careers because they knew they wanted to teach; they also knew that teaching was not the most highly valued activity of faculty in many institutions.

The centrality of teaching, for both the college and the individuals, emerges from the interviews as a clear theme. It is part of the holistic perspective that individuals evidence when talking about many aspects of their work at Hood. In discussing their ideas and concerns, faculty do not separate teaching from curriculum or curriculum from governance. Educating students well, they believe, necessarily requires not just good 126

teaching, but a cohesive, well-conceived curriculum and a solid, effective system of

governance.

Similarly, the practice of teaching is not considered apart from an awareness of its

primary participants-students. Inherent in the words of Hood College faculty and

administrators is the belief that each of these elements is part of a single purpose. As one

professor in the Chemistry department said:

I am looking forward to proposing a course for part three of the core that will build on part two of the core. It's going to have to do with issues related to nuclear energy as a power source, as bombs, nuclear medicine, all kinds of issues related to society. And I think that it will be a lot of fun. And we don't have the opportunity to do that very much, to say 'how do you apply all of this you've learned.' I think it's a real good bridge to the real world. 'Now that you've learned all this factual information and how to think, how do you pull it all together?'... as I said, I'm really looking forward to developing and teaching this course. You know, we need change too—for inspiration—and I really think it will be fun."

Relationship of Teaching to Other Aspects of Faculty Role

Because teaching is so central to the lives and thoughts of Hood faculty, it is possible to trace relationships between the identity as teacher and other specific aspects of the faculty's work within the College. In the following pages, four such relationships will be drawn. First, the relationship between teaching and curriculum development will be explored, looking specifically at the issue of perceived expertise in curricular matters and its impact on the process of creating a new core. Because many individuals believed that all faculty should have equal say in the creation of core curriculum for the College, decisions were not always made from the most informed perspective, nor were they made in the most efficient or effective manner. 127

Second, the faculty's differing beliefs regarding the nature of knowledge will be examined with respect to both the content and structure of curriculum. Strongly held convictions regarding how students learn and how faculty should teach reveal individuals' epistemological paradigms. In the case of Hood, two primary "camps" emerged, one believing in the value of integration and interdisciplinary work, the other holding a more traditional, isolationist view of academic disciplines. These opposing views were a primary factor in the prolonged process of designing the second core.

Third, the nature of the student body with respect to different populations as well as to academic abilities was an important consideration in the faculty's curricular decision making. Because faculty take their responsibility seriously not just as teachers but as educators in the broadest, most comprehensive sense, they struggled to find curricular mechanisms that would meet the various, often opposing, needs presented by their students. They struggled with the issue of the meaning and value of a liberal arts education and, more specifically, a Hood education.

Fourth, the role of teacher in the unique environment of a women's college is explored. The relationship between faculty's level of awareness with respect to gender issues and their beliefs about curriculum illustrates the importance of examining curricular decision-making in context. Hood faculty are located on a continuum of gender awareness and feminist perspectives; the impact of their beliefs on the curriculum is often more indirect than overt or explicit. 128

Curricular Expertise

When reflecting on the curriculum and the process endured in changing it, the

faculty indicate that the basic issue of teaching, of educating students, was never far from

consciousness.

Diana: But my concern always, is that the reason the college has a core is to serve the students and their learning and the pursuit of knowledge, which is the reason why a college exists in the first place. And if, in fact, we relinquish that responsibility of that goal, to some extent we've done a disservice to the students--and to knowledge and learning and what we are here for.

Gerrie: I've hoped for a long time we would dothis... that people who are teaching a particular course in a section of the core would get together and keep reminding themselves of what we're trying to accomplish. You know, the analytical thinking-"how do you do that?" You know , some faculty development kinds of things that would go along with it instead of just saying "Here's this core, we've done it, just teach your courses." Keep reminding people what the goals of the core are. I think it spills into everything you do.

The implicit message is that teaching is a responsibility beyond what the individual

does in her/his classroom on a daily basis. It is an ongoing, overarching concern that

extends to curricular decision-making; in fact, making sound curricular decisions is seen

as a key part of the responsibility of good teaching. What some faculty came to realize in

this process, however, was that informed curricular decision-making was more than a

matter of good intentions. While it may be assumed that faculty are capable of making

sound curricular decisions regarding their discipline, some individuals believe that faculty do not necessarily have similar expertise with respect to formulating effective liberal arts curricular requirements. Making sound decisions regarding the liberal arts, as in the creation of a core curriculum, requires an understanding of the nature of liberal education as well as a broad institutional perspective on a variety of issues, including who one's 129

students are, how curricular requirements may affect institutional marketing, the financial

implications of various kinds of curricular structures, and so on.

Frank: Right now we have 30 people who don't know a damn thing about the liberal arts voting on the core curriculum. I mean, the liberal arts people should be in charge of the core. Education and Home Ec shouldn't. But if you asked them, they say they should be just as involved in the core as anyone else.

In the case of Hood College, an institution that worked hard beginning in 1975 to regain its tradition of broad faculty participation in decision-making, the question of who should determine the course of liberal education for the institution engendered a great deal of debate and disagreement. While the issue is, in part, a philosophical one, it also raises questions regarding the efficacy of the faculty governance structure as it relates to the faculty's responsibility for curriculum. The frustration with the process used is still evident when faculty talk about it, even though considerable time has passed since many of the curricular debates/discussions took place.

A.J.: I mean that's the mentality, "we should be capable of putting together a core curriculum." One of my frustrations ... is that that's not true. I have always maintained that any small group of faculty can work to develop a decent core, and a coherent core, because they would go to conferences, talk to people at other institutions, do all the reading. They would become experts in core curriculum. And so you got-just as I thought we had—a really nice document. You go the floor of the full faculty (which you don't have to do at most institutions but we're still under this Town Hall governance system), and someone who has not given a moment's thought to curriculum can stand up and shoot down and contradict what knowledgeable people have worked on for a year.

Diana: And again, my feeling was that not all the faculty, or even the majority of the faculty, had the time or the energy or the inclination or the opportunity to really look at curricular issues across the country and what's happening in other colleges and other universities. So that the decisions that many of them made, which were crucial decisions in terms of voting at the faculty 130

meeting for a core, were based, I think, on limited understanding of what's happening in the field of higher education right now. And I'm not saying that this is something that happens automatically. I have said I was absolutely privileged that I sat for 6 years on two core committees, because that's where I got my education on curricular issues. And that's where I really learned about what... I mean we were forced to. I began with no understanding; I'd never really dealt with curricular issues other than those that affected me personally, and professionally.... The faculty didn't do it's homework properly.

. .. the first assumption is, you've got to know what's happening elsewhere - what works and what doesn't work. And the decision we made had nothing to do with our understanding and comprehension of curricular issues. How can all these faculty who teach four courses a semester (this is an overwhelming load) and who are here five days a week, I mean, how, when can one expect them really then to be reading about what's happening?

It is an interesting paradox that, because of their teaching responsibilities, Hood faculty both want and find it difficult to gain expertise in making curricular decisions at the institutional level. The faculty demonstrate high levels of interest in creating the best possible core curriculum because they see it as an invaluable part of a student's education.

Nonetheless, the heavy teaching load that most faculty members carry (the standard teaching load is 21 credits per academic year, only recently reduced from 24 credits annually), significantly limits the amount of time available for becoming knowledgeable about liberal arts curricular concepts and issues.

It is true that not all faculty defined the issues of participation and curricular expertise in quite the same way. Some individuals believed it was right that faculty should have input and control over the curriculum. Some felt strongly that there should be the broadest possible intellectual participation to ensure that the curriculum created would be the result of the best possible thinking.

Helene: I think any time a core curriculum is going to be approved by a faculty of 80 or more, it is a compromise. It should be. 131

Others agreed to broad participation for a different reason-that ample opportunity

for all to contribute would make everyone more willing to live with the result.

Jonathon: We had about 100 faculty, and any collection of 100 individuals that are bound to be a little more eccentric and strong minded and strong willed than your average population anyway, and you put them together you're going to get a collection of people that don't pull very well together. I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing. It makes it hard sometimes for things like curriculum change, but usually what happens is, if you raise a real going issue the faculty will discuss it for a long time. But in the end you w ill, if you don't get consensus, you at least get a vote that people can live with. I don't think that, I mean sure, we end up with a lot of the things that you mentioned, compromise and that sort of thing, but 1 don't, I would have to say right now anyway that I don't think there's any major bad feeling about the core. That people who lost battles are not walking mumbling and grumbling. Well, maybe some arc! But, by and large, I think most people say "Well we did the best we could do and there it is and so we go on". So I don't know what I'm saying other than that yes, there was a lot of heat, a lot of compromise.

Despite some individuals' willingness to see broad participation as a positive, nearly everyone agreed that creating a core curriculum structure by a "committee of the whole," (i.e., the entire faculty) was cumbersome and, more importantly, resulted in compromise.

Laurie: I also saw the political battle that took place with the curriculum. And I think people were very well intentioned but because there were such splits, there had to be a compromise. And it wasn't the kind of compromise we could come up with because there were just a few of us working in the [humanities] department and with only a few people you can come up with something. When you have a committee of 90 faculty members, and that's what happens in faculty meetings there are 90 people working as a committee, it's just almost impossible.

There seem to be two related issues. First, compromise is seen as virtually unavoidable given intellectual differences among disciplinary traditions. Second, it is generally believed that having too many people involved complicated the process and 132

diluted the outcome by increasing the degree of compromise required in the end. Despite

their general acceptance of the need for compromise, the degree of compromise is defined

by many as excessive, brought about by the relatively high degree of participation in the

process. In addition, some were frustrated that all voices were given equal authority,

those who had spent time and energy learning about general education and curricular

issues as well as those who had not.

Curricular Structure, Liberal Arts Education, and the Nature of Knowledge

In addition to differing opinions regarding issues of participation in the process of

recreating curriculum, there was disagreement about the content and structure of the

curriculum itself. In fact, complete agreement on these matters could hardly be expected

as faculty struggled to determine the goals of a Hood College education and a curriculum

model that would best serve the students by enabling them to achieve those goals. These

issues were at the heart of the Hood College curriculum change process in the late 1970s and again in the mid 1980s. The College also struggled to determine how any new curricular structure and content would affect the teaching/learning process; it was a secondary concern in some ways, but one that commanded a great deal of attention thoughout the process.

The effort to reflect on and, if necessary and/or appropriate, redefine the nature of undergraduate education at Hood College was initiated by the Dean of Academic Affairs beginning in 1977. Convening first a group of faculty for informal discussions and later a more formal, representative task force, the Dean provided the College with an opportunity to reflect on its educational mission and, ultimately, to chart a new curricular course. 133

The immediate impetus for the project was a growing awareness among faculty

that Hood students were graduating without a balanced education. In fact, many students

were amassing credits in their major to the exclusion of most other disciplines. The result

was increasing numbers of graduates who had not experienced the broad-based education

the College claimed it provided.

Elaine: It was appalling to me to see some of the records of students who'd graduated from Hood knowing full well they had nothing at all like a liberal arts background. There was no range of credit. And, of course, when the decision was made to drop all requirements the idea was that through advising students were going to have these ideal programs that were going to be broadly based and then they would have their major. Well, what happened was students concentrated as heavily as possible in their majors. I can think of one horror story; I've thought about it many times. I know there was a student who graduated from this college who had the three credits of English 101, the P.E. [physical education], and then 60 credits in one discipline and 60 credits in another. And that was before the time when we had the maximum of 90 in the double major. So this person had just those two disciplines and English composition and P.E. To me, that's a horror story for a college that pretends to be a liberal arts college. So I think the need for a core curriculum or need for something that was going to require students to develop a more broadly based program was certainly evident to all of us.

Gerrie: Well, when I first came to Hood was the time when there were only two requirements-Freshman English and P.E. I couldn't believe it when I heard that about Hood. And other people were beginning to think that the advising system was not enough to ensure that people would get a well- rounded education. Statistics on students who graduated under that system showed that they were getting a very narrow education and still were calling themselves a liberal arts school. And there are still some people here at Hood today who think you should be able to do that by advising alone. I don't think so; students need some structure.

There was concern for students who were not receiving a broad education and there was uneasiness, a nagging sense that the College was in some way misrepresenting itself as a liberal arts institution when in fact it had clear evidence that not all students were receiving a liberal arts education. While there was broad acknowledgment that curricular 134

structure was needed to ensure students' systematic exposure to a broader curriculum, there was little agreement about what kind of structure was best or what content should be included.

As a starting point for determining structure and content, the Special Task Force to Study Degree Requirements, which began its work in 1978, sought a shared definition of liberal arts education. Each academic department was asked to submit its own definition of liberal arts. The definitions proposed by the departments ranged in length and complexity from a single sentence to three pages. Reflecting various individual as well as disciplinary perspectives, some statements were broadly philosophical, while others addressed both practical considerations and philosophical beliefs. The chairperson of the Education Department, for example, offered the following broad statement:

Liberal arts is a broad program of academic study which draws from a wide variety of disciplines for the purpose of enlightening the student in terms of knowledge and intellectual curiosity, as well as refining the abilities to analyze content and report.

The English Department, by contrast, offered three pages of discussion regarding various aspects of liberal arts education including: 1) its aim and function, 2) a definition by "negation and clarification," (i.e., what it is not), 3) a rationale for creating a definition in the first place, 4) past and present "connotations" of the term liberal arts, and

5) possible applications of the term in creating new curriculum requirements at Hood.

Twelve definitions were offered in writing to the Task Force which considered them at some length and ultimately chose to use one of the statements, with only slight modifications, as its working definition. It is interesting, though not necessarily revealing of anything in particular, to note that the definition eventually adopted was written not by 135

a single department; rather it was offered by two faculty members from different

departments-mathematics and sociology.

The purposes of a liberal education are:

-to develop the capacity and desire to learn by promoting the qualities of intellectual curiosity, rational thinking, open-mindedness, critical analysis, and reasoned judgment.

-to foster the realization of the importance of language; to impart the skills needed to use language effectively.

-to provide a broad foundation of knowledge through exposure to a diversity of academic disciplines and perspectives; this exposure should aim at developing understanding and appreciation of the natural universe, creative and aesthetic expression, one's own society—its institutions, history and culture, and other societies and cultures.

-to develop the capacity to use learning as a tool for continuous growth— both as an individual and as a member of the human community. (Task Force to Study Degree Requirements, p. 5)

This definition, adopted by the Task Force and published in its final proposal in Spring

1980, served as the philosophical underpining for the curriculum work carried out by the

College for more than a decade.

Although, in the end, one of the dozen definitions formally offered was adopted virtually in its entirely, it appears that reaching consensus on the definition required considerable debate.

Gerrie: .. . we sat and discussed for ages what liberal arts means and what we wanted to do.

Little of the struggle to achieve consensus among faculty can be found in the definition, or, for that matter, in most of the written records documenting the lengthy curriculum process that took place. Rather the struggle comes alive in the words and the 136

recollections of the participants. For example, one participant recalls spending "oh,

endless hours discussing this. . . we had discussion, discussion, discussion."

The definitions and philosophical assumptions that guided the faculty's work embody a particular view of general education. Taken together, they suggest several key elements: 1) that longterm educational outcome are a key consideration; 2) that the

breadth of knowledge gained is of critical importance; 3) that the process of learning is at

least as important as the content to be learned; and 4) that much of the content includes teaching values, particularly the value of learning.

In recalling and describing the process of creating the core curriculum, the faculty provide a rich, detailed perspective. They describe their broad conceptions of education and portray their differing views regarding the very nature of knowledge. There are notable differences of opinion that emerge over and over again in the interviews indicating some nearly bipolar views. For example, some Hood faculty clearly believe that knowledge is objective and quantifiable and is best presented in a sequential, hierarchical manner. Other faculty are frustrated by the traditional perspective. They believe that presenting knowledge in this way is, at best, inaccurate as it belies the dynamic and subjective nature of knowledge. They assume that students can integrate knowledge from multiple perspectives or translate the value of an idea or concept from one discipline to another without great concern for linearity or hierarchical ordering.

There are multiple examples of these basic philosophical differences among the

Hood faculty. In examining these differences, however, one is reminded of just how difficult it is to extract the faculty's attitudes and beliefs about the nature of knowledge from their attitudes about teaching and learning. To illustrate this point, it is useful to 137

take the example of separating vs. integrating knowledge through interdisciplinary approaches in either content and/or pedagogy.

Hood faculty and administrators have strong beliefs and feelings regarding the issue of separation vs. integration of knowledge within the classroom. This issue, perhaps more than any other, extended and made more fractious the search for an acceptable second core curriculum. Some faculty express concern that providing multiple perspectives and requiring integration of knowledge is unfair to students. There is some belief that students are unprepared for such integration and that a more traditional linear approach to teaching subject matter will better serve the students, particularly any younger and/or less well prepared students.

Helene: But if you want to integrate knowledge, you have to have some knowledge to integrate... .Yeah, there was a group of faculty—I guess you can tell where I stand—they thought that first semester all this integration would occur, all the courses would be interdisciplinary in nature, which is fine perhaps when you're a junior or senior. But when you're a freshman or sophomore you need to have some ideas and read some of the literature, great books and great ideas. We don't want to just shoot the bull, so to speak. There was a real division in the faculty, that was an issue.

Carolyn: But my own belief is that undergrads can't integrate, except for perhaps the very select senior level honors students. That's my bias... I feel the majority of the students at Hood would benefit from courses in a variety of areas. The integration is the thing that bothers me, well even in the honors program it bothers me. Not from the faculty standpoint—I think that can be real exciting-only because of what I know about learning. I don't see until you have a background in the two areas how you can combine the two like that.

Elaine: I'm not in favor of a strong interdisciplinary core because I don't believe that works... I think, yeah, there's certainly some value to interdisciplinary work, but I would not want to see us rely totally on that. 138

In other instances, Hood faculty believe in the efficacy of integrating knowledge from various disciplines because it more closely represents the nature of knowledge; it enables students to understand that multiple perspectives exist.

Frank: I think this is the age of synthesis and viewing problems from all areas. You can't solve problems like ecology through science. You need political science, sociology, science — you need all those things. I think we are moving toward the era where we have to learn, we have to use what we've learned in all areas to solve the problems that we've created.

Diana: It was a very unfortunate solution and I don't think everything is lost. I still believe in the core, in the existence of a core, in the necessity of a core, I just wish we had, it could have been strong, that there was some way to go beyond mere distribution. Integration of knowledge. The ability to have our students understand how different disciplines impinge on each other, how in fact knowledge is not isolated but you can deal with the same problem from different perspectives coming from differing disciplinary perspectives - which the first core did brilliantly theoretically but not always in practice, which is breadth and integration. The breadth part I think the students did get to a great extent in the first core. The integration they didn't get because integration is a very complex issue. You know, how many faculty , the educational system right now is such that we are encouraged to go in depth in one discipline, in our own specialized discipline, but integration is something we don't really encounter during our doctoral degree. And perhaps team taught courses, which the core tried to do, do these things effectively, teach faculty that you can't expect a student to integrate knowledge unless the faculty can. Therefore it makes sense for an institution if they really are committed to showing students how knowledge is integrated, not just depth but integration, to encourage faculties from different disciplines to take common subject matter and to deal with it in the classroom at the same time. Enormously challenging, sometimes formidable for faculty because a classroom is meant for the ego of one faculty and here you have three people who are your peers , listening to you, arguing on the same issues, discussing, questioning - but I think that's what the students need to see.

Ian: ... In a freshman type seminar experience we, without question, could be integrative. I think there's some value to show the students that someone who knows how to integrate these fields and can talk at the general level of the novice. And I think that might even convince students, "Oh this is so exciting, I want to know more. I really like that so I'll take some more courses in it, not just the minimal science requirement, but I '11 take more. I'll take more philosophy courses if I really like some of the overviews I 139

got." You know it's interesting, I think you could give overviews to students without the students really having a lot of technical depth and background.

... One of the problems is in the intellectual history, and science has contributed a lot to this, is we tended to solve problems using reductionist kind of paradigm. Break things into pieces and wallow in the pieces and go very deeply into the pieces, and of course that's served us very well. We would not be nearly as intellectually advanced without reductionism. I think though we're getting to a point in history, both the intellectual history of the human race, the history of developments in social science, science, the humanities even, because in this crazy world the humanities are what's going to help us literally to keep our humanity. Where we need to start looking a more holistic approach, we need to look at systems as an entirety. It no longer serves us well to look at their pieces and say that suffices , by looking at the pieces I understand the system as a whole. And I'm very encouraged by a lot of the intellectual developments that are going on in some areas where this holistic approach is, what I call this non-local approach, is becoming, scientists and social scientists, and I think maybe the humanities people knew it all along - reductionism is not the final answer to learn everything and understand. It's one little tool but it's not the only tool. And I think that ties in exactly with this core curriculum. I think to start giving students a sense of that in the front of their education, in an appropriate way, then let them go off and get some technical in depth knowledge, then to reinforce at the end of their education some way where they're doing a hands-on problem-solving that requires them to understand a holistic approach, an interdisciplinary approach, yet they realize that individual tools are available from all these various pieces. I think that's a wonderful instructional education. I'd love a core curriculum that would do that.

