Common Core Requirements
CORE Curriculum Assessment and
Study
Fairleigh Dickinson University
Report on Student Views of Fairleigh
Dickinson's Core Curriculum
The University Core Program has been
a part of the curriculum of Fairleigh
Dickinson University for almost ten
years. A comprehensive evaluation of
skills development was conducted in
1990 and 1991 which showed that writing
skills improved over the course of the
four semesters of the Core. In 1995,
the directors of the Core decided to
undertake a second evaluation of the
program, this one devoted to student
attitudes. What follows is a report
on that evaluation.
A questionnaire was constructed by
the directors in consultation with small
groups of Core faculty and under the
guidance of Dr. Jack Meacham of SUNY,
Buffalo. Recommended to us by the Association
of American Colleges and Universities,
Dr. Meacham is a professor of psychology
and has expertise in both the qualitative
and quantitative aspects of evaluating
general education. Dr. Meacham visited
the university and met with Core faculty
and university administrators. By and
large, the language of the questions
was crafted by Dr. Meacham after discussions
concerning the content areas with Core
directors and faculty.
The questionnaire was given to one
day and one evening section of Core
II and Core IV, the two Core courses
which serve as "terminal" courses for
transfer students and four-year students,
respectively. This procedure was carried
out on both the Madison and Teaneck
campuses. Hence four sections on each
of those campuses were queried. Students
in one section of Core II at Edward
Williams College also were given the
survey. In all, nine sections consisting
of 191 students responded. This sample
represents about 15% of students enrolled
in the Core Program in the spring semester
of 1995.
The questionnaire consisted of 33 questions
most of which were to be answered by
selecting one of five options. The range
ran from (1) very positive (agree),
to (2) positive, (3) neutral, (4) unfavorable,
or (5) outright negative. At the end
of the survey students were asked to
submit comments concerning strong and
weak aspects of the program as a whole.
Lastly, they were asked to comment on
the strengths and weaknesses of individual
courses. Scoring and compilation of
means and frequency distributions were
guided by Dr. Robert McGrath of FDU's
psychology department.
Our assessment of the results is primarily
based upon mean scores. We have determined
that these averages are not the distorted
results of polarized or bimodal distributions.
If, for example, 50% of respondents
gave a 1 and 50% gave a 5, the mean
would be 3, but it would falsely intimate
that most students were neutral on a
question. Dr. Meacham has assured us
that for the most part distributions
are normal. This means that they reflect
the sense of the population sampled,
and are not the results of numerically
averaging extremes.
Dr. Meacham concludes from his analysis
of the results that the University Core
is fulfilling many of its basic objectives:
...on average the students are "strongly
agreeing" or "agreeing" with statements
regarding teaching goals that the faculty
have for the Core courses. If I were
a corporation producing advertisements
to sell cars, etc., I would be delighted
with the results! (Meacham, letter of
September 1, 1995)
The basis for this conclusion lies
in the mean scores of significant responses
considered below.
Students generally agree that professors
respect student opinions (1.92) and
are also generally positive about the
proposition that the University Core
stimulates discussion of current controversial
issues (2.42). The survey reveals the
same level of agreement with respect
to the claim that Core introduces students
to ideas they have never had (2.42).
One goal of the program is to promote
critical thinking. Encouraging, therefore,
is the finding that students are generally
agreed that Core "helped me to ask questions,
analyze arguments, make connections,
and be a better thinker" (2.51). A second
question asked whether Core helps students
to examine what they read more closely
and to assess the usefulness of the
writing before drawing conclusions.
With this there was somewhat less, but
generally positive agreement (2.59).
Another goal of the Core program is
to continue a pedagogical emphasis on
writing skills beyond the freshman writing
courses. Students agree, at about the
same level as above, that papers, essay
exams, journals and other writing assignments
have improved as a result of Core (2.56).
Mean scores are positive, but move
more toward neutral ground, in response
to the statements that the texts in
the program are intellectually stimulating
(2.78), that Core emphasizes learning
from other students (2.71), and that
connections between the material and
real-life situations--work, family,
citizenship--are apparent (2.74). Students
generally disagree with the claim that
one can get a good grade in Core without
doing the reading (3.59).
In the same category were responses
to another group of issues (2.81-2.85):
during their Core courses students talked
with others about the work in Core;
students have become more open to the
opinions of others and more confident
about their ability to express themselves
orally; and, finally, students have
found their work in Core helpful in
other courses.
The directors have been impressed with
the fact that the overall attitude towards
the program appears more favorable at
Edward Williams College than in the
other colleges. However, it would be
wrong to conclude too much from one
rather small section.
The following comments from respondents
give some sense of the program's impact
on individual students:
- When I had classmates who were
interested in the material and discussed
it in class, it was welcome to argue
with them. Disagreeing with professors'
views was a plus when they led to
interesting debates.
- It makes me become more open-minded
than before, and I also learn to listen
to others' different views. I am more
aware of what's happening in the world,
and thinking that I am part of the
world, not just a Chinese.
- Controversial subjects not normally
discussed in school can be discussed
in Core courses.
- It has exposed me to material that's
crucial in understanding the history
of our world. These are readings I
would never willingly choose on my
own, but I appreciate their importance
and am glad to read them in Core.
- I am learning information that I
feel I should have had somewhere in
my educational path, but have missed
it.
- Since my major is in business, I
don't get a chance to write often.
