The Values of the Open Curriculum: An Alternative Tradition in Liberal Education A Teagle Foundation “Working Group” White Paper June 2006 Participating Institutions: Brown University [Project Leader] Amherst College Antioch College Hampshire College New College Sarah Lawrence College Smith College Wesleyan University Executive Summary The open curriculum is based on a belief in the power of student choice exercised in collaboration with faculty. Such a curriculum gives students great freedom but expects considerable responsibility in return, and it requires significant faculty engagement to shape, support, and inspire student learning. This tension between freedom and responsibility, choice and accountability, student independence and collaboration with faculty, recurs in different ways at campuses with an open curriculum. Sometimes controversial and often misunderstood, the open curriculum has become an important alternative tradition in liberal education. A “Working Group” of representatives from eight institutions where such a curriculum has thrived for more than forty years met throughout the 2005-06 academic year to identify the values and learning outcomes associated with this educational model and to begin to assess its strengths and weaknesses. In addition to articulating the assumptions and goals that define an open curriculum, the Working Group discussed the challenges of developing adequate assessment measures and conducted some initial assessment activities whose findings are reported here. According to alumni interviews and faculty focus groups undertaken as part of this study, students who are granted such freedom display unusual motivation and engagement with their studies and develop independence, self-confidence, and decision-making skills that serve them well in later life. Although there is a danger that students may avoid difficult courses and stay within their comfort-zones, statistics about breadth of course-choice and the reports of alumni and faculty suggest that the preponderance of students use the freedom of this curriculum to explore new areas and to challenge themselves. An emphasis on developing the capacity for problem-solving and on promoting creativity, curiosity, and independent thinking is, according to these reports, characteristic of the culture of learning that an open curriculum makes possible. Alumni and faculty agree, however, that these positive outcomes are not guaranteed but require effective, engaged advising. The history of granting students “freedom to learn” dates back at least to before the Civil War, when many leading American universities rejected classical models of higher education in favor of allowing students more choice. More recent chapters in this history include John Dewey’s principles of student-centered, process-oriented education as well as the anti- authoritarian rhetoric of the 1960s, the decade in which many campuses adopted an open curriculum. This model has now evolved into a curriculum for the twenty-first century. The qualities of mind and character that an education for the twenty-first century should cultivate include versatility, flexibility, and a facility with negotiating differences of various kinds. These are capacities that an open curriculum seeks to cultivate. Its goal is to develop agile, independent thinkers with the confidence to meet unexpected challenges and opportunities. Working Group Members New College Charlene Callahan Provost and Associate Brown University Professor of Psychology Paul Armstrong Dean of the College and Sarah Lawrence College Professor of English Barbara Kaplan [Principal Investigator and Lead Dean of the College and Author] Professor of Literature Armando Bengochea Allen Green Associate Dean of the College Dean of Studies and Student Life Margaret Klawunn Associate Vice President for Smith College Campus Life and Dean for Maureen Mahoney Student Life Dean of the College Robert Shaw Executive Associate Dean of the Wesleyan University College William Weitzer Senior Associate Provost and Dean of Continuing Studies Amherst College Frederick Griffiths Institutional Research Associate Dean of the Faculty Katherine Tracy Barnes and Professor of Classics and Brown University Women’s and Gender Studies Marian F. Matheson Amherst College Antioch College Carol Trosset Louise Smith Hampshire College Associate Dean of the Faculty and Associate Professor of Theatre Hampshire College Steven Weisler Dean of Academic Development and Professor of Linguistics Outline I. Introduction: Why Study the “Open Curriculum”? ............................................... 1 II. What is an “Open Curriculum”? .......................................................................... 7 A. Shared Assumptions, Values, and Goals ......................................................... 7 B. Curricular Differences and Family Resemblances: ........................................ 11 Variations within a Tradition Summary ....................................................................................................... 18 III. Assessment ................................................................................................... 19 A. Alumni Interviews ..................................................................................... 20 B. Faculty Focus Groups ................................................................................. 24 C. Future Assessment Activities ...................................................................... 28 Summary ....................................................................................................... 30 IV. Issues and Concerns ....................................................................................... 33 A. Advising ................................................................................................... 33 B. Curricular Breadth ..................................................................................... 35 C. Students and Faculty ................................................................................. 39 V. Conclusion: A Curriculum for the 21st Century .................................................. 43 Appendices: A. Curricular Structures .................................................................................. 47 B. Alumni Interviews ..................................................................................... 55 C. Faculty Focus Groups ................................................................................. 79 The Values of the Open Curriculum: An Alternative Tradition in Liberal Education I. Introduction: Why Study the “Open Curriculum”? Based on a belief in the value of student choice exercised in collaboration with faculty, an “open curriculum” grants students the freedom to design their own programs of study. Sometimes controversial and often misunderstood, this approach has nevertheless established itself over the last half century as a major tradition in liberal education. The experience of “open curriculum” campuses is that offering students such freedom creates a culture of learning in which students display unusual motivation, innovation, and self-direction. Various kinds of evidence suggest that an open curriculum fosters a passion for learning and promotes independent thinking and creative problem-solving. Although there is a danger that this freedom may be abused, alumni report that the responsibilities and opportunities they enjoyed in such a culture helped them become autonomous, life-long learners and encouraged them to develop independence, creativity, and flexibility as thinkers that proved invaluable in later years. Faculty at these campuses report that their students are exceptionally engaged in their studies because they have chosen to undertake them for reasons they find compelling rather than simply in order to meet requirements. An open curriculum places more demands on faculty (especially for advising) than in models where the options are fixed and clearly delineated, but faculty say they value the freedom this openness gives them to design new courses and explore new areas in collaboration with their students. 1 Such a curriculum is not without its challenges, and its vulnerabilities are in many ways a reflection of its virtues. Most campuses with an open curriculum devote considerable time and attention, for example, to encouraging students to use their freedom to push themselves rather than avoid difficult subjects and to extend their intellectual horizons rather than stay within their comfort-zones. When an open curriculum lives up to its ideals, however, it creates a culture of choice and collaboration that encourages the creativity and engagement of both students and faculty by making them partners in the educational enterprise. An “open curriculum” is one of the three main models for liberal education at American colleges and universities today. It differs from a “core curriculum,” which identifies a fixed set of subjects or a canon of texts that all students must study (the model at Columbia, Chicago, or St. John’s), or from the “distribution requirements” approach, which specifies areas in which students must take courses, often from sets of offerings specially designed for this purpose (the model at Pennsylvania, Duke, and many other institutions). Students at such institutions do of course make choices and collaborate with faculty, but “choice” and “collaboration” are not the central, defining values of the educational culture as they are with an open curriculum. A diversity