Regardless of which side of the paradigm faculty members are on, there are strong feelings about this issue. It played a large and important role in the debates and discussions regarding the creation of the second core curriculum. Some faculty believe that these discussions were carried on too long, were given too much emphasis, and diverted the faculty from more important considerations.

Jonathon: You see integration is a word here that has become jargon and I don't really even know what it means anymore. I think it's good that we have some courses at a junior/senior level, that will be pitched, therefore, a little higher than they have been. 140

I'm not thinking about integration. I think that some subject matter is integrated by its nature, and I'm not going to worry about that. I still hold that in a way that the best stuff that we do is very disciplinary in nature, and not necessarily interdisciplinary. But I don't think that makes it, what's the opposite of integrative? Disintegrative? I think that if you understand, for example, [my discipline], it helps you to understand a lot of other things and in that sense it's integrative.

And then that raises the question that you asked, Do you have to have something to integrate before you can integrate? I don't even know what that means to tell you the truth.

Not surprisingly, there was similar disagreement among faculty regarding the value and relevance of team-teaching within the core curriculum. Those who believed in integrating knowledge were more likely already to be involved in team-taught courses, or to believe in its effectiveness as a teaching technique and as a mechanism for faculty development.

Alicia: ... there are a lot of team taught courses, which I think are a good thing. I think those are wonderful for students and I think the new core as encouraged that.

Diana: I was one of the lucky ones, and it was just a matter of chance, to be asked to do team teching... the idea was so appealing not just in terms of the students for what it did in terms of their learning but what it did to faculty in terms of our further learning.

A.J.: Team teaching is difficult. It requires you to examine more closely what you teach and how you teach because you're working with a colleague; you can't just wing it. You've got to work a system out.

Others were skeptical about the effectiveness of team teaching particularly in an environment where resources were limited. 141

Elaine: I've seen over the years where people tried to team teach interdisciplinary courses. It depends totally on the people who are doing that, how dedicated they are to it and the egos involved. And I've seen that kind of thing fall apart.

Carolyn: But that's the one area of the core that always bothered me, all those team teaching courses. How are the students integrating it? Now in one course I've heard, students like the course. There are three instructors... I think the students like the course, I don't think there's any question about that and they're super instructors. But what I wonder is would they get more taking three courses from each of them and concentrating on each?

Ed: Funding basically, I think, winds up, it's always the bottom line.... In things such as team teaching for example, the thrust has been for... to have more interdisciplinary courses within the department. Less of the turf idea-this is only history and this is only English... And of course, that means team teaching and teaching outside of departments and usually the question is not that people won't do it but the question is well what does that mean for your course load, your teaching load, and that winds up being a funding question.

A third area of conflict among Hood faculty and administrators that reflects the larger epistemological and philosophical questions regarding the nature of knowledge and how students learn best was the need for and value of a capstone course as part of the core curriculum. As with team teaching and interdisciplinary courses, there was a difference of opinion over whether Core Curriculum II should have a kind of culminating experience, an interdisciplinary course or seminar in which students would bring together the variety of skills and methodologies they had learned throughout their Hood experience. Those who believed in the value of interdisciplinary work clearly thought this was an essential part of the curriculum, one that would provide coherence to the curriculum as a whole and be a valuable opportunity for the students.

A.J.: There are some, and I'm one of them, who think we should have had in the core a capstone course, a culminating course that was focused on women's issues. And it's one of the things I fought really hard for. .. 142

and it got eliminated. I agree with Paul Gowen who says that now we have a core that is leading up to nothing; it should have led up to a capstone course. I haven't given up on getting a capstone course, but we don't have one now.

Gerrie: And I'd like to see us have a capstone too. That's something the faculty's not yet approved. But a capstone really would say "how do you pull together ail this stuff that you have learned in your four years. We haven't got that yet. I think it will help, definitely.

While some participants clearly were more enthusiastic than others about the value of a capstone course, there was no strong sentiment against the concept, per se. Thus, aside from some lingering bias regarding interdisciplinary experiences in general, the

impediments to gaining approval for a capstone were 1) agreeing what single course or experience could possibly integrate an entire college experience and 2) deciding to increase by three, most likely, the minimum number of core credits required. There had been an enormous struggle to keep the core limit to a manageable number and that number had been increased already by the addition of a language requirement.

Student Characteristics

Throughout the years addressed by the study, the nature of Hood's student population influenced the faculty's curricular deliberations and decision-making. Two facts consistently were among their considerations; the student body was becoming increasingly diverse and more students appeared to be under-prepared for college. The gender of the students, still predominantly female, appeared to be a less conscious factor in the decision making. Nonetheless, it requires attention and will be addressed later in this section. 143

Impact of Student Abilities. The concern regarding underpreparedness of students was consistent with some faculty members' belief that a highly integrative curriculum was not appropriate for the College; too many students needed to gain a foundation of basic knowledge and skills before taking on the higher order thinking and skills necessary to integrate concepts across disciplines.

Francis: There is also the worry that today's student—when you see college board scores with a combined score of 600-today's student may not be able to manage. Our population, the bulk of our population may not be able to analyze, may not be able to apply information from two different areas. I see that with some of the students in my classes right now. They cannot make jumps. They can memorize; they can regurgitate the information. And, if you have that kind of question on the test, they're fine. But they cannot analyze it, apply it, or use that information in a different realm. That thought process is more difficult.

Carolyn: I've had courses that I've had people read several books and then I work hard to pull it together. I don't think those students got as much out of it at all. It was more interesting for me, no question about it. I quit doing that, because I don't think they got, I think they got more out of having a text that did the integration for them—because they don't have the background.

Elaine: Freshman come to us with so little background in too many things these days, and if they move into an interdisciplinary course-I think about this new honors course that students are going to take. It's probably a very interesting course, but I don't see it as appropriate to the freshman level because there is so much need for some very basic work that those students didn't get in high school and who knows when they're ever going to get it? So I really think they need basic courses.

One faculty member recognized the array of abilities among incoming students but saw it as a particular opportunity to be innovative and challenging: 144

lan: The educational system of the United States is in a shambles. It's a disgrace... I don't want to get on that soapbox! We take students in good faith. We get good students, we get weak students, we get a lot of students in between. But those that have come out of the mess, we recognize its a mess and we take our rresponsibility very seriously. That they're paying for a Hood education and we better give them something for it... we are trying to grab them right at the freshman level and give them something that's intellectually stimulating and enticing to them to get their education started out in an exciting way.

Many faculty appeared disheartened by the ability level of students. They described how they worked with students to improve basic skills such as writing and computation. Their experience of these student deficiencies clearly influenced faculty thinking on how best to structure the core curriculum.

Elaine: I think it's essential that we have students who can write well. And we graduate students who cannot write. Oh, some of the things that I see from seniors.... poorly written, misspellings, poor grammar, all kinds of problems. We are graduating people who cannot write. So I would like to see us having something in the curriculum that would guarantee some additional work, maybe writing within the discipline, maybe that would be a good area. But some more development, because it's not enough.

Carolyn: Now I get students, I had one a few weeks ago who didn't know when to use an apostrophe, and she had possessives without apostrophes. I said "Get to LARC and learn about apostrophes." See that's the kind of thing we really ought to be clearing up in the freshman year.

Francis: Over the years, in my 22 years, I have seen a constant decline in the quality of students coming through Hood... I think that the scholars on the faculty who were very concerned with the academic program for the students sort of clung to distribution requirements in hopes of helping that student and guaranteeing that less well-prepared students would have exposure to science and would experience the rigors of different types of academic coursework here at the college. I don't think that people clung to distribution requirements just out of habit or inflexibility. I think there was a genuine concern that distribution requirements maybe did a better job improving academic performance of students and helping students move ahead somewhere on the spectrum of learning. 145

I had a student who couldn't add fractions—she added all the top numbers and she added all the bottom numbers and came up with some very odd number!

As I read papers, I am just staggered at what they must not be doing in high school. And I think that probably accounts for that first section of skills. It sounds mundane, it doesn't sound appropriate to a college level to require a math, to have an English requirements, but the students cannot write a sentence, cannot put a paragraph together with sentences that have verbs in them.

Impact of Diversitv-Race. Ethnicity, and Culture. Faculty were concerned not just with the kinds of skills students would gain in college, but with their values and attitudes, their ability to understand and function successfully in society. According to

Hood faculty, contemporary society requires that students understand their own humanity, that they have knowledge of and appreciation for diversity.

Francis: I have sort of a humanitarian kind of concern, that perhaps the core might heighten an understanding of people.... The "me" orientation of recent generations, the materialism bothers me a great deal and I'm concerned that we understand people and that we respect people and that we love people. And that there would be some way of exposing students to different perspectives, different people-working with the elderly, working with the poor, working with different cultural backgrounds.

Diana: ... there has to be more than just giving them the skills to go out and get a job. That's not what a liberal arts education is.... We're here in the business of truly getting them to be civilized and this core doesn't get close to doing that.

One never takes anything for granted. If I want my students to have an understanding and a sensitivity about race issues or minority concerns, or issues regarding class and caste, or non-western cultures then I will do it, incorporate it, because that's the only way to be certain. As an instructor, I've learned that you can't assume anything with students.

It is concern for these "civilizing" elements of a student's experience that is at the heart of the larger debates on liberal arts education. As described in Chapter two, this 146

issue raged across the country for some time, dividing faculty, administrators, educational

philosophers and policy-makers. And, as described earlier in this chapter, intense internal

discussions were carried out before Hood faculty and administrators could agree on a

single definition of liberal education. More specific to the core curriculum, the faculty

agreed, ultimately, to institute the courses in the "Civilization" section of the core

curriculum to ensure that students would be exposed to concepts and themes from a variety of cultural perspectives. The Civilization section includes courses in Western as well as non-western cultures and a third category called "Society, Science and

Technology."

More detailed discussion of where Hood participants stand in relation to this wider debate will appear later in this chapter in an exploration of the third theme, i.e., institutional identity. A brief related discussion is presented here, however, to examine how Hood dealt with the issue of pluralism, broadly defined, and representation of diverse cultures within the curriculum as a whole.

Specifically within the context of Hood College, some participants expressed concern that the curriculum did not adequately or accurately reflect the diversity either within the student population or in society. The student body at the time was experiencing greater racial and ethnic diversity than ever before but the College was failing to keep pace with those changes.

Beth: ... we have a freshman class that is 27% African American and we have about one and a half courses that have real African American content. That is surprising to me.

It's not just a matter of simply being responsive to the felt needs of a growing constituency, but it also seems appropriate in intellectual ways to offer courses in thisarea.... I think discussions ... this fall have made or reinforced awareness of this as a curricular need and departments are beginning to look at courses. 147

Frank: I think we're missing two things here desperately. One is women and the other thing is Black culture. And we had better be concerned about that really quick. We have 33% Black in the freshman classes and we don't have anything on Black culture?

The President spoke to this issue from a broader perspective. She acknowledged that the institution historically not paid a great deal of attention to racial and cultural diversity either in the curriculum or in its hiring. There was increasing pressure to make

progress on both fronts, however, particularly as the student body became more diverse and, apparently, more vocal about what they perceived as missing from their classroom experiences. From her position, the President saw significant change underway, encouraged along by the mandates of the institution's strategic plan.

I think what [the] strategic plan does is lay out a very strong commitment to diversity and in that is a consciousness in your classes not only to gender and race but that you take on other issues of diversity—sexual diversity, handicapped, and other things. You have to be committed, you don't just balance on gender.

... our mission statement is being updated, revised, and a commitment to diversity-and diversity is going to get terribly overused. I think what we've said is this issue of women is here with us, the issue of minorities is growing with us-we've got a large number of students. We've finally gotten into the minds of the faculty in terms of hiring minorities...

.. . the students, the Black students said there's virtually nothing in the curriculum that speaks specifically to their heritage. It's very well embedded in many courses, but you can't find any explicit courses. The thing they were objecting to, when they get on to an issue related to slavery or something, the Black student is automatically turned to as the expert, and never to the perpetrator, always the receiver as the expert. And I would say there is considerable widespread insensitivity. That's being documented on most of the campuses in the country. Really deepseated unhappiness on the part, not only of women on coeducational campuses, but a large number of African Americans who want to hear greater insights.

. . . So it's far deeper now, as observations prove, than the lip service that was given to balancing the curriculum back in the 70s. 148

As the President pointed out, Hood was like virtually every other college and

university with regard to its need to recognize and deal with institutional insensitivity and

racism. Not every institution, however, faced simultaneous changes and increased

diversity within the student population of the magnitude experienced by Hood.

Impact of Diversity—Non-Traditional Students. These changes, described at some

length in chapter four, included dramatic increases in the numbers of transfer,

commuting, part-time, and adult evening students. (None of these categories is mutually

exclusive and in this case there was considerable overlap among them.) There also

were decreases in the numbers of Hood's traditional student population, i.e., full-time,

residential, day, and of course, female students. Finally, there were noted changes in

students' academic interests with significant growth areas including programs of a more

professional nature, most of which were offered primarily in the evening.

The impact of having various identifiable groups of students in class had no

significant impact on how faculty taught, according to participants. They did not see

themselves teaching any differently regardless of what kinds of students were enrolled in

their classes except in the more obvious distinction between introductory and upper level

or undergraduate and graduate level courses. Typically, the content of the course rather

than the students dictated the teaching methods used.

And yet, faculty and adminstrators were all too aware that students came to Hood

with different educational needs and goals. Transfer students, for example, did not necessarily have the same need for general education or exposure to the liberal arts that freshmen had. Many adult students who attended Hood in the evenings already had careers and were working full-time; their educational goals were often more focused than 149

those of traditional age students and their timelines for completion were different. In

addition, these students led very busy and complex lives. To be successful they had to be

disciplined and achieve a difficult balance between work, school, and family.

Ian: I admire all of my students. And I especially admire a lot of them who've, I don't know how they do it, but they come to school and they work, either full-time or part-time. They have families to take care of, and I am in awe of how they do this, this balancing all the various aspects of their lives. I respect them very much.

In their deliberations regarding the second core curriculum, the faculty found

themselves in a dilemma. Most believed that, ideally, all students should emerge from

Hood having completed the same or a similar set of requirements. The reality of limited

resources and resistance from some faculty, however, made it difficult, if not impossible,

to offer afull range of core courses during the evening class schedule.

A.J.: Sure, well that was the big debate among the faculty. A lot of us believe there should be one core. If you graduate a student with a Hood College diploma, they should be able to assume there's a certain core of knowledge that all share. Now we will be deviating from it, as least the plan is with the School of Professional Studies. But it seems more legitimate somehow than saying if you're major is Home Economics than you don't have to take the college core. So all students with a B.A. or a B.S. will have the same core of knowledge. All students in the School of Professional Studies will have the same core of knowledge. So that at least makes educational sense.

Ultimately, a temporary agreement was reached that was consistent with the newly modified structure of the College. All students enrolled in the School of Arts and

Sciences would be required to complete the full core curriculum. Transfer students would be presumed to have met a set of requirements similar to those in the lower levels

(i.e., the Foundation and Methods of Inquiry sections) in a previous institution and could 150

gain core credit through transript evaluation. Transfer students, however, would likely have to complete the upper level, or Civilization section, of the core at Hood. The same policies would apply to undergraduate students enrolled in the School of Graduate and

Professional Studies until or unless a separate set of core requirements could be established. At the time this study was being concluded, much discussion had taken place but no agreement had been reached about what kind of core would be most appropriate for students enrolled in these more professionally oriented programs. The

College was continuing those discussions in a more formalized way with the intention of establishing a separate core.

It clearly was difficult to find an appropriate and acceptable policy regarding core requirements for all students in the face of the tremendous changes in the student population of the College. The President at one point wrote to the faculty (see chapter four, p. 36-37) expressing her appreciation for the challenge they faced in finding a reasonable solution. It was at the President's urging that the final structure of core curriculum II was based, to a greater extent, on the needs of the traditional population than on the evening, part-time students. She recalls:

.. in this process of curricular discussion [they] got all hung up on what to require of the older students versus the younger ones. And somewhere in the process, several of us, I, suggested that they really concentrate on the traditional age students and any adults who happened to be here during the day. And to be fair, we were also conscious that in the process a lot of freshman and sophomores were taking evening courses, that we were going to have a very tough time implementing the core throughout the day and into the night, because a lot of faculty were unwilling to teach at night, to rotate things.

... So as the thing became tougher and tougher to implement, the more willing the faculty were to say maybe we ought to divide the school into a school of arts and sciences—which is your residential college, your commuters who elect those 29 majors, and the minors that go withthat. And the School of Graduate and Professional Studies would have a different core, and take only transfers from the community college, by 151

saying let's worry about a core for upper level transfers who have a different set of educational objectives from the traditional students. That got us off dead center and then they were able to complete the work.

The process was difficult, but the Dean felt positive about the fact that curricular

needs had driven Hood's structural/organizational modifications. At other institutions,

she suggests, curricular needs might have been a lesser priority.

... I think it more often does happen the other way around. I feel good actually that the curriculum would be the basis for reoganization rather than some bureaucratic reasons. That's not the only reason for it, but 1 think it was the real influence.

. .. this is my version; I think you'll get different versions from different people. Where it became obvious to me that we really needed two schools began with the core curriculum debate and fairly early on because I could see that the faculty was schizophrenic. On the one hand, they're trying to build the strongest liberal arts core possible; on the other hand, they're trying to be sensitive to older students and employed students. And the two aren't necessarily curricularly compatible.... This [system] gets away from that problem because the two undergraduate programs that we want put in the new school, the upper level, are going to be new degree programs and they're going to be upper level. Right now all of the programs we have come under the core. As soon as we get them, they'll have their own core-only upper level and it will be much more technically oriented. So for instance, we're talking about requiring calculus and so on and not Civilization. We're counting on the first two years where the student went, if she has an A.A. or equivalent, she would have gotten a liberal arts base. And that really led to the reorganization, from my perspective... I think other people feel differently.

Other people did feel differently, but more in relation to the existence of the two schools, i.e., their structural legitimacy, rather than the timing and impetus for their creation. Most participants, faculty members in particular, seemed to be skeptical about the need for and effectiveness of what they perceived as another administrative "layer."

As one individual succinctly said,"... I think that we need another dean like we need a hole in the head." Other objections were concerned with the decision to place some professionally oriented departments, e.g., Education and Home Economics, in the 152

School of Arts and Sciences instead of the School of Graduate and Professional Studies.

The administration made the simple case that these departments historically had been heavily enrolled in by traditional students and would remain in the School of Arts and

Sciences since it was intended to serve that traditional population. Participant perceptions about the two schools, their potential effectiveness, and their relation to the future of the institution are important and will be addressed further during the discussion of institutional identity.

Impact of Sex and Gender. When discussing the nature of the student body at

Hood and its impact on curricular events or classroom teaching, participants were more likely to talk about student ability or the increasing imbalance between "day" and

"evening" students than to talk about the fact that the vast majority of their students were women. When asked directly what had been the impact of Hood's identity as a women's college on the development of core curricula or to what extent issues related to gender had been a consideration, the typical response was that it had not come up.

Alicia: I don't think it did frankly. It did not. I can't remember it ever being raised in any discussion that I was part of.

Carolyn: No, uh,uh. I remember talking about [continuing education] students versus the younger-that was an issue. But I don't remember gender particularly in relation to the core.

Some participants did recall talking about specific curricular elements that should be considered if Hood was to be faithful to its purpose in educating women. There was 153

discussion, for example, about the need to prepare women in math and science, where

women continue to be underrepresented.

A.J.: Yeah, I'm going back over some of the discussion that faculty had and, yes, periodically the women’s issue did come up. Always in a very positive sense. So, for instance, the scientists argued very strongly that we should have more science required. As a matter of fact, we really did increase the science component. And the argument was that you're really doing a disservice to women. People also made the same argument for math, although we didn't end up having exactly a math requirement. But they would argue that that's one of the major differences between women in the workforce and men in the workforce is math and science.

Ian: I think there was one specific thing, when we were discussing the science requirements in the core curriculum, it did come up. Not enough women go into the sciences and for a women's college not to have a strong science or a strong math requirement would seem not to be appropriate to this day and age when we're trying to attract women to science and math. That did come up, yeah. But I think that was the only specific thing that did come up. As a women's institution, we need to set an example in the areas they traditionally haven't been attracted to. So we need a strong science component, strong math, we need to be strong in those areas.