The Core courses give you a chance
to write. I have learned through working
as a secretary it is to my benefit
to be able to read and write on a
college level.
Several of the responses point to negative
attitudes of students which Core faculty
need to address. The dominant refrain
is that too much reading and writing
is being asked of students. To the question,
"The workload for Core courses is: (1)
one of the lightest, (2) lighter than
average, (3) about average, (4) heavier
than average, (5) one of the heaviest,"
the mean response was 3.7. It should
be noted, on the other hand, that when
students were asked how much time they
spent studying for their Core courses
they responded by saying that they spent
about 3 hours a week, about half of
the expected time to be spent in studying
for a three-hour university course.
The complaint of too much work is often
phrased in terms of distraction from
the major:
- I have to do more work in Core and
devote more time to Core than even
classes in my major. While I see the
value of Core, the amount of work
is nearly ridiculous.
- Too much reading took away some
of the interest and concentration
in some of the classes I was taking.
Another complaint is not about quantity
so much as about crowding. Student voices
are loud and clear with respect to all
four syllabi. For example:
- I hate the fact that we have to
rush through some of the most important
works written, i.e., Malcolm X, Black
Elk Speaks, The Jungle, My Antonia,
Metamorphosis and many documents in
the Core II reading book such as "Hand
in Hand."
- There is too much material in each
Core class. I think I would get a
lot more out of the readings if I
had more time.
- The only thing I didn't like was
that some of the readings were shortened
where I found them interesting and
felt cut off.
Another very important negative response
has to do with student perceptions of
the attitudes of their fellow students.
Most of them think that their peers
have a worse opinion of the Core than
they do themselves. The mean score of
responses to this question ("What is
the general attitude of your peers towards
the Core Curriculum?") is 3.58. The
mean for their own attitude toward the
Core program is somewhat better: 2.81.
Several faculty members have suggested
that students are generalizing from
a few negative voices.
Some written comments by students evidence
a profound alienation from the whole
university experience. One student apparently
objects to any course that intrudes
into his or her life in any way at all.
This student resents:
being forced to read books that force
views upon me; subjects that mean nothing
to me; being asked to rethink my values
and morals; forming opinions on issues
that are no one's business but my own.
Another student simply asserts: "I
didn't like any of the books I have
read in this or any other class." Of
course one old chestnut is still current:
"I feel [Core] was a university plot
to earn $4000 more a student. . . ."
Since the Core began, its faculty has
struggled with the problem of deleting
texts to allow for greater depth in
the discussion of the texts that remain.
The fact is that many Core faculty members
have become committed to the value of
one text or another, and it has been
difficult to form a consensus as to
which works should be dropped, though
most do indeed agree that readings need
to be pared down. The directors expect
this assessment to create a more effective
ground for cutting the readings so that
students may examine the works they
read in greater depth.
In order to address the negative student
perception of the Core, a perception
which they project onto their peers,
we propose to employ several measures:
- To face negative student perceptions
squarely, especially in opening classes,
by encouraging students to express
their objections to being required
to take the program, while at the
same time pointing out why the faculty
is committed to the program.
- To be more explicit in orienting
students to the goals and pedagogical
approaches of each course. This is
to be done both in classroom discussion
at the beginning of the course, or
at any other opportune time, and in
an explanatory preface to each of
the Core-produced books.
- To insure that students who decide
to come to the university come with
some clear notion of the University
Core requirement. The response to
the question whether the Core played
a role in students' decisions to come
to Fairleigh Dickinson University
indicates that students were not familiar
with the Core curriculum before coming
to the university and that it played
no role in their decision to attend.
Incoming students, for the most part,
know nothing of the Core. This means,
in the words of our consultant, that
"the admissions office is not using
this as a plus in recruiting students."
It is obvious to those of us who have
spoken to prospective parents in a
number of settings, that parents are
enthusiastic about the Core, and that
therefore the Core can and ought to
be used as a positive recruiting tool.
- Many responses indicate that the
impressions left on students by their
Core courses, some very positive,
some negative, are in a significant
measure dependent on the professors
they have had in individual courses.
Quality of teaching is a perpetual
concern, and though we feel that we
have instituted many forms of support
for Core faculty, efforts will be
made to re-address the problem of
problematic teaching through more
frequent observation and additional
training and workshops.
Anyone who reads through the stack
of student comments that we have gathered
will not fail to notice a vein of anti-intellectualism.
It is not pervasive, by any means, but
it is strong enough to be disturbing.
We feel that the University Core Curriculum
itself is the strongest counter effort
we can mount to heighten the intellectual
level of student life on both campuses.
Our findings lead us to believe that
more reading and more writing are demanded
in the University Core than in many
other introductory level courses. This
same goal of heightening the intellectual
level of the campuses is also being
pursued through the various activities
of the Core faculty itself: its annual
task force meetings; its monthly, campus-based
meetings; its semi-annual general meetings;
its book discussions; its visiting scholar-lectures;
its training seminars given by members
of the Core faculty; its internships
for new faculty; and its seminars devoted
to new pedagogies. These activities,
we believe, encourage faculty to create
a climate where a respectful consensus
may develop as regards what is proper
and improper to university life.
Finally, the directors would like to
note that the data we have collected
is available to faculty or qualified
students for further exploration and
study. Faculty are welcome to consult
the printouts and written comments of
all students by visiting the University
Core office on the Teaneck Campus, Robison
37. |