When asked to reflect further on why women or gender had not been more central to the discussions, participants gave two kinds of responses. In the first type of response, participants stated that the core represented the knowledge that students needed to gain and thus was not really affected by gender except in special circumstances like those described by A.J. and Ian. On the whole, participants believed that the basic elements of curriculum should be the same regardless of the sex of the students involved.

Helene: ... if we're educating our students for life in the 90s or after the turn of the century, there are certain tpes of knowledge-it doesn't matter if you're male or female--if you're an educated individual living as part of a world environment you need to know a foreign language, you need to be aware of other cultures, you need to be able to write, to speak. I don't care if you're male or female. So I personally don't see those as gender related. 154

The second type of response was exemplified by Brenda's comment:

We have always been aware of our responsibilities to prepare our students to be leaders, to be assertive. But I think it's more of an overall philosophy than an issue to be taken into consideration or put into the core curriculum.

Brenda's response is similar to the first type in its implicit view that knowledge,

particularly the kind of knowledge imparted in a liberal arts core curriculum, is gender-

neutral. It differs in a significant way, however, with regard to the broader implications

of higher education and, more specifically, the implications for educating women. There

are important assumptions implicit in Brenda's comment. First, she indicates faculty

awareness of and belief in the mission of the institution: to educate women. It is

important to note, however, that the focus of that educational goal, specifically because

the students were female, was broader than the content of the curriculum. She indicates

that the focus at Hood was on producing women who were capable, who would be

successful. That they [the students] would be educated goes without saying, but it is

because they were women that how they were taught, what they were encouraged to do, and the kind of environment they experienced was thought to be as critical, perhaps more critical, than the courses they took. Continuing on from his earlier comment (above) Ian captures this idea well.

Ian: ... I don't think it's specifically designed to be a core for women students. We know we have male students too. A lot of the good stuff that Hood does for women students, a lot of it is provided by context and environment. And by an orientation to women students. In my experience, I think that's more the positive effect we provide for students, the context and environment. We provide an environment that's very clear that women are dynamic intellectual beings who are destined to be leaders in society, leaders in industry, are able to do things, can do what they want. Destined to raise families in effective ways. They can do what they 155

want. And I think attitude pervades. I hope you had that experience here as a student. That attitude pervades, I think, in what we try to do.

Similar sentiments were expressed by others, suggesting that Hood's identity as a

women's college was an overt influence in terms of participants wanting to create and

maintain an environment in which women students could flourish. With respect to

curriculum, however, they saw the connection as less direct; it functioned as background

rather than foreground.

And yet the influence is there. A number of participants pointed out the existence of "named courses" (e.g., women in religion), courses that focus specifically on women within a particular discipline or topic.

It should be noted that at the time the study was taking place, a group of faculty had begun to discuss the possibility of structuring a formal Women's Studies program.

The efforts to do so had apparently ebbed and flowed over a period of years; although no formal program such as a major or minor had emerged to that point. One possible reason for the resurging interest in a formalized Women's Studies program at that particular time was the presence of the Dean of the new School of Arts and Sciences. She was supportive of exploring several new program possibilities including Women's Studies,

African American Studies, and International Studies.

Everyone seemed to agree that there were a number of faculty on campus who consistently worked to address women's and gender-related issues in their classrooms.

Some individuals talked about how they themselves addressed women and gender issues in their own courses, by including content or particular kinds of assignments or perhaps by refocusing an entire course. One participant noted that she had increased attention to such issues only recently even though she considered herself a feminist and had been interested in women's issues for some time. 156

Alicia: I've thought of myself as a feminist for years, but I haven't really incorported it in my courses overtly—maybe I have, I don't know. But now I am. Now it's in the syllabus where it wasn't before-it was just sort of a gloss on the material. And now it's explicit that one thing we will do in this class is look at issues of gender. So for me it's more overt.

Participants seemed to accept as inevitable that attention to women and gender

issues in courses would vary by the individual, that some instructors would be more

devoted to the idea than others. There seemed to be tacit agreement that inclusion of

gender issues in courses would or should not be required of faculty. Even though Hood

was a women's college, academic freedom ensured that course content was the instructor's domain, free from the dictates of other faculty or administrators.

Alicia: I think it's very individual. I think the faculty treats it very individually. You know, people for whom that's very important stress it and others don't. . . .

And there's still another group, I guess a women's studies group that's looking at gender issues. But what's happening is mostly on an individual basis. But I guess that's the only thing... that's often the way things get done here. A dictum from on high might or might not get tended to.

The President had her own ideas about how the bottom up approach had worked in the

I think there's been an assumption all though that we really deal with these issues, so it wasn't overtly articulated that we had to do this [include gender in the curriculum]. And I think the more Barbara's done and the more she's realized that that assumption may not really hold up. . . . [she] had a very deep commitment in the curriculum, when I arrived, to gender balance and felt that we would take it through the whole curriculum and didn't need to put a few courses around. This time through I think folks took it as a given that we had done a pretty good job in this direction. What I think some of them realized is that what we've done isn't that great. We've been really resting on laurels that were almost a decade ago. 157

While participants seemed to think about the issue primarily in terms of individual classes and faculty members, there also were some things going on within departments

that either addressed or were affected by issues of gender. Two participants described work that had been conducted or was being conducted by their academic departments to include a greater focus on women. The English department had revised its entire curriculum using a much more inclusive, multicultural approach in individual courses as well as in the structure of the major. The Physical Education department was undertaking an internal study to determine how to teach more effectively to women of color as well as white women.

Helene: ... we're starting a philosophical investigation that will take probably two years. [Interviewer: Of the department?] The department and what we do. And our primary concern is that perhaps we need to change our approach so that we're cognizant of the way women learn most effectively. And the way minority groups learn. So we are starting to look specifically at those issues.

In contrast with these more positive activities, two other departments found themselves struggling against gender-related stereotypes. Participants from the Education and Home Economics departments both expressed frustration with how their work was perceived. They believed that their colleagues in other departments did not value their disciplines because they were seen as traditionally female fields. The Home Economics department, for example, struggled with the perception that they taught ''cooking and sewing" despite the fact that some of their major programs required a great deal of science. The frustration was evident for one participant:

And we've... spent a great deal of time debating possible name changes. .. We have the stigma, besides being just for females, we have the sigma of cooking and sewing. And faculty have stated this, you don't need to teach women how to cook. Well nutrition is a very science-oriented class. 158

The faculty member who teaches... has a very, very prestigious academic record herself and is quite a scholar. She's not teaching cooking. She's not teaching anything to do with cooking. We had a couple of displays.. . just trying to educate a little bit the population to what actually happens in home economics—that it isn't cooking andsewing.... But it's very difficult to overcome years of a stereotype.

The Education department found itself having to convince students that it was

okay to want to be a teacher. They believed some of their colleagues tried to talk students

out of majoring in education by arguing that teaching was a traditional profession for

women and that women should choose from among the many other options now open to

them. One participant described her own experiences:

I've had students come in and be embarrassed: 'I'm really embarrassed; I've decided I want to be a teacher." And you know I've had students come in and say they were embarrassed to—they were being advised in another department, either they hadn't made their mind up or they thought were going to major in X or whatever, and they'll come in and say 'I'm really afraid to tell my advisor." And what happens is that they feel they're kind of selling out.

While these events were not directly related to curriculum, they are illustrative of

the way in which "progress" for women can sometimes be a double-edged sword. As the

contemporary women's movement advanced and women gained opportunities to enter

virtually any career field, traditional women's careers such as teaching and nursing lost

their prestige and appeal for young women. Women's colleges, who had successessfully

prepared women for those careers for decades, found suddenly that students had different

academic interests.

In addition, as women college students gained admission to even the most prestigious institutions the future of many women's colleges was endangered. The struggle that Hood faced, exemplified in the experiences of these four departments, was one of gender consciousness and feminist principles. That is, what does the institution 159

believe about women, women's education, and women's careers? The impact of

consciousness and philosophical perspectives regarding women's issues, particularly as it

relates to individual and institutional identity, will be addressed later in the chapter.

Theme: Relationships

In chapter four, it became clear that a whole host of variables-some internal to the

institution, some external—influence the process and outcome of curriculum work. Earlier

in this chapter, influences of a personal nature, including how individuals define their

work, was explored. In trying to peel away the several layers of institutional and

individual variables influencing curricular work, two facts quickly become evident: first,

that creating and recreating curriculum are not discrete activities, and second, that the

process historically thought of as curriculum change is better understood by closer

examination of both the variables and the interaction among them. Perhaps the most

valuable aspect of that examination is the "human factor." In fact, when one considers

that Hood faculty and administrators engaged in their curricular efforts primarily by

working together in groups of one kind or another for more than twelve years, their

personal interactions take on heightened importance.

It is clear that curriculum does not exist apart from human interaction. It is constructed and reconstructed by people who work with each other and influence each other every day. According to Grundy (1987) "to think about curriculum is to think about how a group of people act and interact in certain situations (p.6). In the case of Hood

College and the parameters of this study, to think about curriculum is to think about how a group of people acted and interacted across a dozen years. 160

Before returning to the voices of the participants, it may be useful to revisit just

briefly the journey metaphor introduced earlier. Berman, et al (1991) provide an

appealing use of journey as a metaphor for teaching in which curriculum is viewed as a

detour. In their description, detour can be viewed as both negative and positive. In its

negative sense, detour means moving off course, away from the most direct route and

feeling a loss of control. In the positive view, detour presents unplanned opportunities

and an incentive for "accepting the serendipitous" (p. 105). Whether the negative or

positive or both views are taken, Berman, et al advise that "viewing curriculum as detour

can also have implications for how persons in schools journey together (1991, p. 106).

The term relationships is used broadly here to refer to how individuals and groups

interacted with each other throughout the span of years covered by the study. The focus

is not on personal relationships since describing any such relationships in detail within the

context of a small institution like Hood would likely compromise the confidentiality of

participants. The intention is to explore how faculty members and administrators worked

together and/or against each other to achieve their particular goals within the larger

curriculum projects undertaken by the College. More importantly, attention is given to

how the participants reflect on those relationships and interactions, specifically, what

meaning is attached to them and what lessons were learned along the way? Within this

theme, relationships will be examined from three perspectives: 1) the role of formal and informal groups, 2) academic politics and "turf battling," and 3) curricular compromise and relationship "maintenance." 161

Formal and Informal Groups

During the course of the twelve years, a number of groups were involved in

designing, implementing, and evaluating the two core curricula. The process was carried

out in a manner that facilitated a great deal of direct faculty involvement in the process and

responsibility for the outcomes.

To review briefly, the earliest discussions about reinstituting a system of general

education requirements for all Hood students were intiated by the Provost and Academic

Dean of the College. She convened an informal and non-representative group of faculty

who after several meetings decided to disband and be replaced by a formal task force

which would be representative; that is, every department would send a faculty

representative. This group worked together to create a design for the first core curriculum

which then had to receive the support of the full faculty. What transpired was a lengthy

process in which the task force's proposal was reviewed, discussed, revised and

ultimately, accepted by a "committee of the whole." This work was carried out in the

monthly meetings of the full faculty.

While consistently throughout the interviews participants expressed frustration over the slow and cumbersome process used in developing the curricula, there was notably more frustration associated with the process and outcome of Core II. The frustration level over core II may have been greater simply because the process was more recent and thus fresh in the minds of the participants. But the documents and interview data, taken together, suggest that general frustration and disatisfaction among faculty may indeed have grown over the years. There is some evidence that relationships on the whole had deteriorated over time. 162

During the 1978-79 academic year, while the Task Force to Study Degree

Requirements was in its first full year of work designing Core I, a consultant from the

National Endowment for the Humanities visited the campus twice and provided written

reports and recommendations regarding the progress that was being made and the

proposal that was taking shape. In her final report, the consultant provided a few

descriptive paragraphs on what she called "The Ethos of Hood." Several excerpts from

that report capture the essence of her remarks:

The implications of the core curriculum for Hood's educational program makes the project important on its own merits, but it takes on even more significance when considered against the ethos of Hood College which lends itself to major educational experimentation... I should like my perception of Hood's ethos to be a part of this report.

First of all Hood is blessed with an uncommonly gifted, committed faculty. These qualities are pervasive and reside in every department. One result of this virtue is that faculty can work together, disagree together, and create together and even suffer together, without losing its poise. The faculty of Hood is an ideal society in which to hatch and carry out bold educational ventures.

Secondly Hood is blessed with a President and Provost who after four years in office enjoy almost unanimous confidence and loyalty from their faculty, students and staff.

Specifically Hood's leadership has managed to heal wounds suffered when a previous administration suddenly and unilaterally reoriented the college's curriculum from a traditional liberal arts focus to a professional one in which students could concentrate almost exclusively on their major speciality. (NEH National Consultant Report, April 1979, p. 2-3)

This consultant, who had visited the Hood campus twice and talked with a number of faculty and administrators, clearly developed an impression of a cohesive group of people. Her remarks stand in contrast to the description provided by one of the participants. 163

Francis: I see considerably less attention to academic matters on the part of some faculty members. Again, in the early years, most faculty members lived nearly. I mean they lived in Frederick or they lived in Frederick County. We have faculty members coming from Virginia, from Washington, DC, from northern Pennsylvania areas. Over 22 years I've seen a larger number of faculty members who either will not participate at all or minimally participate. They haven't read materials, they may vote if they attend the faculty meeting—vote, never speak. I see considerably less discussion in the faculty meetings and I find that rather disturbing. I also find it, and again, I know this is all confidential, I find it very disturbing as well that there appears to be less tolerance for different points of view. And the tone of voice and the impatience that is sometimes expressed in faculty meetings when a differing opinion is raised I find very disturbing period, but I find extremely disturbing at an academic institution.

Francis gives voice to an observation shared by other participants, that the interactions between individuals had deteriorated over the years. Nearly all of the participants had been at the institution for more than 12 years and some had been there for quite a bit longer. A number of participants described changes in the composition of the faculty that they believed influenced how people treated each other. In some cases the observation reflected a kind of nostalgia, a wish that faculty could be more local and devote more time to the campus. Other observations revealed that a number of "camps" or factions operated at various times within the faculty. These groups typically were defined by a particular characteristic such as age or academic discipline. For example, there were references to generational differences among faculty and a belief that older or more senior faculty often were more intractable than newer or more junior faculty. As depicted earlier in this chapter, faculty also identified each other in terms of their belief in either a traditional or more contemporary approach to curriculum. Faculty also were grouped together based on their discipline, e.g., whether they were in the traditional liberal arts or in the professional programs. Finally, some participants believed that the 164

division with the greatest impact did not exist not within the faculty but between the

faculty and the administration.

Whatever their characterizations of the faculty, participants described changes that

had occurred over time, particularly a loss of the cohesion reflected in the NEH consultant's report (above).

Diana: The core (I) never really fulfilled its promise... and when it came time for assessment of that core, you after 5 or 6 years or whatever it was after the core had been implemented, we came up with a lot of opposition from the faculty. There was a lot of sensitive feelings in terms of assessment, and in terms of selection of certain courses as being appropriate to the core, to the categories of the core. And 1 will have to admit that it was certainly a very devisive thing for the faculty. It was a very, very bad time for the faculty because the faculty--their unity and sense of solidarity and the camaraderie that I think we had on the faculty suffered because of both the implementation and the assessment of the core.

Diana's comment are telling. She believed that the difficulties experienced by the faculty and administration in the process of creating and implementing the first core curriculum had a lasting effect. The faculty had lost an essential element-trust-which changed then and for the forseeable future how they would view themselves and how they would relate to each other.

Francis had a slightly different, although related perspective. She believed that some of the specific changes in behavior could be tied to the shifting commitments of the

College.

I think generally, on a personal level, an intolerance, a lack of respect for disciplines or for colleagues in particular. I think the discipline comes into it in part. Right now the flavor of this college, our tone is very much liberal arts, liberal arts, liberal arts. Our mission has been revised and liberal arts is in the forefront. In previous descriptions the mission balanced liberal arts with career preparation. Right now career preparation is somewhat of a dirty word. And professional course work is somewhat less respected. And that's somewhat understandable... But the less than subtle, outward evidence of that lack of respect is just more visible. 165

Many participants identified this lack of respect and, whether they attributed it to

pressures within the insitution or saw it simply as individual character traits, they were

deeply troubled by it. For several individuals, this troubling behavior was most

frequently associated with the very inclusive process the faculty had demanded in

developing the core curricula. Participants felt strongly that even to require such broad

participation reflected a lack of respect for one's colleagues. Moreover, it symbolized a

lack of trust.

Diana: And it [Core Curriculum II] is a disappointment because it, it is a product of an attempt to voice democracy, which 1 generally support. But it is the result of 100 people, or 95 people, and 1 don't think any really brilliant ideas come when an entire faculty sits together as a faculty and evolves a core. 1 don't think that can ever happen. You have to put your confidence and trust in a few individuals and then totally give them your full support, trusting in them and believing in them, having confidence in their abilities to come up with something. But that kind of trust hasn't existed in the last 5 or 6 years.

After the first core curriculum was designed, a formal group—the Core Curriculum

Committee—was established to implement and evaluate it. After a frustrating period of implementation, the CCC faced even greater difficulty in establishing an acceptable means of assessing the core's effectiveness. Trust seemed to be the issue once again as faculty objected to the CCC's request for information regarding individual courses and raised the flag of academic freedom.

Ian: Whenever the idea came up of doing a rigorous evaluation of the core, which meant evaluating individual courses in the core, you immediately ran against a lot of complaints from faculty-Oh, you don't trust us. You want to snoop into our teaching. I'm sort of characterizing this off the top of my head, but there was a definite sense of why should you snoop into this? Why should you be examining my syllabus—I'm a professional, I know how to teach this course. 166

With Core II, there was an attempt to correct some of the problems experienced in implementing Core I. In particular, the definitions for each of the core categories were much more specific and the criteria by which courses could be accepted as part of the

Core were more clearly outlined. Thus, in implementing Core II, the CCC was guided by more specific policies and procedures, leaving little room for misinterpretation or questioning of motives. There also were changes made to the structure of the Committee as well, lengthening and staggering the terms of faculty service in order to achieve greater continuity and, presumably, fairness in implementation of the policies and procedures.

In addition to the mistrust perceived within the faculty, there were similar concerns regarding trust between the faculty and the administration of Hood College. A few participants, for example, voiced their resistance to a new emphasis on assessment of learning outcomes; this emphasis was associated with the administration, particularly the

Dean.

Alicia: I'm hostile to it [outcomes assessment] frankly. I'm really hostile to it. I guess I don't know enough about it to comment really intelligently about it. But, it seems to me to be a product of administrators somewhere who, I don't know, I just react negatively to the whole thing. To me it kind of implies a lack of trust in the faculty, imposed by people in another discipline. To me there's something anti-intellectual about it. So I feel fairly hostile to it. Several participants referred to points at which they felt the process of curricular change had been slowed because faculty perceived that the administration was forcing an unwanted proposal or moving too quickly to settle a complex issue.

Helene: The problem with the first core proposal was that many faculty felt it was a canned core program that was being jammed down their throats and it wasn't successful. 167

Motives were consistently questioned and the skepticism on both sides appeared at

times to reach levels of some considerable emotion. There were frequent accusations that

one group or another was trying to manipulate the process or control the outcome of a

particular event or discussion.

Academic Politics and Turf Battles

Many of the accusations regarding interference with the work on curriculum

were made about academic departments. Some participants believed that departments

worked either individually or in conjunction with other departments to achieve a particular

end. There was widespread agreement that the institution's financial situation had been an

important influence on the kind of strategies employed by particular departments.

Departments who lobbied, so to speak, for their particular areas frequently were

motivated by concern for maintaining enrollments.

Diana: The departmental, vested interests have played a very important role in this second core, the one we are working on now.... Economically times have become hard. There have been, when the last core was thrown out and the new one, the proposed one was being developed... at the same time there were also reductions in faculty. And some anxiety and nervousness on the part of the faculty that because of hard times there would have to be cutbacks. And those who were not secure, for whatever reasons, there was a high level of anxiety about their own departments and their own positions. So this had one thing to do with it.

Brenda: I think that it goes with economic times, you know. Times of plenty make you aware of certain things. But when you are concerned about your own survival, then you tend to be selfish. And that's the trend.

While it was expected that departments would and should be concerned about the impact of curriculum change on their programs and the student majoring in those programs, several individuals clearly thought that some departments had gone too far. 168

There seemed to be particular anger and frustration when faculty and departments were

believed to have colluded with others to protect "turf' across an entire discipline (i.e., the

social sciences, humanities, professional areas).

Brenda: I complained about the old core because I think that some departments are overrepresented in the core. They have found ways to justify their presence in all categories. For me that's hard to believe, I mean anybody could do that. We could do that in [our] department, but we thought it was not right to do that.... But other departments, you know, in ethical issues they are there, and social sciences they are there, and humanities/aesthetic appreciation... how come? ... While, now with these wonderful categories with wonderful titles, departments who are very smart manipulating can increase their enrollment.

I remember I attended a meeting of the western civilization component when we were-we had already approved our new core but our western civilization component, it's not supposed to go into effect until next year. So last year we had a meeting just to, you know, search for ideas or agree on what should be in that core. And it's western civilization and that was supposed to be devoted to the humanities, because we have another component for the social sciences and another component for science. And some of the social scientists were at that meeting and they were talking about presenting courses that were so clearly social sciences that I was very bitter.... We had three meetings going on at the same time for the three components, so they were not only controlling their own field but they came to the humani ties to try to control that one.

There also was a sense that some departments had greater influence over curricular matters, either because they were favored by the institution or because they purposely were more "political," that is, they made known the needs of their particular "interest group." Faculty concern for unfair or overrepresentation of some departments in Core

Curriculum I was sufficient to build in at least one control mechanism for Core II: more stringent criteria for acceptance of courses. (This measure was taken in part also to stop the proliferation of courses from any discipline, within the various categories of the core and to achieve greater curricular cohesion.) Some faculty had lobbied for setting a maximum number of courses that could be approved within each category, but that 169

suggestion had not won approval. Instead, most faculty seemed to understand that limiting courses in each category and making certain that each course clearly met the objectives of that category would better serve the interests of the core curriculum if not the individual departments.

Gerrie: That was another thing, another problem with the old core. Anything that could just vaguely be considered to be part of that particular area of the core seemed to be in there and that was one of the reasons why there was so much narrowness in some people's programs. And so this new core.. . there are tighter criteria and I think probably it should cut down on some of these things that are just tangentially related to the topics. So it should help in that way.

Ian: Supposedly we've learned some lessons. Supposedly, for example, with the second section of the new core... we're going to have much tighter control on the numbers of courses that go in there and which courses are allowed to go in there.

The need to maintain sufficient enrollments balanced by concern for coherence was understood by everyone and clearly influenced the design of core curricula. Some participants, however, were concerned about behavior that went beyond trying to protect one's enrollments. They noted with a kind of sadness that faculty in some departments felt devalued by the institution and by their colleagues.

Elaine: Well, it seems to me that there are certain departments who can bring virtually any change to curriculum committee and it's going to zip right through. There are other departments who don't have that same respect, I guess I can call it. I see some things changing, for example—I'm glad this is confidential-with regard to Home Ec. Home Ec is in deep trouble and I think what is going to happen with Home Ec—and this is a perception watching the developments over the years-1 think there is a bias against Home Economics. It's viewed as too traditional, the typical women's college, good little homemaker, career prospect.

I think there was real antipathy for foreign languages on this campus. I say this not just because of the recent hassles about a foreign language requirement, but because over the years I am aware of departments who 170

would not encourage students to study abroad because the student is going to miss out on some of the courses in their major field. And I think that is putting the department's interests before the student's interests.

Not everyone agreed that the political maneuvering and turf battles had been

detrimental to the College, or that faculty behaved predictably, according to departmental

or any other loyalties, in making curricular decisions. Maintaining loyalty to one's

department was a good thing and having the final approval for most decisions rest with

the full faculty was a safety mechanism of sorts, a means of balancing out the special

interests.

Alicia: Yeah, I certainly think that there have been small groups that have attempted to promote a certain kind of curricular change, but nothing happens without the consent of the full faculty. ... I guess that most people here would say there is a group of people that you can expect to vote together, but you're often wrong. You're often surprised. I think that often people's expectations get confounded. I think it's awfully hard to predict how people will vote.

Jonathon: I don't think that being concerned about your own disciplinary area is bad. We go into those disciplines because we think they're important. And so one would expect some commitment there. But usually that commitment is balanced by recognition of other areas.

Several participants believed strongly that although political behavior and activity

within the College was a reality, most people made their curricular decisions on the basis of intellectual and educational considerations. One individual in particular was offended that others might view her decisions as politically motivated.

Helene: We get accused a lot, and we accuse ourselves frequently, of all the politics going on. I often wonder what that's referring to. Sometimes I get very bothered thinking that someone feels that my motivation is a political one rather than a philosophical one. I'm not pie in the sky and 171

idealist totally, but I'd like to believe that I'm motivated by what I truly believe in rather than some ulterior motives.

Others reconciled the politics as only one influence among many and were confident that, in the end, other factors bore greater weight, not the least of which was commitment to the College and to "doing the right thing." Jonathon continued on in his earlier statement:

Now there'll be some areas, right, I mean that somebody will question. Not everybody is going to support everything. But I, in fact I thought this round that we were, there was an amazing amount of consideration, really, for the value of almost every department And uh, you would hear people from the sciences argue for foreign languages, the inclusion of literature and so forth. So I was amazed, really, at how much just general concern for what was the best education. And maybe we were misguided! But I would have a hard time faulting our motives. I know some people were misguided in some of the things they wanted, but I don't think it was evil in intent.

Ian: . . . I think people cared a lot about it. I think in the discussions to create the revised core, where the whole committee of 80 did it based on the three summer proposals, people participated. They were very active. And I think people cared a lot about it.

Gerrie: ... but I think that just reflects Hood's strength and weakness. In that the Hood faculty really do care. They're very committed and emotional and intense about what they feel and that comes out. And I think it's just something, it doesn't matter what it is, we seem to have to go through that at Hood. People can complain about it if they want to but I think those same traits are what makes us strong. It makes it weak trying to get something done—it takes us two years to get a core curriculum designed because you have to go through the whole faculty. On the other hand, everyone participates and feels part of the thing. So I think there's pros and cons. It does take a long time.

Curricular Compromise and Relationship Maintenance

Concern for self- (i.e., departmental) preservation and desire for the best possible curricula were, as illustrated above, important influences in curricular decision making 172

and in institutional relationships at Hood College. A third factor— exhaustion—also was

an important. Participants frequently and candidly described how long and difficult and

draining the two curricular processes had been and how they had felt by the end. In

particular, the struggle to find an acceptable proposal for Core 11 left faculty and

administrators alike weary from the struggle.

Alicia: The only think I can tell you is that in the context of a couple of years of struggle with the core that did not get passed, and then another full year of discussion of the one that did get passed—and I think we just wanted to get something through.

... the faculty was pretty exhausted from haggling over cores that were rejected. I mean we spent two years on it and I think in that summer group we just wanted to get something done. I mean we just wanted to do it, so we were motivated just to produce something rather than to think about it.

Brenda: ... you cannot fight forever. People get tired of fighting so you have departments that are more aggresive than others and present proposals and, uh, and they get their way.

Carolyn: What happens is, you get the committee who does the basics and then you take it to the faculty-it happened both times-and by the time you get to the end you want this thing over with. And quite frankly that's what happened both times, is that by the end of it you can hardly stand it any longer. I mean you really just didn't care. It's a sad thing to say but it's the truth. Because people are arguing, what about his, what about that, and it got to the point that you couldn't even remember arguments or why people were.

It was easy to sense the weariness from the participants. In addition, some

individuals seemed to have resigned themselves to the outcome while others expressed a combination of sadness and frustration over what might have been. Most participants agreed that the process had dragged on quite long enough; the debates and discussion needed to end. A surprising number, however, admitted openly that they were either 173

unimpressed and unexcited with the ultimate result of the deliberations (i.e., Core II) or were withholding judgement until implementation had occurred and there was better evidence on which to base an opinion.

Helene: I don't know. I'm not really excited about it, to be honest. Again—I'm glad this isn't going anywhere-but until I see first of all what it's really going to look like, because we don't know the courses that are beyond the first two levels. I can't tell you, but I'm not thrilled.

Diana: But there's a lack of both energy and excitement about the core. Nobody's really excited about this core the way we were in the first, the original core, in the 70s, the mid 70s. That was something really distinct. This time around it's the same, a little bit of the same thing. And, lacking the vitality.

In the end, they had simply wanted to get it done. In some respects, the participants unknowingly describe compromise as a way not just to come to closure on the task but also to stop the interpersonal conflict. The process had been tiring, in part, because battles were waged between people who had once been, as described earlier, a more cohesive and trusting group. Many still saw themselves as unified at least in purpose; they wanted to stop being adversaries and return to being colleagues.

Diana: I shouldn't be saying this, but I'm going to say it anyway, it was very much, even more so, an attempt to placate and to compromise with the faculty who were not-it passed. The whole purpose was to get it through somehow, rather than to ensure the vanguard of curricular change. I'm afraid, for me, it's a big disappointment, because I think that while it claims to be one thing, what it really is is distribution requirements and I think we could have done better. We could have been more creative.

Jonathan: So I think the difference was that the faculty recognized that in the core that was passed something that could be more easily accommodated by what we were already doing, what we're comfortable doing. And, I would say, what we legitimately feel like we're doing well. It's often a frustration for faculty over against the administrators to feel-you see there's no grant money, there's nothing for the old stuff, the things you're 174

doing well. They may be the best things you do, but nobody sits up and takes a whole lot of notice.

In this statement, Jonathon has reintroduced the underlying tension between the faculty and the administration. Although the tension was felt more strongly by some individuals than others, its existence is an important point and relates to the issue of compromise and relationship maintenance in two ways. First, the messages, real or imagined, received by the faculty from the administration influenced the acceptability of particular proposals or curricular elements. Second, through messages as well as a less easily defined element—leadership—administrators also influenced how people felt about and related to each other throughout the process.

Earlier in the chapter it was shown that proposals too closely identified with the

Dean were less likely to be accepted by faculty members than proposals with which she was not linked. The point Jonathon makes is that the administration, again in this case it was primarily the Dean, also had the power to provide incentives to encourage the faculty to develop certain kinds of courses or move the curriculum in a specific direction. Some faculty responded favorably; others felt that they were being manipulated and/or devalued by such directives. The Dean herself relates the story of one faculty meeting where tempers flared in response to perceived undue influence from the Dean regarding the development of Core II.

. .. It was terrible, we had these discussions, well by the time they got finished taking it apart, it was not a coherent curriculum. It made no sense. So I had to scramble around and, this was terribly controversial, to tell you the truth-it was over this that the President stood up and resigned! .. . I was speaking in front of the faculty and saying I had decided that we needed a group of faculty working this summer to design another core, we just can't let it hang. One faculty member got up and accused me of being dictatorial, you know, all sorts of things. And it was interesting because I started to walk over to address this faculty member and the President was so incensed I didn't get to respond. She rose up and said "I'm sick to death of you trying to run the College. If you want to run the College, fine, run the College." 175

The Dean had been closely associated with one early proposal for Core II to which faculty had reacted very negatively. Partly as a result of that reaction, the Dean had tried to distance herself somewhat from subsequent proposals, so that whatever came forward for consideration came from the faculty. One participant suggested that the Dean went even further in her efforts to obtain faculty approval for a new core proposal. She believed that the outcome had suffered because the Dean had been more concerned about gaining consensus than about providing strong academic leadership.

Diana: ... I believe that she [the Dean] was overly concerned about the necessity to restore harmony, which is fine, but the necessity to get the support of the entire faculty. And so once again, this core was very much a concession to this opposition and an attempt to get something passed, as a primary motivation rather than waiting. Doesn't matter if it's going to take six more months or a year, but when we have a core it should be something all of us can be proud of and agree on, and I don't think that happened. It was done very quickly, finally, because we'd been years lingering over it because of all kinds of reasons. So I think what I would say is that the administration could have taken a stronger position, provided stronger, and stood on its own, very firm, once they believed in what they were saying, whatever it was. Then I think it would have been appropriate for them to stand firm and not allow little nitpicking over stuff and minor things to threaten the spirit of the core.

The Dean too felt that she had, in essence, presided over a compromise. Unlike

Diana, however, the Dean believed it was her responsibility, and a sign of good academic leadership, to negotiate the outcome rather than allow the deliberations to drag on indefinitely. She, too, wanted an end to the process so that everyone could move forward.

... then we spent at least another year debating that [proposal for Core II] and it got down to the very last meeting of the year and I did everything I could think of. It was just incredible to move it along, to get it approved in a timely fashion. And so, somehow, miraculously, the faculty passed a core even though it, too, met no one's definition of the perfect core. I 176

think it's improved. I think it's better than the first core, but is not an ideal version of a core curriculum from anybody's perspective.

Faculty held different expectations for the role that the Dean and the administration should play in the curriculum process. Some people wanted more direction and leadership; others wanted less. What everyone did seem to want was a way to get beyond the divisions and the sense of mistrust and mistreatment. Faculty felt that were being pitted against each other in some instances. They reacted negatively when individuals were singled out and held up as models. Some were adamant that all faculty should be viewed and treated as though all were equally talented and equally valued by the institution. Here again the Dean had a role to play as she had the power to make such distinctions and reward particular kinds of behavior. Frank provides an example in his description of faculty resistance to the proposed honors program.

And I tell you, you've never seen anything like the faculty resistance to the honors program. They'll do anything to hold it up, stop development of it. It's really pitiful.

[Interviewer; Why the resistance to that program?]

They see it as a threat. They see it as elitism. A lot of it goes back to the ethos of the college. Turning to get back to the women's college. Recently somebody described Hood as a big ethnic family - they all love each other and hate each other, but it's very much interconnected. It's a unit, it's more than separate individual faculty scholars; there's this family atmosphere. And when you tell people that you want your best teachers to teach the honors students or to teach the core courses, they say 'well, we're all equally good teachers.' Well, they defend each other just like somebody would defend the idiot member of their family and say they're just as good as anyone else. Well, on the one hand you sit back and say,, certaily that one isn't as good as this one, but when you talk to the faculty that one is as good as this one. So anything that smacks of elitism, or one student being better than another, or one faculty being btter than another is rejected by a certain portion of the faculty.

The family metaphor is a useful one in this instance. The President and the Dean may be seen as parents who have the power to bestow or withhold favor upon faculty. 177

Faculty, in this view, are children who want reassurance that each is equally loved. How

they are treated by the administration is, in their view, the best evidence of equality or lack

of it. For example, does everyone have the same teaching load? Does everyone have an

equal chance to be named "master teacher," singled out in College publications, or

otherwise recognized for their performance? Faculty also can viewed as siblings; they

criticize each other but defend each other against "outsiders" who may, at times, include

the parents. In the end, maintaining the family unit is a priority. In order to preserve and

promote the most positive and desirable traits among the members, it may be necessary to

accommodate a few less attractive qualities as well.

Theme: The Struggle for Institutional Identity

In one way, the faculty and administration of Hood College remained clear about

their identity throughout the years 1978 through 1990. Whatever curricular changes or

structural modifications were made, the institution maintained its identity as a small college devoted to teaching. In fact, the College actively promoted this aspect of its identity to prospective students and other publics by focusing in various college publications on the strength of its faculty and its commitment to teaching. During that period of years, however, dramatic changes in the composition of the student population took place, forcing the College to ask itself a critical question: who are we teaching?

The changes in the student body as well as in course and program enrollments that occurred were complex but can be summarized in the following way (a full description can be found in chapter four). First, Hood's traditional age, full-time residential population, which in 1978 was 100% female, decreased throughout the 1980s until it was no longer the majority population. In large part because of this decrease, the College had 178

sought to expand enrollment of other "markets" or student populations, i.e., returning adult students, part-time students, evening-only students, commuting students, and graduate students (these groups are not mutually exclusive). The College succeeded in enrolling more students in each of these groups. The greatest expansion was in the number of evening students. This growing population included both full and part-time students, was coed, and, most importantly, was concentrated in a few professionally oriented programs.

The number of students in academic programs with a professional or career focus as opposed to a liberal arts focus was problematic in two ways. First, the College had instituted Core Curriculum I in 1981 which mandated that all Hood students attain a minimum number of credits across several categories as part of their requirements for graduation. In 1981 the number of evening students was smaller thus fewer courses were offered in the evening. Over time, however, as the College attempted to ensure that evening-only students could complete an entire degree program in evening courses, the ability to offer approved core courses during those time slots became a source of some difficulty. The Core represented primarily the liberal arts disciplines of the College and the faculty who taught most of those courses were among those who most strongly identified with the traditional characteristics of the College, i.e., full-time, residential, female, and day-time. Many were resistant to teaching in the evening and resources were not sufficient to offer multiple sections of individual courses during both day and evening.

The second concern of faculty relative to the growing number of evening students in professional programs was more philosophical than pragmatic. As these enrollments increased and the traditional student population became a smaller proportion of the total 179

student body, the College was forced to reexamine the nature of the education it offered.

Was Hood primarily a liberal arts college that offered professionally oriented programs or was it a career minded institution that required some exposure to the traditional liberal arts?

The question was made more difficult to answer because embedded in it was the issue of Hood's identity as a women's college. The consternation the College felt regarding what should be the primary nature of its curriculum, specifically in light of its historic identity as a women's college, can be traced back to the events of the 1970s. In

1971, Hood had virtually eliminated all general education requirements for its students.

In 1977, the faculty began discussing the possibility of restoring a general education component via a centralized core curriculum rather than the distribution requirement system that been in place earlier. In the intervening years, however, a significant change had occurred in the College's curricular offerings. The focus of the curriculum, particularly at the department and major level, took on a career orientation unlike the

College had experienced since its founding. It is important to remember that Hood was founded with the intent to prepare women for work both outside as well as inside the home. Over time, a few career-oriented programs had gained popularity, e.g., Education and Home Economics, but the College also had marketed its broad curriculum as one steeped in the liberal arts tradition.

Due in large part to the influence of President Ross Pritchard, who served from

1972 until 1975, Hood added career oriented programs, ranging from full majors to areas of concentration, in nearly every department. Pritchard's intention was to capitalize on the strengths of being a women's college. He wanted to position the College to be more competitive by providing a much wider array of career oriented programs to young 180

women who, riding the wave of the contemporary women's movement, had many more options available to them than ever before. Pritchard's mandate to create more professional programs met with resistance from some faculty who felt it would move the

College away from what they perceived as its central identity—a liberal arts institution.

Despite some fears, it was difficult to argue with the initial success of Pritchard's endeavor, particularly as enrollments increased. Other aspects of Pritchard's presidency proved troublesome, however, and he left after only three years. After his departure, the new president, Martha Church, worked to regain the trust of faculty who felt they had been excluded from decision-making by the previous administration. President Church also orchestrated a review of the mission statement which resulted in a recommitment of the College to maintaining its identity and primary mission as a women's college as well as articulating more formally a secondary mission, to serve the educational needs of the local community. The College retained and continued to build on the new career oriented programs but placed new emphasis on the value of providing a curriculum which balanced liberal arts and career preparation.

Promoting a balanced curriculum and stating openly the benefits of both the traditional liberal arts and specialized learning seemed to reassure faculty that all were valued. It also represented the philosophy held by most faculty regarding the best way to educate students in a contemporary society. Institutional commitment to this balance was manifest in Core Curriculum I which Hood adopted in 1981.

After passage of that core, the College seemed to regain a measure of equilibrium.

It is not surprising then that the series of demographic changes and startling new patterns of enrollment beginning in the mid 1980s caused old issues and questions to resurface.

In this new round of deliberations about curricular intent and institutional identity, 181

however, two elements were critical: Hood was no longer talking about providing a balanced educational program for women only, and practical realities created by the existence of new core requirements limited the extent to which a full range of liberal arts courses could be made available to evening students.

It is difficult to capture fully the impact of these complex circumstances on either the specific efforts to develop the second core curriculum or on the broader issue of institutional identity. The dilemma sometimes was discussed directly, sometimes alluded to more indirectly by the interview participants. Much of the concern was directed at the

College's structural changes, i.e. separating the institution into the School of Arts and

Sciences and the School of Graduate and Professional Studies. Participants knew that the two schools concept had been implemented as a way to respond to shifts in enrollment while continuing to show institutional commitment to both liberal arts and professional education. They were concerned, however, about what this particular structural arrangement would suggest to the public and what the longterm influence of these two divisions might be on external perceptions of the College.

Helene: I think financially it might save the College. Philosophically it might damage the College; it might change the College forever. So I don't know, take your choice what's the most important. But it could keep us functioning until what is it, 1995 when college age students are supposed to increase? It might get us through the difficult years, but what I see happening, and I could be totally wrong, but it probably ultimately is going to diminish the liberal arts component. It's a trade off.

Elaine: I think probably the word you will get from people is that we're working hard to support and continue the liberal arts areas and in order to do that, to give it the support it needs, we are dividing and focusing on this graduate and professional studies area. So I don't know that Hood is really-I don't know how we're going to be perceived from the outside. I think people are going to see that graduate and professional studies program and they're going to think that we're abandoning our old liberal arts approach. I don't know, maybe it will eventually turn out that that's 182

what we're doing. I'm a little worried. I think we needed to have some programs that will separate evening and day in order to help our residential program flourish-I'm really worried about that. Particularly with the decrease in traditional age students; we're right in the midst of it now and I guess it's not supposed to take an upturn until the mid-90s. But I'm a little worried about that. We've got a residential program that's going to suffer. However, ideally, if those students come and they don't have to take all of these evening courses and, therefore, they can have the full range of the residential college experience—which they're not getting now; they're going to classes from morning to evening, so it's hard to do activities—maybe, then maybe we will have a better residential experience for students and that will flourish. But I'm worried that people outside are going to see us moving so much to the professional area that it could hurt the residential program.

Some had pragmatic concerns about resources and the potentially negative impact of operating a complex administrative bureaucracy within such a small institution.

Francis: I really didn't understand, I still to this day don't understand why we need quite the layering and the division in such a small school.... We're in Arts and Sciences now. We have a graduate program, so if a faculty member is teaching one graduate class and a couple of undergraduate classes, she reports to the Dean of the Professional and Graduate School [sic] and the Dean of the Arts and Sciences. When she's evaluated for promotion, when she's evaluated for merit—I mean we have made this very complex. This is unbelievably complex for a small school.

Not everyone agreed with those concerns.

Beth: ... the College doesn't come apart into two pieces with this restructuring. It's an administrative restructuring but it doesn't-unlike some schools where there's a graduate school with its faculty and the undergraduate college which has its faculty and there's no overlap between the two places. Here you've got a single department that participates in both schools-several single departments in both schools.

An additional concern expressed by a few participants was that the two divisions were not wholly accurate or valid. The separation was not "clean" in that at least one department offered programs through both schools. In addition, a few programs that were more professional in nature, e.g., Education, Home Economics, Communications 183

Arts, had been placed in the School of Arts and Sciences rather than the School of

Graduate and Professional Studies. One participant from Home Economics shared her

perceptions.

They're not clear cut divisions or they're not clearly separated. Because if Management can still offer a day program for traditional residential population students, then it muddies the water of what that school is supposed to be all about. Originally, the first words we heard were day/ night. This [Graduate and Professional School] was a night program. The other school, Arts and Sciences, was a day program. Now you don't hear day/night at all. That has totally evaporated. I don't know, I have just the biggest dilemma coming to grips with that, I don't understand it.

... I think that in terms of liberal arts and this problem of coming to grips with professional and career oriented programs, that—I guess I don't why we aren't over there as Home Economics in this with professional and graduate program school. But it sort of is almost like a segregation if we were. It would be sort of a second rate program over, if Education and Home Ec were grouped with management and computer science, the career oriented. And then Arts and Science would be the golden or fair haired children. I don't know. I think divisions like that would create problems, depending on where programs are shuffled and whether or not one has higher esteem than others.

The creation of two separate schools within the College clearly had raised questions for most of the participants. While their particular concerns ranged from the pragmatic to the philsophical, nearly everyone shared an uncertainty about how the new structure would affect the College. Only administrative participants seemed more sure of the efficacy of the structure; faculty, on the whole, were more skeptical.

The concerns faculty participants expressed about the new structure were only part of their larger reflections on the future of the institution. As they tried to envision the future, some participants focused in part on the College as a single sex institution. There was ambivalence for some, skepticism for others, and a recognition that in some ways the college already was not a women's college in the traditional sense. 184

Jonathon: There's a lot of sentiment against remaining a women's college—not a lot, but some... . But that's always been kept at bay by Martha's support of that. Not only Martha's. What's going to happen? In higher education in general, are we going to see another wave of demise for smaller liberal arts colleges? That's likely, weed out some more. Will we be one of them? I don't think so.

[Interviewer: What do you think about the College's mission; will it continue to be primarily a women's college?]

I think so, as long as there's a reason for it. If we get to the point where traditional aged students, that they don't want, there's no more market for a women's college, then obviously you can't do it. But I think it's good having as many options, as much diversity. And that's a good reason for Hood to remain a women's college. That's what it does well.

Francis: Well, I guess, perhaps the eternal question of can the single sex institution survive? Hood would never have survived if not for the graduate program which is not solely female, in fact, is predominantly male. If it weren't for programs such as management which draws a phenomenal—even undergraduate as well as graduate—population of males. We admit undergraduate traditional aged students who reside off campus, males. I guess that—what good is all this discussion about core if a single sex college cannot survive? ... if we lose those supporting payments of tuition from the males, the graduate students, the CE [continuing education] population, if we lose them to other institutions and programs, Hood would not survive as a single sex, female, a women's college. And the goals are very lofty, but I think the realities are somewhat negative. More colleges have turned to coed programs. A small school is at a decided disadvantage anyway. Could we survive just as a single sex college and I don't think we could. It's somewhat of a dilemma.

Elaine: I think in many ways, we are a coeducational institution. Although the number of undergraduate men has remained pretty stable through the years, there are certainly men in the classes and if you go in the evening, there are probably a whole lot more men than there are during the day.

Ian: It's interesting to see at 5:00 how this campus changes. Someone wandering into this building after 5:00 in the evening would think this is a coeducational institution. It's perceived-it's quite a mix of male and female. And I figure it's kind of like having the best of two worlds. I'm teaching in a single sex institution in terms of teaching my traditional day time classes, and I teach in a coeducational institution. Don't quote me on that, because officially we're a single sex institution. And I don't think we claim officially to be coeducational. We claim that, in accordance with our 185

dual mission, the second of which is to serve the community, that we will take non-resident male students as commuter students. And of course the Graduate program is coeducational.

Ian expressed a concern shared by a numer of participants, that is how honest the

institution was in its official designations. In this case, he referred to single sex

designation, but other participants have indicated similar concern regarding the College's

identity as either liberal arts or professional or both.

Frank: ... we're not a liberal arts college. More than half of our degrees are in professional fields.

Christina: But I think we got labeled... as not really very strong on the liberal arts.. . But I think the faculty who have over the years struggled with the fact that this college has been known for its professional side almost since its founding, and perhaps its undervaluing the strengths of its humanities, the strengths of its social sciences and sciences.

Jonathon: ... I think what's good about this place has been good about it for a long time, it doesn't get a lot of song, but if we do certain kinds of things well, then we're a good college, even if we don't get a lot of grant money. And if we sell those things out to do other things, then we've sold our soul and there's no more reason to give us the grant money. I think that we're in danger of maybe forgetting who we are, sometimes, in the rush to be more innovative.

There was some uncertainty about Hood's ability to survive in an increasingly competitive market. For most participants however, that concern was not foremost; it

was acknowledged only as a remote possibility. The greater concern was that, in preserving the institution, some important element of Hood would be lost or sacrificed.

Evidence of this concern is clear in the on-going struggle for curricular balance and in their desire not to create a "second class" degree in the professional programs.

Ultimately, the identity struggle had more to do with the division between liberal arts and professional or career education than with being a single sex institution. Or, perhaps it is 186

more accurate to say that, as with the curricular discussions, Hood's single sex identity and related gender issues were less consciously in the minds of the participants.

Regardless, the two issues are intricately woven together in the history of the institution.

The extent to which both faculty and administrative participants reflected on the difficulty of the struggle itself, regardless of the primary issue, is compelling. As a collective and as individuals, participants had engaged in a great deal of self-reflection over the years as they conducted their curricular work. The need for such introspection was intensified by the changes in the student body. The College had examined its primary educational "product" and, in the process, had questioned the very nature of its existence and virtually all of its assumptions. The institutional result has been chronicled throughout chapters four and five. As individuals, the participants, after twelve years of work and reflection, were left with a range of emotions about the College, its future, and themselves as players in the drama. They were uncertain, optimistic, resigned, satisfied, dissatisfied; and, most notably, they were weary.

Elaine: .. . And I think that's what keeps us going, that energy that we generate. And I don't want you to think that I have an overwhelmingly negative attitude about everything that's happened here at Hood. I think change is always difficult, and it's, when you're going through change it sometimes hurts a lot. I don't mean to get emotional about this, but I've been through this before, a couple of times. But I remember in the 70s, the early 70s, all of the focus on feminism and women's liberation. And I was hearing and seeing things that really disturbed me. I think that we had some extremes then that really were very disturbing to me. And it didn't mean that I wasn't interested in educating women or, as a woman myself, I wasn't interested in advancing my career, or seeing my daughter move forward. But there were some extremes. And then we moderated. And I think what we're doing right now is we're in sort of an extreme and once it moderates, okay, maybe I'll feel more comfortable. And that's why I say maybe it's because of maturity, that we will eventually come out of it— but I'm tired, I'm dead tired. CHAPTER VI

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

When people are on a journey, there are two inseparable questions: Who am I? Where am I going? Identity and direction. Yvonne Delk

Summary

In the decades after World War II and particularly in the late 1960s and early

1970s, a number of social, political, and economic forces intertwined to create an

atmosphere of disequilibrium on many college campuses. Hood College, like many

institutions, experienced rapidly changing enrollment patterns. After nearly 90 years of

educating a traditional age, residential population of women students, Hood increasingly

was confronted with the needs of part-time, commuting, and adult students, both male

and female. In addition, less than a decade after eliminating virtually all graduation

requirements, the faculty recognized that a majority of students were graduating without an adequately broad and balanced education.

In response to these events, the faculty and key academic adminstrators at Hood

carried out a nearly continuous and ambitious agenda of curriculum work between 1978 and 1990. Hood first spent more than two years developing a core curriculum. The core,

which functioned more like distribution requirements than a common set of required

courses, was intended to ensure students' competencies in several skill areas as well as

187 188

their broad exposure to the liberal arts. The core curriculum was implemented in 1981

and evaluated both formally and informally for several years.

By mid-decade, there was a growing sense that the core needed modification.

Neither the content nor the structure of the core was serving students in the way the

College had intended. While the Foundation, or basic skills, portion of the curriculum

was judged adequate, the Breadth & Depth requirements had not met the faculty's

expectations. In particular, the Core Curriculum Committee, which was charged to

implement and oversee the core, was troubled by the fact that students were meeting the

requirements of the core without necessarily meeting its spirit.

This was possible because several academic departments offered courses in almost

all categories, making it possible for students to fulfill most requirements through a single

department. In addition, the proliferation of courses in each requirement category diluted

the focus of each requirement and made it difficult for students to determine the specific

academic objectives they were to meet. Finally, despite the wide range of courses offered

in each of the several categories, student enrollments were heavily concentrated in

relatively few courses whose popularity was reinforced informally among students.

Initial efforts to address these problems through modifications in the

implementation were unsuccessful. Once courses had been approved as meeting core

requirements, for example, it was virtually impossible to remove them from the list.

Eventually, faculty agreed that more stringent criteria for accepting courses into the core were needed, but there seemed no way out of the difficulty without evaluation and possible removal of existing courses which the Core Curriculum Committee was unwilling to do. While some faculty wanted to keep the core and make necessary adjustments, others began to push for a new design, one that was more interdisciplinary 189

and integrated and less like distribution requirements. By the latter part of the decade,

work had begun on a new core curriculum which was implemented beginning in 1990.

While Hood was carrying out its work, many other institutions also were revising

their curricula by adding requirements and refocusing attention on general education. On

a national scale, the higher education community was engaged in a highly visible debate

regarding the nature of undergraduate education and the need for broad curricular reform.

Much of that debate and the critique of it focused on content and structural issues at the

macro level, reinforcing a traditional view of curriculum. In studying the work

undertaken by Hood, I have employed a broader, more inclusive view of curriculum,

examining the roles, perceptions, and motivations of individuals involved in the work as

well as the process used to construct curricular content and structure.

Chapter four offers a broad, institutional view of Hood's curriculum work,

tracing relevant events and changes in leadership within the institution as well as elements

of the external environment that influenced change. Chapter five enriches that perspective

by exploring curriculum work through the eyes of individual faculty members and

administrators. Their thoughts and beliefs, examined within both an institutional as well

as a national context, create a multi-dimensional view of the nature of curriculum. The

themes-the primacy of teaching, the role of relationships, and the struggle for identity—

that emerged from the participants' words portray curriculum work as a complex

phenomenon that is intricately related to other aspects of their lives within the institution.

A brief review of those themes with examples of their impact is provided below.

Teaching. Hood is a small college focused intently on its teaching mission. As a result, faculty members' relationship to curriculum matters emerged directly from their 190

identity and sense of responsibility as teachers. That sense of responsibility and, in some

cases, the desire to protect departmental interests, led them to take active roles in shaping

core curricula that would both reflect the educational philosophy of the institution and to

respond to the needs of Hood's increasingly diverse student population. The primary role

of teacher also magnified their ownership of curriculum as most faculty assumed an equal

level of authority and expertise in making decisions about college-wide curriculum. If

Hood were a larger institution or committed to a research rather than a teaching mission, a

different sense might have prevailed. Faculty more heavily engaged in research, for

example, may have held strong opinions about curricular matters, but would be less likely and/or have fewer opportunities to involve themselves as fully in the development of curriculum outside of their own departments.

At Hood, curriculum work was part of the work of teaching. Hood, however, is

not typical of the kinds of institutions that most frequently have served as the site of curriculum study. Such studies have been more likely to focus on highly prestigious

universities like Harvard, where faculty life is not centered on teaching in the same way, or at singularly unique colleges such as St. John's in Maryland and New Mexico where curriculum is driven by a belief in the value of specific intellectual traditions.

For some individuals, the nature of the teaching role at Hood was influenced by the College's mission as a women's college and the continuing presence of women as the vast majority of students. Some faculty members contemplated issues of gender in relationship to teaching and learning; others did not. Some faculty held that students were students, essentially, and should be taught in the same way, regardless of their sex.

Other faculty and administrators subscribed at least in part to research by Gilligan,

Belenky et al, and others which suggests that women learn differently than men. 191

Although such research has been consistently challenged by both feminist and non

feminist scholars alike, some Hood faculty saw its assumptions as valid and worked to

promote collaborative learning and women's assertive behavior in class.

Within the framework of feminist ideology, their view is best described as liberal,

where the goal of education is to enable women to compete successfully in the world as it

exists. While some effort is made to reduce or eliminate structural barriers to women's

access and opportunity, the primary focus is to change women rather than to change

society.

Relationships. The small size of the college magnified the importance of the

relationships and the processes through which the participants worked to construct and

reconstruct curriculum. The participatory nature of college governance poses real challenges in creating something as complex and important as a core curriculum. As described above, many Hood faculty believed the development of college-wide curricula was a shared responsibility. While some individuals were willing to allow elected and/or representative groups to design or evaluate curriculum, others were unwilling to grant, or perhaps unwilling to trust, their colleagues with such authority. The result was a need for broad consensus on philosophical tenets, content, structure, and implementation that extended the curricular work for years and led to some tense and difficult times.

In particular, faculty preferred to have representative groups of the faculty conduct the needed work. Their demand, typically, was for a group that represented, in essence,

"one department, one vote." Working in such groups, faculty tended to construct curricular proposals that reflected knowledge as subject matter to be categorized by discipline, if not by department. The result was curriculum that reinscribed the hegemony 192

of the disciplines including the methods and epistemological traditions upon which they

were based.

In their years of working together, faculty members and administrators

experienced anger, frustration, and disappointment with colleagues as proposals for

curricular designs were submitted and rejected and as implementation of the chosen

design faltered. They were hurt by perceptions of mistrust and "political11 activity among

their colleagues, yet they allied themselves in various configurations throughout the years

to achieve particular ends. Some of the alliances were along broad disciplinary lines,

such as the social sciences working in loose collaboration to gain access for their courses

in the various categories of the core. Other alliances reflected programmatic purposes,

e.g., the professional programs vs. the liberal arts. Finally, some alliances were role

driven, that is, faculty allied themselves against the administration. In one notable

instance, faculty asserted their authority over curriculum in rejecting a curricular proposal

that was perceived as favored by the Dean.

Despite their frustrations with a slow, lengthy, and otherwise cumbersome

process, faculty believed that inclusivity had been a key factor in reaching a successful conclusion. Many seemed to agree that the highly participatory process had enabled them

to gain broad support for the final design, indeed might have been the only way to achieve consensus. In a larger institution, the collective faculty might have demanded consensus, but would have had less opportunity to meet and discuss various issues and proposals face to face. Thus, consensus might have been achieved via a less personal, more remote process. 193

Identity. Hood's size, teaching emphasis, and heritage as a women's college in the midst of a changing environment influenced individuals' understanding of identity and purpose. Although the faculty remained clear in their commitment to teaching, the presence of an increasingly diverse student population and the popularity of a few professionally oriented programs raised new and difficult questions about who faculty were teaching and whether the core curriculum was equally appropriate and effective for all students. In searching for common and solid ground in the midst of change, the faculty and administration examined some of their basic beliefs about education and about the institution.

Faculty and administrators disagreed, for example, regarding the nature of knowledge and pedagogy, particularly the practice of integrating vs. separating knowledge. Some members of the institution believed strongly that knowledge should be presented in a linear, hierarchical manner and that students should progress through a sequence of courses in which each course provides a foundation for the next. Others felt strongly that knowledge was not separate or bounded by the methods and tenets of each discipline. Rather, knowledge was interdisciplinary and course content and format should enable students to integrate concepts across disciplines.

The depth of their examinations was limited, however. Participants reported no attempt to identify the dominant interests served by curriculum in general or a core curriculum in particular. Faculty looked at the concrete impact of curricular decisions on the disciplines and departments at Hood, but failed to look more broadly at the epistemological assumptions that such curriculum served to reinforce. They made no effort, for example, to evaluate curriculum from feminist perspectives by examining the 194

extent to which content reflected women's lives and experiences, or by challenging knowledge construction to expose male-centered values and assumptions.

The institution's mission as a women's college had only minor impact in that some faculty asserted the institution's responsibility to prepare women for contemporary society and argued for greater requirements in non-traditional areas such as math and science. Again reflecting the ideology of liberal feminism, the faculty and administrators involved in curricular decision-making saw the issue in terms of minor content changes necessary to enable women's success in a contemporary world. They did not recognize any need to examine the role that curriculum historically played in excluding women's lived experience and intellectual perspectives, thereby reinforcing traditional roles and expectations for women.

Learner characteristics other than gender, including ability, age, part- vs. full-time status, and program orientation (professional vs. liberal arts) were more central to Hood's work in designing curriculum. As they witnessed changes in the student population and contemplated corresponding changes in the nature of the baccalaureate program, Hood faculty and administrators had to consider some difficult questions. Individuals confronted some of their ideological differences in order to determine what they shared.

They examined the institution's past in an attempt to understand and predict its future. In short, they reflected, both as individuals and as a collective, on issues of identity and direction.

Curriculum Work Reflects Identity and Direction

The years 1978 to 1990 were a period of introspection as well as action for Hood

College. Providing first the necessary historical context of the institution and then 195

grounding this study in the words of the participants led me to consider curriculum from a

broad perspective and to frame my thoughts for the conclusion, in part, by asking this

question: What might be learned about curriculum work at Hood College, and possibly

elsewhere in higher education, if we begin by thinking about identity and direction rather

than about content and structure?

A Journey Across Inner and Outer Landscapes. In answer to this question,

several possibilities present themselves. Perhaps most obvious, we return to the

metaphor of the journey. In Berman et al (1991), Rhoderick describes her own curriculum work as a journey in which both inner and outer landscapes are brought

together. In the case of Hood, this image works on two levels. First, the institution's curricular journey, i.e., the years of work invested in the construction and reconstruction of its core, is influenced by both internal changes and needs as well as by larger external forces. Second, the curricular journey can also be viewed as a more personal one, examined from the perspective of individual faculty members or administrators whose curricular decisions are influenced by personal attitudes, values, and experiences as well as by their understanding of institutional needs and larger societal forces.

Exploring both inner and outer landscapes results in a more holistic view of curriculum work. As we examine a variety of dimensions, from epistemological foundations to organizational and structural elements, we see more clearly than ever before the interaction among them and can appreciate more fully the importance of each to the whole. Martin efficiently sums up the direction we need to take: "an adequate theory of curriculum must illuminate clearly the choices confronting those who develop it"

(1994, p. 187). 196

In considering those "multiple" choices, we gain renewed respect for how

complex and difficult it is to create college-wide curricula such as general education and

core requirements, and we are motivated to reconsider the processes by which college-

wide curricula are established. In planning for curriculum work, for example, we must

consider that multiple factors may influence faculty and others who are charged with

making curricular decisions. What level of authority will be invested in formal groups?

By what mechanisms will informal discussions and idea-sharing be incorporated into

considerations for design or implementation? How will any tendencies toward self promotion among academic departments or other identifiable groups be counteracted?

What is the strength of the bond among individuals and how will it affect the resolution of potential conflicts? What is the history of curriculum work in the institution and will individuals resist or welcome a departure from past practice?

Competing Discourses - Destination Unknown. Using the twin starting points of identity and direction, it is imperative to think about how institutional identity is constructed and by whom, as well as who dictates institutional direction. Immediately, we recognize the potential for conflict Consider the following statement made by Alice

Emerson, former president of Wheaton College:

Educational institutions have a social responsibility to be future oriented and to take the largest possible view. The particular form and forces of an educational institution's efforts must and should depend in significant measure on the character, mission, opportunities, and values of that institution. Such efforts must be tailored to the particular institutional strengths and resources, and should reflect some combination of ideals and practicality. (Spanier, Bloom, & Boroviak, 1984, pp. xii-xiv)

Emerson assumes that institutional character, mission, opportunities, and values do not change over time. She also assumes that members of the institution, who presumably 197

embody to students and others the character, mission, and so on, share a common understanding of these critically important elements.

According to Clark (1970), an institutional hierarchy exists wherein colleges who have the strongest or most commonly held sense of identity and mission, i.e., those with organizational "sagas, are afforded greater status. Tiemey (1991), Tonjes (1992) and others, however, point out that the perception of commonality is just that, a perception, perpetuated by those who represent the dominant ideology of the institution. Although individuals are influenced by that dominant ideology, they also interpret and assign meaning to particular concepts, events, and phenomena based on their own experiences and beliefs. Abstract concepts like institutional character and values do not represent objective reality; they have no real meaning outside of individual interpretation. As a result, such abstractions do not necessarily enhance the sense of community or commonality of purpose among members, as we sometimes hope or believe they do.

Commonality of purpose at Hood was questioned when external evaluators visiting the College made the following observation:

I think Hood has quite a clear and concrete statement of its functions as a College, in the long form of the Mission Statement.... Despite many years of analysis and production of institutional mission, goals, and objectives, these program assessors did not perceive them to have been internalized by the faculty. (Middle States Association report)

Offered during the beginning stages of Hood's curricular odyssey, the evaluators's statement gives evidence that the existence of clear and well-written formal statements about the nature and intentions of the institutions do not ensure that all members of the community believe in or subscribe to a common view. And yet, the mission is frequently believed to be of central importance to an institution's identity (Chaffee & Tiemey, 1988). 198

The mission statement is seen as one mechanism by which individuals, and the collective

institution, understand and gauge their progress (Green & Levine, 1985).

In the daily course of events within an institution, little opportunity or impetus

exists to confront differing perceptions of the mission statement or any gaps that may

exist between individual and institutional values and messages. An external point of

view or a significant event in the life of the institution can motivate this kind of

examination and prompt a response. Chaffee and Tiemey characterize the 1980s, for

example, as a period when "colleges and universities are struggling to maintain historical

identity while adapting to changing conditions" (1988, p 75).

In the case of Hood, that struggle began with the work of the Special Task Force

to Study Degree Requirements. For twelve years, Hood College faculty and others were

engaged in curricular work intended to restore coherence and balance to the baccalaureate

degree. They debated countless hours about the College's mission, its essential

characteristics, and its inherent values. They agreed, disagreed, and occasionally were

neutral on matters ranging from philosophical concepts to pragmatic details of

implementation. They studied college enrollment trends, course enrollment patterns,

curricular theory and practice. As they attempted to construct a core curriculum that

would achieve broad support, they examined their own values and beliefs and

experienced frustration over the differences that existed among them. They had

particularly acrimonious discussions regarding the nature of knowledge and the preferred

curricular practices of integrating vs. separating knowledge. In addition, the increasingly

diverse nature of the student body raised questions for them regarding who the college

was intended to serve, particularly because of its historic mission as a women's college and its tradition of providing both professional and liberal arts preparation. 199

And yet, their examination stopped short of meaningful introspection in critical

areas. As they debated curricular content and structure, they never fully raised or

answered the question "What does it mean to be a women's college?" Similarly, as they

counted credits and created categories for delivering liberal education, they never fully

explored questions such as "Whose knowledge is this? Whose values, traditions, and

assumptions are reflected within it and whose are obscured? What is the effect of such

knowledge on students? On faculty? On the College?"

Institutional curricular work is an intensive and complex process. Because of its

complexities, the process frequently results in compromise solutions. At Hood, years of

work resulted in two core curricula that few cheered about but most could tolerate. That

may sound discouraging considering the time, energy, and institutional resources spent in

such work. But, as Gaff points out, the content and structure of a reformed curriculum is

of less importance than the process of reformation. For it is the process that brings the

greatest benefit—the opportunity to examine, and to declare, what an institution stands for.

I take Gaffs supposition one step further and suggest that curriculum work first provides

the opportunity for individuals to examine what they believe, and how those personal

beliefs stand in relation to what they believe is true about the rest of the institution.

Grant and Riesman indicated that curricular reform was typically an attempt to answer the question "What should be the basis of intellectual and social community for undergraduates?" (1978, p. 369). Grant and Riesman were on the right track but had the wrong subject. Throughout much of Hood's curriculum work, faculty and administrators were working to define the basis for their own intellectual and social community which was in a state of flux. In a useful discussion of the symbolic nature of communities,

Cohen offers the following: "The consciousness of community is, then, encapsulated in 200

perceptions of its boundaries, boundaries which are themselves largely constituted by

people in interaction" (1985, p. 13). We observe, across the twelve years of Hood's

curriculum work, changes in the perceptions of institutional boundaries. Boundaries,

such as those that defined the student population, had once been clearly established but

were rapidly changing. Moreover, the boundaries between liberal arts and professional

education had blurred As a result of these and other changes, individuals were forced to

confront their own boundaries (.e.g., what do I believe counts as knowledge) as well as

to recognize and respond to the boundaries of others.

Implications of the Study

Ultimately, what Hood faced during this time was a loss of institutional identity

and with it, the loss of individual identity: Who am I? and Where am I going? It is

interesting and instructive, to see how the participants traveled together on this search for

identity and direction. Their journey, complete with unanticipated highlights and detours, provides a broad view of the institution and the role of curriculum within it. External elements such as societal forces and formal aspects of the institution as an organization and internal elements including the ideologies of individual participants are integrated into a single, multi-dimensional view. Extending the work begun by Tiemey, Gumport and other curriculum scholars, this view holds particular promise for gaining greater understanding of the nature of curricullum work in various kinds of institutions including wormen's colleges as well as coeducational institutions.

Curriculum work, particularly when it involves college-wide curricula, should include the necessary foregrounding. Participants should be helped to understand and place the work within various contexts, specifically the intellectual traditions and 201

organizational practices of the institution. They should examine and challenge commonly

held assumptions regarding institutional identity and purpose in order to provide new direction for curriculum development. The work should also include critical analysis of

the curriculum itself, examining closely the intellectual values and political forces that influence curricular decision-making. Failure to conduct such scrutiny will likely result in a rearrangement of existing curricular content rather than meaningful curriculum change.

Understanding the organizational context in which curriculum work will be carried out also is of critical importance to the success of any curricular undertaking. Clear expectations of the goals should be established and a flexible but coherent process must be envisioned from the outset. Participants shoul dhave both responsibility and authority equal to the task and the leadership must be consistent and strong in the face of the conflicts and differences that inevitably will emerge.

The need for such scrutiny and for comprehensive planning and preparation in conducting curriculum work may sound overwhelming. Consider, however, the lessons learned from Hood College. Even without intentional scrutiny of institutional purpose and curriculum early in the process, the work can drag on for years and may or may not result in significant curricular change. In addition, without clear leadership or some mechanism by which to firmly guide the process, the traditional practices of institutional governance are likely to inhibit rather than facilitate the comprehensive and timely creation of curriculum.

The lessons learned from Hood are that curriculum work can but need not, consume inordinate time and resources of faculty and administrators. The realities of faculty governance, campus politics, and the entrenched hegemony of the disciplines, as seen in the Hood case study, point to several strategies for more effectively conducting 202

curriculum work. First, leadership of the work must be strong and decisive. Sharing the responsibility for leadership between an administrator and a faculty member may serve to lessen the tendency toward resistance on both sides. The responsibilities of the leadership should include establishing clear expectations for outcomes of the work and communicating from the outset that compromise is an anticipated outcome. Realization that complete agreement is not a goal, will enable the community to define compromise in positive rather than negative terms.

Second, faculty and administrators should give colleagues who will do the work of designing, evaluating, and so on clear authority and needed resources. Expectations regarding what influence the full faculty and senior administrators not directly involved in the work will have over decisions must be made clear to all involved. For the most timely, and perhaps the best results, such influence should be minimized. At the same time, opportunities for feedback and input into the process must exist. Such opportunities should be well-planned and well-timed, pointing again to the need for a comprehensive plan and timeline for the entire project. Indeed, establishing and maintaining a timeline is an important strategy in avoiding the tendency for projects to continue and for participants to be consumed by the work.

Finally, the process should encourage the kind of personal reflection and analysis of values, attitudes, and assumptions that can result in change. To accomplish this difficult objective, the process must disrupt the business-as-usual approach typically taken in curriculum development. Multiple small work groups with highly focused tasks might be used rather than large task forces with broadly stated goals. Or, external consultants with specific expertise might be used to encourage greater exploration and confrontation of difficult issues. In the case of Hood, for example, a consultant might have been 203

brought in to help faculty critically analyze their own awareness of gender issues and the

impact on curriculum of the exclusionary intellectual traditions reflected in the disciplines.

These are some strategies suggested by the curriculum work and results of Hood

College. Institutional differences dictate that no single approach is adequate; the

strategies and mechanisms used must be developed in light of the specific needs,

practices, and objectives of the institution. In addition, perhaps most importantly, the

strategies must recognize and respect that curricular decisions are made by individuals,

not by institutions. Whatever process is employed, it must respect and accomodate the diverse needs and perspectives of the individuals who are engaged in the work.

Further Research

Additional study of the perceptions of individuals involved in curriculum work in various kinds of institutions is needed. Within women's colleges, exploration is needed

to illuminate the multiple competing interests which influence curricular decision-making and specifically, to identify and understand the role of women in making such decisions.

A comparison of women's colleges who "went coed" with those who remained single sex through the period of heightened competition and general education reform would reveal whether the two types of institutions grappled with similar questions and, if so, how their curricular decision-making and processes may have differed as they responded to difficult circumstances. And finally, greater focus should be given to the impact that changes in institutional identity and mission have on curricular decision-making. APPENDIX A

DEFINITIONS

204 205

DEFINITIONS

General education -- required courses/experiences outside of one's major or concentration that must be satisfied in order to graduate from the institution. Various formats, i.e., distribution requirements or core curriculum, can be used to structure general education requirements. The goal of such requirements, typically, is to help students gain sufficient foundational skills and/or to ensure students' broad exposure to a variety of traditional academic disciplines.

Distribution requirements - a general education program that identifies general areas of study (e.g., natural sciences, physical sciences, humanities, and so on) in which a student must complete one or more courses. Specific courses are not mandated. Instead, students typically choose from a list of courses that are "approved" as meeting a particular requirement.

Core curriculum -- a set of courses required of all students intended to ensure a common learning experience.

Some programs include a combination of standard courses and distribution requirements.

sources: Gaff, J., 1991, 1989, 1983 Carnegie Foundation, 1977. Mayhew & Ford, 1971 APPENDIX B

HOOD COLLEGE STATEMENTS OF MISSION

206 207

STATEMENT OF MISSION

Hood College is a contemporary, private institution of higher learning whose mission is twofold: to educate women from throughoutout the nation and abroad and to provide professional preparation of women and men from the region. Drawing on a deep and longstanding commitment to the principles of a liberal arts education, Hood offers a comprehensive curriculum of academic programs. Distinctive of a Hood education are the blending of the liberal arts with preparation for professions and the balance between general and specialized learning that serves as the best foundation for life.

Hood adheres to the highest standards of excellence in teaching and learning. The academic environment fosters the active involvement of students in their education and the intensive interaction between faculty and students that maximizes learning. The College empowers students to succeed in setting and achieving academic, professional, and personal goals by cultivating an atmosphere, both inside and outside the classroom, in which change is encouraged and learning is viewed as a life-long process.

Hood College anticipates and responds to change creatively and thoughtfully. Hood values and actively promotes diversity and academic freedom. All members of the college community are expected to exercise mature consideration of, and respect for, the needs, views, and rights of others.

source: 1989 Strategic Plan 208

HOOD COLLEGE

STATEMENTS OF MISSION (adopted by Board of Trustees on November 19, 1976)

Shorter version:

Hood College believes that an education which provides a balance between both generalized and specialized learning serves as the best foundation for life. We further believe that an atmosphere which fosters academic excellence, supplemented by high quality extracurricular experiences, helps to develop the kind of intellectual curiosity, discipline, critical thinking, judgment, and mature recognition of duty and acceptance of responsibility which make life most rewarding.

Longer version:

Hood College is a contemporary liberal arts college for women. Hood serves as a lifelong learning center where women can examine, evaluate and plan their lives, assisted by uniquely designed programs, unified resources, and a faculty carefully selected for its teaching excellence and concern for the development of the individual. The College provides opportunities for women to pursue activities in the classroom, in cocurricular, and in extracurricular experiences, which counterbalances the trends in society that impede the total development of women.

Because Hood is a small private college, it encourages participatory governance. The president solicits the advice of each constituent whose program will be affected by the decision being made: the veiws of students, faculty, staff, trustees, alumnae and associates alike are recognized as important in all changes affecting Hood's future.

There is no need for a forced choice between liberal education and career preparation. Each can be accomplished in ways that augment the degree to which the objectives of the other are attained. Hood believes that the best foundation for either employment or further academic training is an education which is balanced between general and specialized learning. To this end, Hood emphasizes and promotes experiences that combine excellent academic instruction and a variety of off-campus opportunities for practical research, work-study, and internships. Each Hood student is encouraged to design her own educational program within the framework of facilitating academic policies and advising services. Liberal education requires both structured and unstructured intellectually and emotionally challenging experiences that help the undergraduate student develop as fully as possible her ability:

1. to read accurately, with both perceptiveness and pleasure, and listen carefully enough to do justice to what others say;

2. to speak and write with precision, clarity, organization and point;

3. to generate significant questions and know how to find and evaluate answers for herself; 209

4. to identify sources, evaluate evidence, develop reasoned arguments, reach substantiated conclusions and assess the adequacy with which others have performed these intellectual tasks;

5. to become intellectually flexible and inventive enough to react positively in a rapidly changing society, with increased leisure time, and in job areas yet to be defined;

6. to understand the basic forms of human knowledge and the variety of possible approaches to acquiring and using that knowledge;

7. to decide which area(s) of human knowledge she wishes to master most thoroughly and use more frequently;

8. to identify her own and others' values, continuously reassess their hierarchical relationships, understand their applicability to choices in her own and others' lives and acquire skill in making value judgments;

9. to recognize human problems-large and small, societal and individual-and acquire a coping yet creatively active approach to them; to be comfortable working in either an individual or a group mode, as a particular problem may require for its resolution;

10. to understand well enough what it means to be a human being, to live like one in all her relationships with both nature and humankind.

The Hood graduate program is designed to encourage both women and men students to continue developing these abilities. Further, it enhances liberaleducation by focusing closely on the acquisition of professional competencies and expertise.

The College's programs, facilities, and personnel and material resources are available to both female and male residents of the area. Thus through its undergraduate, graduate, continuing education, summer, and other programs, Hood serves as a resource center for the Frederick community.

Hood College, in summary, offers an education which provides the individual with a sense of identity and purpose, a positive self-image, a concern for others, a responsibility to society and the environment, a respect for freedom of choice and belief, a continuing search for knowledge and understanding, and a high regard for academic excellence. APPENDIX C

CORE CURRICULUM I & II

210 211

Degree Requirements

Hood students must complete a core Major Requirements of courses designed to provide a broad — Achievement of a 2.0 cumulative liberal arts background. The following grade point average in courses in section details degree requirements, th e m ajor exceptions, the Core Curriculum, and — A maximum of 60 credits, including the Honors Program. courses taken at the 100-level, and a minimum of 24 credits at or Hood Degrees above the 200-level are required in Hood offers three undergraduate the major field. All courses offered degrees: the Bachelor of Arts, the within the major department are Bachelor of Science in Home counted in the maximum, even if Economics, and the Bachelor of the courses are not required for the Science in Medical Technology. major; for every credit earned Candidates for any of these degrees beyond the maximum, an addition must complete Core Curriculum al credit in another field is required requirements, as well as major, senior for graduation. year, graduation, and general College — Other requirements as defined for requirements as outlined below. It is e a c h m ajo r the responsibility of the student to be sure that all degree and major require Senior Year Requirements ments are fulfilled by graduation. The — Maintenance of a 2.0 cumulative Registrar's Office begins graduation grade point average clearance at the end of the junior year, — Enrollment in the final 30 credits on when upcoming seniors must file a the Hood campus as a degree can record evaluation form. d id ate

General Requirements Core Curriculum Requirements — Demonstration of the ability to write — Completion of the College Core and speak standard English (includ Curriculum. ed in the grade evaluation for every course at Hood College) The Second Degree — Compliance with all general regula Students who wish to earn a B.A. and tions of the College and of the a B.S. degree concurrently must accu Student Government Association mulate 154 sem ester hours of credit and fulfill Core Curriculum require Graduation Requirements ments for both degrees and the — Completion of at least 124 credits requirements for both majors. Students — Achievement of a 2.0 cumulative already holding a bachelor's degree grade point average who wish to earn a second bachelor's — Completion of major. Core degree must accumulate at least 30 Curriculum, and senior year credits as a degree candidate at Hood requirements and meet all degree and major require ments. Some departments require more than two semesters of full-time enroll ment. A determination of how many 212

Decree Requirements

credits must be earned at Hood for the All undergraduate academic and second degree is made by the advising programs are open to adult Registrar, based on evaluation of the learners. Hood also has huilt a variety transcript from the original degree- of options into its programs. Several granting institution. (See Academic special considerations are extended to P olicies.) adult learners, as detailed below. A second bachelor's degree is offered to Hood graduates through the Physical Education Exemption Encore Program (see Academic Adult learners are not required, but are Policies) according to the same provi strongly encouraged, to complete the sions as above, but at one-half tuition. requirement of two credit hours in Hood graduates apply for reinstate Physical Education in Core Curriculum ment as degree candidates through the I. S tu d en ts u n d e r C o re C urriculum II Registrar's Office. Contact the Director must complete the physical education of Adult Learning Services for further requirement. information. Preview Privilege Alternatives to Requirements The preview privilege, available to There are alternatives to the require part-time adult learners who do not ments outlined on the preceding pages enter Hood with a bachelor's degree, under certain circumstances. These allows students to “preview" a course alternatives are discussed below. without fear of financial loss or aca demic risk. Students may attend a Credit for Prior Learning course for sue weeks at audit fee, doing Students may earn up to 30 credit all course work which will be graded. hours through examination or assess At the end of the six-week period, stu ment for the following: advanced dents may decide to take the course placement, credit for prior experience, for credit (and pay full tuition) or con and departmental challenge examina tinue to audit. This policy applies to tions. Detailed information about each the first 30 credits taken at Hood. (See of these programs may be found under Academic Policies for details.) Academic Policies. Students who have acquired college- The Hood College Core level-learning through work or other Curriculum non-collegiate activities may want to A new core curriculum is being phased earn Hood credits by developing a in at Hood. Students returning to Hood portfolio. This option is described in the 1990-91 academic year with under Academic Policies. sophomore, junior and senior standing Students may transfer credits from must fulfill the requirements of the other institutions, as well as for train existing core, referred to here as Core ing in other settings, as approved by Curriculum I. Transfer students enter the Registrar. See Academic Policies for ing with sophomore or more advanced more information on transfer credits. status in the 1990-91 academic year also must complete Core Curriculum I. Special Considerations for (Transfer students who have taken sim Adult Learners ilar courses elsewhere may lie permit Since 1973. Hood has been a leader in ted to use the credits earned to meet educating adult learners, recognizing core requirements after transcript eval and serving the special needs of those uation by the Hood College Registrar. students who are 23 years of age or The Registrar also may approve o ld er. I

213

Degree Requirements

requests from enrolled students to ful Core Curriculum I fill core requirements at other institu (Required of students entering Hood tio n s.) College August 1981 through January New students who enter Hood with 1990 and transfer students through freshman status beginning in August of spring of 1992.) 1990 must fulfill requirements of the new core, referred to as Core All candidates for the degrees of Curriculum II. Bachelor of Aits and Bachelor of Academic advisers assist students in Science in Medical Technology must planning to meet Core Curriculum fulfill the requirements of the Core requirements. Curriculum I. Students interested in Note: Most courses in the Core home economics should refer to the Curriculum are offered each year; oth Home Economics Core Curriculum I. ers are offered on an altemate-year basis or as needed. Information on the BASIC COURSES (14 credits) specific year and semester a course will be offered is included in the Language(9 credits) Programs of Study section. English Composition(3 credits from the following)* English 101 The Writing Process or English 114-129 Writing About Literature Exemption and credit by examination

(6 credits from the following) Communication Arts 101 Principles of Speech Communication Computer Science 181 Introduction to Computing English 111 Studies in Literature Foreign languages (students who begin with 101 in any language also must ta k e 102)

Exemption and credit for all or pan of the requirement by examination for 3 or 6 credits in foreign language or for 3 credits in the other areas

*.Students who receive a grade below C in English 101 or English 114-129 must elect and pass one additional writing-intensive course: English 101, 102, 114-129. or 200-209; English 102 may be taken only after a student has completed English 101. IX fiat; Rii|tiiivnk.'nts

Computation (3 credits Irom the fol Art 220 Histoiy of Art I low ing) Art 221 Histoiy of Art II Communication Arts 275 The Art of Mathematics 101 Sunvyof Film: Histoiy and Technique Mathematics English 250-269 Thematic Studies Computer Science i l l Computing English 270-289 Genre Studies Snivival Skills French 207Introduction to French Mathematics 106 Fundamental Litemture I Concepts of Arithmetic (for majors in French 208 Introduction to French early childhood or special education Litemture II only) German 207 Introduction to German Mathematics 120 Piv-Calculus Litemture 1 Mathematics German 208 Introduction to German Mathematics 205 Discrete Mathematics I Literature II Mathematics 209 Differential Calculus Home Economics 251 Histoiy of Costume and Textiles (for students permitted to enter the Music 103 Introduction to Music calculus with waiver of the prerequi Music 150 Musical Theater site) Music 207 The Great Composers: Bach. Exemption and credit by examination Hay dn, and Bmhms Physical Activity and HeaUh (2 Music 208 The Great Composers: credits from the following)* Handel. Mozart, and Tcbaikousky Physical Education 100-198 activity Music 209 The Great Composers. Monteverdi, Beethoven, and co///s«> (four activity classes, three of Stravinsky which must lie different) Spanish 207 Introduction to Spanish Physical Education 225 Health Literature I Maintenance: Stress Assessment and Spanish 208 Introduction to Spanish Control Phy sical Education 226 Health Literature II Maintenance: Physical Fitness Scientific Inquiry: appreciation of science and its methods (minimum J Exemption and credit by examination credits from the following) *'Adult learners are not required, hut Astronomy 113 Elementaiy Astronomy are encouraged, to complete this Biology 100 The Biological Woiid requirement. Biology 101 Principles of Biology Biology 222 Biology of Aging HREADTH AND INTEGRATION Cbemistiy 100 The Chemical World COURSES 1 18 credits) Chemistiy 101 General Cbemistiy A minimum of 3 credits (one course) Computer Science/Mathematics 320 in each of the following categories is Modeling and Simulation required. Courses in the student’s Environmental Studies 101 major field may not be used to satisfy Environmental Problems this requirement, nor may the cate Mathematics 214 Logical Inquiry gories lie exempted through credit by through Modern Geometry exam . Physics 100 The World of Physics Physics 101 General Physics Aesthetic Appreciation: analysis, Physics 203 Introductoty Physics understanding, and enjoyment of artis tic expression (minimum j credits from Historical Analysis: perspectives on the following) human history (minimum credits Art 201 Comparisons in Ail from the following) Histoiy 200 The Ancient World 215

Degree Requirements

History' 201 Eaiiy Medieval History Sociology 260 The Philosophy and Histoiy 202 Later Medieval Period Methods of Social Research I History' 203 Renaissance and Sociology 363 violence in American Reformation. 1350-1550 Society Histoiy 205 Motlern Europe, 1648-1815 Ethical Theory: systematic and rea Histon' 206 Modern Europe, sonable thought about ethical ques 1815-1914 tions (minimum 3 civdits fro m th e Histoiy 217 History of the United States fo llo w in g ) to 1865 History' 218 Histoiy of the United States Environmental Studies 201 since 1865 Contemporary Environmental Philosophy 215 History of Philosophy: Controversies Ancient Interdisciplinary Studies 104 Ethical Philosophy 318 History of Philosophy: Issues Between the Sciences and Modern Humanities Religion 203 Old Testament Philosophy 100 Perspectives and Religion 211 American Religious Problems in Philosophy History Philosophy 212 Human Xattire and Religion 213 Christian Thought to the Society Reformation Philosophy 221 Ethics Religion 228 Protestantism and Roman Philosophy 320 Business and Catholicism Professional Ethics Social and Behavioral Analysis: Psychology 204 Psychology of Death Religion 200 Issues Confronting perspectives and analytical approaches Religion fo the social and behavioral sciences Religion 204 The Mew Testament (m in im u m 3 credits from the follow ing) Sociology 215 Social Problems

Economics 101 Introduction to World Cultures: critical appreciation Economics of some aspects of cultures other than Histoiy 344 .4 Century of Revolutions. one's own (minimum 3 credits from 1750-1850 the following) Political Science 203 American Goivrnment Anthropology 201 Intivduction to Political Science 214 Politics of the Anthropology Third Woiid Anthropology' 302 Cultural Political Science 230 Law and Society Anthropology' Psychology 101 Introduction to Art/Religion 216 Images o f Women in Psychology' Art and Religion Psychology 2 3 7 Human Development ClassicalI: Literature 202 Mythology Childhood and Adolescence English 221 World Literature Psychology 238 Human Development English 222 Modern Wurfd Literature II: Adulthood and Aging Foreign Language 250 Foreign Recreation 101 Leisure and Literature in Tianslation Contemporaiy Society French 219 France Today Social Work J43 Human Behavior and French 220 French Outside France German 209 Folklore in German- the Social Environment / Sociology 101 Principles of Sociology' Speaking Countries Histon' 232 Latin America. 1860 to 1911 216

Degree Requirements

Histoir 233 Latin America Since 1911 Histoir 237 Contemporary East Asia: Home Economics Core China and Japan Curriculum I Histoir 238 Contemporary Southeast (Required of students entering Hood Asia College August 1981 through January Histoir 242 The Middle East in Modern 1990 and transfer students through Times spring of 1992.) Histoir 246 Introduction to Africa: Histoiy, Culture, Society The Home Economics Core Curriculum International Studies 200 Cultures of supports the mission of Hood College. the Middle East A balance among humanities, social International Studies 201 Cultures of sciences, and natural sciences is crucial India to a sound home economics program. International Studies 202 Culture of There are additional goals that necessi Japan tate a distinct core curriculum for the Philosophy/Religion 214 Indian Bachelor of Science in Home Uoought Economics. These goals are as follows: Philosophy/Religion 222 Chinese — to reflea the philosophy of home nought economics that all programs provide Religion 215 Judaism and Islam for the improvement of life for individ Spanish 220 Latin America Today uals and family through the subject One semester of study abroad matter areas and include as much gen eral education as possible; — to prepare competent professional persons to assume a variety of leader ship roles in assisting individuals and groups seeking solutions to individual, home, and family problems; — to provide a high quality program that meets the guidelines of accredita tion by the American Home Economics Association, the American Dietetic Association, and the Maryland State Department of Education; and — to provide elective courses for the College and the local community.

The opportunity to obtain these skills and knowledge is presented in the form of a 38-39 credit core curriculum.

General Studies(24-25 credits)

English 101 The Writing Process or English 114-129 Topics in Literature <3 credits f Literature or Language: foreign lan guages.” English literature. American literature, foreign litera ture. or CS 181 Introduction to C o m p u tin g <3 credits) 217

Degree Requirements

Aesthetics: music, an. theater, or film <3 credits) Core Curriculum n (Required of new students who enter Physical Education 100-198 or 225. or Hood in August 1990 or after with 226: four activity classes, three of freshman standing. New transfer stu which must differ (2 credits/*' dents should refer to Core Curriculum I.) Sociology, psychology, or anthropolo g y (6 credits/'" The purpose of the Core Curriculum is Science, mathematics: to include at to provide students with the basic least one 4-credit laboratory sci skills needed to pursue a liberal arts ence/mathematics course at the 100- education, to expose them to a variety level or above (7-8 credits) of modes of inquiry in different disci Home Economics(14 credits) plines, and to help them develop a better sense of historical perspective in both Western and non-Westem civiliza 171 Orientation to Home Economics (1 credit) tions. 204 Introductory Nutrition (3 credits) Following is a listing of the course 239 Family Economics and Finance (3 credits) choices for Core Curriculum II. Students should inquire at the 248 Family Relationships or 223 Child Registrar’s Office for a com plete listing Development (3 credits) of courses included in the Core 425 Resource Management (4 credits) Curriculum II. available beginning in 'Students who receive a grade below C December 1990. Courses in the stu in English 101 or English 114-129 dent's major field may be used to satis must elect and pass one additional fy these requirements. Note that some writing-intensive course: English 101.categories require more than one 102. 114-129, or 200-209; English 102 c o u rse. may be taken only after a student has completed English 101. FOUNDATION (8 credits) " I f a student begins with 101 in any The Foundation section of the core language, then 102 must be taken to presents the fundamental skills neces satisfy the requirement. sary to pursue a liberal education. "'Adult learners are not required, but Upon satisfactory completion of this are urged, to complete this require requirement, students should be able ment. to do the following. " " Two disciplines must be represented.• Write with clarity in English • Solve basic mathematical problems and demonstrate some ability to interpret and present numerical data • Realize the relationship between physical and mental well-being and perform at least one physical educa tion activity

All students are required to take: • Three credits from the following: English 101 The Writing Process English 114-129 Writing about Literature I

218

Decree Requirements

• Three credits from the following: Upon satisfactory completion of the lit Computer Science 111 Computer erature requirement, students should Suiviral Skills be able to do the following. Mathematics 212 Applied Statistics • Read with perception the literature Psychology 211 Elementary Statistics they have studied and Computer Science 181 • Analyze significant aspects of this lit Intmduction to Computer e ra tu re Programming • Discuss intelligently, relationships • Two credits from the following: between the literature and human Physical Education 100-198(four e x p e rie n c e activity classes, one of which must be from the conditioning and fitness Literature c a te g o ry ) English 221 World Literature Physical Education 225 Health English 250-269 Thematic Studies Maintenance: Stress Assessment and English 270-289 Genre Studies Control French 207 Introduction to French Physical Education 226Health Literature I Maintenance: Physical Fitness French 208 Introduction to French Literature II METHODS OF INQUIRY (21-23 German 207Introduction to German c re d its) Literature I Different disciplines in the liberal arts German 208 Introduction to German have distinct ways of pursuing their Literature II inquiries. The five categories in this Spanish 207Introduction to Spanish section require that the student will Literature I become acquainted with some of these Spanish 208 Introduction to Spanish methods. Each course in this section Literature II will do the following. • Provide opportunities for students to Upon satisfactory completion of the acquire the capacities that enhance art. music, or film requirement, stu all study: intellectual curiosity, criti dents should be able to do the follow cal analysis, and reasoned judgment ing. • Focus on methods of inquiry appro • Discuss at least one of these media priate to the category, including sig from a critical and aesthetic perspec nificant achiev em ents in the field tiv e • Require the practice of writing • Analyze the development of different • Be appropriate for first and second- genres or styles of expression in at year students least one of the media • Explain how these media address Aesthetic Appreciation< 6 credits) human values and experience Courses in this section introduce stu dents to the analysis, understanding, Art, Music, Film or other media and enjoyment of artistic expression. Art 201 Meaning & Method in Art They will present significant works, Art 220 Histoir o f Art I explore the relationship between these Art 221 Histoiy o f Art II works and human experience, and CmA 275 The Ait of Film: Histoiy & require critical response from students. Technique Students will include one course in lit Music 103 Introduction to Music erature and one course in art. music, Music 150 Musical Theater film, or other appropriate field. Music 207 The Great Composers I Music 208 The Great Composers II 219

D ojtiw Kctinireincnt.s

Scientific Thought f6-8credits) dents to an analysis of human affairs Courses in this section promote the that goes lieyond the mere narration of student's understanding and apprecia historical facts. They will acquaint stu tion of science, the scientific approach dents with the methods historians use to problem solving, and the impor to descrilje. explain, and reconstruct tance of science in our society. Courses th e p ast. will focus on the methods of scientific analysis as well as the actual content of Upon satisfactory completion of this the science and will present the meth re q u ire m e n t, stu d e n ts sh o u ld l>e a b le ods both explicitly and through exam to do the following: ples taken from specific sciences. • Make use of historical information Students will take two semesters of found in primary source materials introductory science courses, at least • Place significant works in their prop one of which will include a laboratory er historical and cultural context or similar experience. • Assess the complex relationship between historical events and the Upon satisfactory completion of this human condition requirement, students should be able • Chronologically order and explain to do the following. the significance of major events and • Understand the introductory content the development of key social and of at least one of the sciences political institutions for at least one • Explain and use the scientific period of history approach to problem-solving • Understand scientific or technologi A course may be selected from among cal information written for non-pro the following: fessional audiences History 205Modern Europe. 1648-1815 Courses may be selected from among Histoiy 206 Modern Europe. the following: 1815-1914 Non-Lalioratory Courses Histoiy 201 Early Medieral Period Biology 222 Biology of Aging Histoiy 202 Later Medieral Period Chemistry 100 The Chemical World Histoiy 203 Renaissance and Em-iron mental Studies 101 Reformation Em imn mental Problems Histoiy 217 Histoiy of the U.S. to 1865 Physics 100 The World of Physics Histoiy 218 Histoir of the U.S. since 1865 Laboratory Courses Astronomy 113 Elementaiy Astronomy Social and Behavioral Analysis<3 Biology 100 The Biological Worid credits) Courses in this section intro Biology 101 Principles o f Biology duce students to the study of human Biology 103 Animal Diceisity behavior and/or the structures of soci Biology 105 Plant Dicersity ety. They will acquaint students with Chemistry 101 Genera! Chemistry I the methods used for solving problems Chemistry 102 General Chemistry' II in the social or behavioral sciences. Ph ysics 101 GeneraI Ph ysics Ph ysics 102 Genera! Ph ysics Upon satisfactory completion of this Physics 203 Introdnctoiy Physics I requirement, students should be able Physics 204 Introdnctoiy Physics II to do the following. • Identify the essential features of soci Historical Analysis(3 credits) ety and culture or the major factors Courses in this section introduce stu- of human liehavior. either in general 220

Degree Requirements

or as they apply to particular social, Philosophy 221 Ethics political or economic issues Religion 100 Perspectives in Religious • Describe the structures and functions Studies of some major social institution or Religion 203 Old Testament analyze the effect of social structures Religion 204 New Testament on their own and others’ attitudes Religion 228 Protestantism and Roman and liehavior Catholicism • Analyze and synthesize information that deals with social or behavioral CIVILIZATION (9 credits) issues, distinguish between relevant This section specifies that students will and irrelevant information and lines have some knowledge of the founda of reasoning, and form appropriate tions of Western civilization, of at least conclusions one non-Western culture, and of the impact of science and technology on A course may be selected from among the m odem world. A listing of courses the following: for this section will be available in Political Science 203 American December 1990. Government Political Science 230 Law and Society Western Civilization(3 credits) Psychology 101 Introduction to Courses in this section are numbered Psychology at the 300-level and are normally taken Sociology 101 Principles of Sociology during the junior or senior year. They Anthropology’ 201 Introduction to may come from any discipline but Anthropology must take as their primary focus the reading and consideration of one or Philosophical Inquiry credits) (3 more major work in Western civiliza Courses in this section teach students tio n . to think in a disciplined and reasoned Upon satisfactory completion of this way about questions of reality, mean requirement, students should be able ing. and value. They approach such to do the following. questions either theoretically or • Demonstrate how at least one major through examples that may be drawn work influences the values, beliefs from different disciplines or cultures. and institutions of Western civiliza tio n Upon satisfactory completion of this • Assess the development of some key requirement, students should be able Western values, modes of thought, to do the following: or institutions in their historical con • Analyze, in a preliminary way, ques tex t tions about reality, meaning, or • Organize and interpret information v a lu e found in primary source materials • Discuss some of the traditional views on such questions Non- Western Civilization(3 creditsi • Develop criteria to arbitrate differ Courses in this category are numbered ences between conflicting normative at the 300-level and are normally taken claims about thought or behavior during the junior or senior year. They may come from any discipline, but A course may be selected from among must take as their primary focus the the following: study of at least one non-Western cul Philosophy 100 Perspectives and ture. They will discuss the develop Problems in Philosophy ment of thought and values in that Philosophy 215 History o f Philosophy. culture and require close scrutiny of Ancient one or more of its major works. 221

Degree Requirements

Upon satisfactory completion of this The Hood College Honors requirement, students should be able Program* to do the following. A limited number of academically • Outline the development of some exceptional students are invited to pivotal values, modes of thought, or enroll in the Hood College Honors institutions in a non-W estem culture Program. Combining classroom instruc • Show how at least one major work tion and co-curricular experiences, the influences the values, beliefs and Honors Program offers a challenging institutions of a non-W estem civiliza academic experience and encourages tio n both independent and collaborative • Place significant works in their prop learning. Courses in the Honors er historical and cultural context Program meet Core Curriculum II • Understand something of the rela requirements. tionship among different cultures, societies, and nations The Honors Program includes the fol lowing requirements: Society, Science and Technology (3 • 6 credits during freshman year** credits) Courses in this section are • 5 credits during sophomore year** numbered at the 300-level and are nor • 6 credits during junior year*** mally taken during the junior or senior • 6-12 credits during senior year*** year. They may come from any disci • a 200-level mathematics course (or pline but must focus on selected tech e x e m p tio n ) nological or scientific developments or • a 200-level foreign language course issues of significance and their impact (or exemption) on human history and society. * This program will include only Upon satisfactory completion of this freshmen in 1990-91, and will be requirement, students should be able expanded in succeeding years to to do the following. include sophomores, juniors, and • Understand, from a non-professional sen io rs. perspective, the scientific concepts, ** Students w ho have successfully laws, and principles underlying completed an honors program at some major technological achieve another college in their freshman or m e n ts sophomore year and transfer to Hood • Assess certain significant scientific or may be invited to enroll in the Hood technological achievements and College Honors Program without hav their impact on human society or ing to complete the lower division the natural environment honors courses at Hood. **• Students w ho study abroad during the junior year and students who have an internship or student teach during the senior year may elect to complete these requirements at a different time in their program.

Freshman Year Honors C olloquia The Fall Colloquium is designed to help students acquire skills in critical APPENDIX D

CORE CURRICULUM COMMITTEE

222 223

THE CORE CURRICULUM COMMITTEE

9. The Core Curriculum Committee consists of the Dean of Academic Affairs (ex officio, voting member and chairperson); six faculty members; and a student representative (voting member). Two faculty shall be elected from the Humanities section of the faculty, two from the Social and Behavioral Sciences and two from the Natural Sciences. For this purpose, the Humanities shall include the disciplines of Art, English, Communication Arts, Foreign Languages and Literatures, History, Music, Philosophy and Religion. Social and Behavioral Sciences shall include Economics and Management, Education, Home Economics, Political Science, Physical Education and Recreation, Psychology, Sociology and Social Work. Natural Sciences shall include Biology, Chemistry, Physics and Astronomy, Mathematics and Computer Science. The student member is a member (not necessarily the chair) of the Student Academic Affairs Committee.

a. Eligibility, Election and Term of Service

Full-time and FTE members of the teaching faculty who are not currently serving on the Curriculum Committee are eligible for election to this committee. The term of service is two years, with half the committee (one person from each area) being elected each year. Election to this committee takes place at the May meeting of the faculty.

b. Functions

(1) Evaluating the outcomes and impact of the Core

(2) Clarifying the definitions for each part of the Core

(3) Making recommendations to the faculty concerning continued core curriculum development

(4) Approving or disapproving all proposals for courses to be included in the Core Curriculum program

(5) Periodically evaluating courses in the Core Curriculum program to insure that the appropriate criteria are being met and excluding courses which do not meet the program's standards

(6) Insuring that an appropriate number of courses are offered in the various categories specified in the Core Curriculum program

(7) Coordinating the development of courses suitable for satisfying the requirments of the Core Curriculum program 224

(8) Approving modifications and exceptions to the requirements of the Core Curriculum program to accomodate transfer students and whatever special situations may arise

Petitions from individual students are handled by the Committee on Academic Standing and Student Records.

Source: Hood College Faculty Handbook, 1990-1991 225

THE LIBERAL ARTS CORE COMMITTEE

To administer the Liberal Arts Core program a standing committee will be elected by the faculty. This committee will be charged with the following responsibilities:

1. approving or disapproving all proposals for courses to be included in the program;

2. periodically evaluating courses in the program to insure that the appropriate criteria are being met and excluding courses which do not meet the program's standards;

3. insuring that an appropriate number of courses are offered in the various categories;

4. coordinating the development of courses suitable for satisfying the requirements of the program;

5. approving modifications and exceptions to the requirements to accomodate transfer students and whatever special situations may arise.

The commitee will be composed of six faculty members plus the Dean of Academic Affairs. Two faculty shall be elected from the Humanities section of the faculty, two from the Social and Behavioral Sciences and two from the Natural Sciences. For this purpose, the Humanities shall include the disciplines of Art, English and Communications, Foreign Languages and Literatures, History, Music, Philosoophy and Religiion. Social and Behavioral Sciences shall include Economics and Management, Policial [sic] Science, Physical Education and Recreation, Psychology, Home Economics, Educatio, Sociology and Social Work. Natural Sciences shall include Biology, Chemistry, Physics, Astronomy and Mathematics. Terms shall be two years with half the committee (one person from each area) being elected for one year and half for one full two-year term. The Dean of Academic Affairs will chair the committee. The chairperson of the Student Academic Affairs Committee will be a non-voting member of this committee.

All new courses and changes to existing courses must be approved by the Curriculum Committee.

Source: Report from the Task Force to Study Degree Requirements, May 1980. APPENDIX E

INTERVIEW GUIDES

226 227

INTERVIEW GUIDE - FACULTY

1. How did you come to be a professor o______f at Hood? Was the college's single sex status of any personal or professional relevance in your decision to become a faculty member here? Is that status any more or less significant now?

2. Describe the history or evolution of the institution's curriculum during your time here. Process - how did the change occur? Content and structure - what changed? Motivation - why did the change occur?

3. Who is resposible for curriculum change here? Who are the most visible participants in the process?

4. Who does not participate in the process of curriculum change? Why not? i.e., is non participation by choice or are some excluded from the process by other factors?

5. What was/is your role in the development of curriculum here? Would you like to be more or less involved? Why?

6. To what extent was/is gender an explicit factor in the deliberations and the process of changing the curriculum? If very little, why? If a great deal, why? Who raised the issue? What was the faculty's response?

7. How does the curriculum serve to educate women students specifically?

8. In your view, how does the curriculum that exists on paper differ from what students actually experience in the classroom?

9. What do you think about the curriculum as it presently exists here? 228

10. What assumptions about the nature of knowledge are inherent in the curriculum as it presently exists here? Are these assumptions different now than before the change occurred? If so, how?

11. Do these assumptions you pereive differ from your own assumptions and beliefs regarding the nature of knowledge? If so, how are your views different?

12. To what extent is gender an explicit factor in your own teaching?

13. If you could design the ideal curriculum the all students, what would it look like? How would it differ for only wome students?

14. What has the institution gained, if anything, as a result of its curricular deliberations and changes?

15. What if anything, have you gained as a faculty member as a result of curricular deliberations and changes? 229

INTERVIEW GUIDE - ACADEMIC ADMINISTRATORS

1. How did you come to be in your present position at Hood? Was the college's single ses status of any personal or professional relevance in your decision to come here? Is that status any more or less significant now?

2. Describe the history or evolution of the insitution's curriculum during your time here? Process - how did the change occur? Content and structure - what changed? Motivation - why did the change occur?

3. Who is responsible for curriculum change here? Who are the most visible participants in the process?

4. Who does ot participate in the process of curriculum change? Why not? i.e., is non participation by choice or are some excluded from the process by other factors?

5. What was/is your role in the development of curriculum here? Would you like to be more or less involved? Why?

7. How does the curriculum serve to educate women students specifically?

8. In your view, how does the curriculum that exists on paper differ from what students actually experience in the classroom?

9. What do you thhink about the curriculum as it presently exists here? 230

10. What assumptions about the nature of knowledge are inherent in the curriculum as it presently exists here? Are these assumptions different now than before the change occurred? If so, how?

11. Do these assumptions you perceive differ from your own assumptions and beliefs regarding the nature of knowledge? If so, how are your views different?

12. To what extent is gender an explicit factor in your own work at the college?

13. If you could design the ideal curriculum for all students, what would it look like? How would it differ for only women students?

14. What has the institution gained, if anything, as a result of its curricular deliberations and changes?

15. What, if anything, have you gained in your professional role as a result of the curricular deliberations and changes? HOOD COLLEGE PUBLICATIONS AND DOCUMENTS

PUBLISHED MATERIALS

College with a Purpose.

Hood College Catalog, 1990-1991.

Hood College Centennial Magazine, Spring 1993.

Hood College Magazine, 1993, 69, (1).

Hood College Magazine, 1994, 69, (3).welcome datacomp

"Hood college: a uniquely American institution." Excerpts from remarks by Dr. Ernest L. Boyer, reprinted in Connections: News of the Hood Campaign for the Second Century. Fall 1993.

President and Fellows of Harvard College. (1977). Case Study: Hood College.

UNPUBLISHED DOCUMENTS

Hood College Faculty Handbook, 1990-1991

Hood College Strategic Plan, Draft October 28,1989

Planning Documents - Charts and Tables Hood College Class Enrollments, Fall 1973 & Fall 1988 Projected High School Graduates, 1986-2004 Freshman Career Preferences, 1966-1985 Career Preferences of Freshman Women, 1966-1985 Interest in Humanities Majors, 1966-1985 Freshman Life Goals, 1967-1985 Hood College Tuition and Room & Board Projections, 1985-1995 Hood College Freshman Enrollments, 1973-1989 Hood College Traditional-Aged Enrollments, 193-1988 Hood College Continuing Education Enrollments, 1973-1988 Hood College Male Enrollments, 1974-1988 Hood College Liberal Arts vs. Career Enrollments, 1976-1989 Hood College Summary Enrollment Data, 1976-1988

231 232

Hood College Graduate School Enrollment, 1977-1989 Hood College Day/Evening Enrollments, 1988 Hood College Continuing Education Enrollments by Program

Strategic Recommendation for Hood College, February 19,1987

Strategic Recommendations for Hood College: A Status Report, October 12,1987

Strategic Recommendations for Hood College: A Status Report, October 20,1988

Strategic Recommendations for Hood College: A Status Report, September 15,1989

A Proposal to Increase Retention of Minority Students, Spring 1986

Division of Academic Affairs: 1990-1995 Goals and Objectives, Draft July 30,90

Division of Academic Affairs: 1990-1995 Goals and Objectives, Draft August, 9, 1990

Division of Academic Affairs: 1990-1995 goals and Objectives, Final Draft September 14, 1990

Reorganization Plan: The School of Arts and Sciences, Draft September 13, 1989

Notes: Enrollment Concerns Meeting, January 13, 1989

President's Priorities for 1989-1990, September 8, 1989

Report to the Board of Trustees: Division of Computing, Planning, and Research, May 1990

Retreat 1990: Planning, Faculty Memorandum from Barbara Hetrick, July 10,1990

Letter to J. Elizabeth Garraway from Barbara Hetrick, July 13,1988

Hood College Institutional Outcomes Assessment, 1988

Department of Education's definition of liberal arts, Memorandum from Jane Matanzo, September 27, 1978

Definition/statement concerning a liberal arts education, Memorandum from Alex Russo, Art Department, September 21,1978

Definition of "liberal arts education", Memorandum from M.P. Ford, English Department, September 22,1978

Definition of a Liberal Education, Memorandum from Paul Gowen and Kerry Strand, October 12,1978 233

Definition of a Liberal Education, Memorandum from Mary S. Metz, Provost, October 10, 1978

Liberal Arts, Defined, Department of Biology, October 5,1978

Definition of a Liberal Arts Education, Memorandum from Sam Holliday, September 22, 1978

Memorandum from Department of Chemistry, Physics, and Astronomy

Definition of liberally educated person, Physical Education and Recreation Department

Definition of liberal education, Department of Religion and Philosophy

Definition of a liberal arts education, Department of Foreign Languages and Literatures, September 29, 1978

Definition of a Liberally Educated person, Memorandum from Annette Thompson, Department of Psychology, September 29,1978

Special Task Force for Studying Degree Requirements, Minutes, October 27,1978

Maximum number of hours allowed in the major at other institutions, Memorandum from Loretta Bassler, Registrar, January 22,1979

Conference Report, Memorandum from Chip Brown, January 24, 1979

Report on Visit to Hood College, Yvette M. Fallandy, NEH Consultant, April 17, 1979

Observation on the Draft Report of the Hood College Task Force to Study Degree Requirements, Report by Yvette M. Fallandy, NEH Consultant, October 15,1979

A New Curriculum to Strengthen the Liberal Arts, James Boston

Report from the Task Force to Study Degree Requirements, May 1980

Definitions for Breadth and Integration Section, July 1980

Core Curriculum Committee - Background, Philosophy, and Procedures, Memorandum from Mary S. Metz, Provost, August 11, 1980

Core Curriculum Committee, Minutes, November 7,1980

Core Curriculum Committee, Minutes, April 30,1982

Core Curriculum Committee, Minutes, October 21,1982

Lilly Proposal, November 10,1982 234

Core Curriculum Committee, Minutes, February 3,1983

Core Curriculum Committee, Minutes, February 17,1983

Evaluation of the Core Curriculum, Memoramdum from the Core Curriculum Committee, March 30, 1984

Plans for evaluation of the Core Curriculum, Memorandum from the Core Curriculum Committee, May 4,1984

Core Curriculum Committee, Minutes, September 27,1984

Core Curriculum Committee, Minutes, April 25,1985

Core Curriculum Committee, Minutes, May 20,1985

Core Curriculum Committee, Minutes, February 6,1986

Core Curriculum Committee, Minutes, April 10,1986

Core Curriculum Committee, Minutes, April 23,1986

Core Curriculum Proposals - faculty survey, May 7,1986

Core Curriculum Proposals - survey results

Joint Curriculum Committee/Core Curriculum Committee Retreat materials, September 12-13, 1986

Proposed Honors Program, Memorandum from ad hoc faculty group, September 17, 1986

Proposal for a General Honors Program, Memorandum from ad hoc committee to develop an honors program, October 29, 1987

Scheduling of core requirements for evening students, Memorandum from Loretta Bassler, November 20, 1986

Core Curriculum Committee, Minutes, December 19,1986

Core Curriculum/Honors Program, Memorandum from Barbara Hetrick and Draft, February 5, 1987

Core Curriculum Committee, Minutes, march 24,1987

Revised Core Curriculum, Memorandum from the Core Curriculum Committee, October 26, 1987

Memorandum from President March E. Church, February 24,1988 235

Preliminary Plans for a Freshman Year at Hood College, Memorandum from Loretta Bassler, January 24, 1989

Proposal for Redesigning the Core Curriculum, Memorandum from Barbara Hetrick, April 18, 1989

Proposal for an Honors Program, attachment to Status Report of Strategic Recommendations, September 15,1989

Course proposals for the revised Core Curriculum, Memorandum from the Core Curriculum Committee, September 28,1989

Implementation of the Core Curriculum, Draft plan

Core Curriculum Committee, Minutes, April 5,1990

Core Curriculum Committee, Minutes, May 3, 1990

Letter to the Core Curriculum Committee from Annette E. Lane, student, March 21,1990

Letter to Barbara Hetrick from students, March 7,1990

Letter to Deborah M. White, student, from Barbara Hetrick, May 11, 1990

Proposal for day and evening undergraduate programs

Program Assessment report, Middle States Accreditation Association REFERENCES

Acker, S. (1987). Feminist theory and the study of gender and education. International Review of Education, 33, 419-435.

Association of American Colleges. (1985). The decline and devaluation of the undergraduate degree. ASHE Reader.

Anderson, M. (1987). Changing the curriculum in higher education. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 12 (2). 222-254.

Aronowitz, S., & Giroux, H. (1985). Education under siege: the conservative, liberal, and radical debate over schooling. South Hadley, MA: Bergin & Garvey Publishers.

Bazin, N. (1991). Transforming the curriculum, the mission statement, the strategic goals: a success story. Initiatives, 54 (1), 39-46.

Beck, E., Greer, S., Jackson, D., & Schmitz, B. (1990). The feminist transformation of a university: a case study. Women's Studies Quarterly, 18 (1&2), 174-188.

Bennett, W. (1984). To reclaim a legacy. ASHE Reader.

Bergquist, W., Gould, R., & Greenberg, E. (eds.). (1981). Designing undergraduate education: a systematic guide. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Berman, L., et al. (1991). Toward curriculum for being: voices of educators. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

Bertaux, D. (ed.) (1981). Biography and society: the life history approach in the social sciences. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.

Bloom, A. (1987) Closing of the American mind. New York: Simon & Schuster.

Boas, L. S. (1971). Woman's education begins: the rise o f the Women's colleges. NY: Amo Press and The New York Times.

Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. (1977). Missions of the college curriculum: a contemporary review with suggestions. San Francisco: Jossey- Bass.

236 237

Carr, W. & Kemmis, S. (1983). Becoming critical: education, knowledge, and action research. London: The Falmer Press.

Chaffee, E., and Tierney, W. (1988). Collegiate culture and leadership strategies. Americn Council on Education. New York: Macmillan Publishing Company.

Charmaz.K. (1983). The grounded theory method: an explication and interpretation. In R. Emerson (ed.) Contemporary Field Research. Boston: Little Brown. 109- 127.

Church, M. (1985) Hood College: a decision to be different. In J. Green & A. Levine (eds .)Opportunity in Adversity.: how colleges succeed in hard tunes., pp. 235 243.

Clark, B. (1970). The distinctive college: Antioch, Reed and Swarthmore. Chicago: Aldine Publishing Company.

Clark, M. E., & Wawrytko, S. A. (Eds.) (1990). Rethinking the curriculum: toward an integrated, interdisciplinary college education. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.

Cohen, A. (1985). The symbolic construction of community. Chichester, England: Ellis Horwood Limited.

Donmoyer, R. (1990). Generalizability and the single case study. In E. Eisner & A. Peshkin (eds.). Qualitative inquiry in education: the continuing debate. New York: Teachers College Press.

Eisner, E. (1988). The primacy of experience and the politics of method. Educational Researcher, June/July, 15-20.

Gaff. J. (1983). Emerging curricular patterns. ASHE Reader.

Gaff, J. (1989). General education today: a critical analysis of controversies, practices, and reforms. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Gaff, J. (1991). New life for the college curriculum: assessing achievements and furthering progress in the reform of general education. San Francisco: Jossey- Bass.

Giroux, H., Pinar, W., & Penna (eds.) (1981). Curriculum & instruction: alternatives in education. Berkeley, CA.: McCutchan Publishing Corporation.

Glaser, B. (1978). Theoretical sensitivity. Mill Valley, CA: Sociology Press.

Grant, G., & Riesman, D. (1978). The perpetual dream: reform and experiment in the American college._ Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Grundy, S. (1987). Curriculum: product or praxis. Philadelphia: The Falmer Press. 238

Gumport P. (1987). Curriculum in organizational culture: developing a conceptual base. Paper presented at the Association for the Study of Higher Education Annual Meeting, Baltimore, Maryland.

Hall, J. with Kevles, B. (eds.) In opposition to core curriculum: alternative models for undergraduate education. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.

Higginbotham, E. (1990). Designing an inclusive curriculum: bringing all women into the core. Women's Studies Quarterly, 18 ( 1&2), 7-23.

Hirsch., E. D., Jr. (1987) Cultural Literacy. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin.

Hoffman, A. M. (1981). History of an idea. Washington: University Press of America.

Lather, P. (1991). Getting smart: Feminist research and pedagogy with/in the postmodern. London: Routledge.

Lattuca, L., & Stark, J. (1994). Will disciplinary perspectives impede curricular reform? Journal of higher education, 65 (65), 401-426.

Levine, A., & Weingart, J. (1973). Reform of undergraduate education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Lincoln, Y., & Guba, E. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications.

Lundquist, A. & Rice, J. (1991). The mission statements of women's colleges and coeducational colleges with women's studies programs: similarities and differences. Initiatives, 53 (4), 9-18.

Martin, J. Roland. (1994) Changing the educational landscape: philosophy, women, and curriculum. New York: Routledge.

Martin, W. (1985). Mission: a statement of identity and direction. In J. Green & A. Levine (eds.) Opportunity in adversity. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, p. 40-61.

Mayhew, L., & Ford. P. (1971). Clmnging the curriculutn. San Franisco: Jossey-Bass.

McKenna, M. (1990). Shaping the change: the need for a new culture in higher education. In J. Antler & S. K. Biklen (Eds.), Changing education: women as radicals and conservators(pp. 295-301). Albany: State University of New York Press.

Mies, M. (19 ). Towards a methodology for feminist research. In G. Bowles, & R. Duelli Klein (eds.). Theories of Women's Studies. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. 117-139. 239

Miles, M. & Huberman, A. (1984). Drawing valid meaning from qualitative data: toward a shared craft. Educational Researcher, May, 20-30.

Miller, G. (1988). The meaning o f general education: the emergence o f a curriculum paradigm. NY: Teachers College Press, Columbia University.

Minnich. E. K. (1990). Transforming knowledge. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.

Musser, F. (1990). The history of Goucher college. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.

Oates, J. & Williamson, S. (1978). Women's colleges and women achievers. Signs, 3, 795-806.

Patton, M. (1990). Qualitative Evaluation and research methods, 2nd edition. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.

Pearson, C., Shavlik, D., & Touchton, J. (Eds.). (1989). Educating the majority: women challenge tradition in higher education. New York: Macmillan Publishing and American Council on Education.

Personal Narratives Group. (Eds.). (1989). Interpreting women's lives: feminist theory and personal narratives. Bloomington: Indian University Press.

Rice, J. (1990). Separation and the education of women. Initiatives, 53 (3), 5-15.

Rice, J. & Hemmings, A. (1988). Women's colleges and women achievers: an update. Signs, 13 (3), 546-559.

Richardson, L. (1988). The collective story: postmodernism and the writing of sociology. Sociological focus, 21 (3), 194-208.

Riordan, C. (1994). The value of attending a women's college: education, occupation, and income benefits. Journal of Higher Education, 65 (4), 486-510.

Schuster, M. & Van Dyne, S. (1985). Women's place in the academy: transforming the liberal arts curriculum. Totowa, N.J.: Rowan and Allanheld.

Seidman, I. (1991). Interviewing as qualitative research: a guide for researchers in education and the social sciences. New York: Teachers College Press.

Shoemaker, D. (1982). Hood College.Educational Record, 63 (1). 52-57.

Smith, D., Wolf, L., & Morrison, D. (1994). Paths to success: factors related to the impact of women's colleges. Paper presented at the Studies in Success Conference, Mount Holyoke College, South Hadley, Massachusetts. 240

Spanier, B.; Bloom, A.; & Boroviak, D. (Eds.). (1984). Toward a balanced curriculum: sourcebookfor initiating gender integration projects. Cambridge, MA: Schenkman Publishing Company.

Stanley, L. (Ed.). (1990). Feminist praxis: research, theory and epistemology in feminist sociology. London: Routledge.

Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: grounded theory, procedures and techniques. Newbury Park, CA: SAGE Publications.

Study Group on the Conditions of Excellence in American Higher Education. (1984). Involvement in learning: realizing the potential of American higher education. Washington, DC: National Institute of Education.

Tetreault, M. K. (1985). Feminist phase theory: an experience-derived evaluation model. Journal of Higher Education, 56 (4), 363-383.

Tidball, M. (1986). Baccalaureate origins of recent natural science doctorates. Journal of higher education, 57, 606-620.

Tidball, M. (1994). Where there's a will... a history of women's colleges. Paper presented at the Studies in Success Conference, Mount Holyoke College, South Hadley, Massachusetts.

Tidball, M. (1980). Women's colleges and women achievers revisited. Signs, 5, 504- 517.

Tidball, M. (1989). Women's colleges: exceptional conditions, not exceptional talent, produce higher achievers. In C. Pearson, D. Shavlik, & J. Touchton (eds.) Educating the majority. New York: Collier Macmillan.

Tierney, W. (1991a). Academic work and institutional culture: constructing knowledge. The Review of Higher Education, 14 (2), 199-216.

Tierney, W. (ed.) (1991b). Culture and ideology in higher educationm: advattcinga criticalagenda. New York: Praeger.

Tierney, W. (1989a). Cultural politics and the curriculum in postsecondary education. Journal of Education, 171 (3), 72-88.

Tiemey, W. (1989b). Curricular landscapes and democratic vistas: transformative leadership in higher education. NY: Praeger Publishers.

Tonjes, N. (1992). General education and institutional culture: a case study in progress. Paper presented at the Association of Higher Education Annual Meeting, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. 241

Weiler. K. (1988). Women teaching for change: gender, class and power. South Hadley, MA: Bergin & Garvey Publishers.

Whitt, E. (1993). "I can be anything!”: student leadership in three women's colleges. Paper presented at the Association for the Study of Higher Education annual meeting, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.