A VALUES QUESTION IN COLLEGE COURSE SELECTION: FLEXIBILITY OR STRUCTURE? + DONALD RATCLIFF + Assistant Professor of Psychology & Sociology Toccoa Falls College In the process of developing college-level curriculum, decisions about required versus elective classes reveal values. While many programs allow some measure of choice by the student, that degree of choice must come from a broader perspective of educational curriculum building. Curriculum literature rarely examines the issue of the number of required courses apart from the broader issue of student freedom in education as contrasted with institutional and/or instructor directiveness. Consequently, the differences concerning required classes must be taken from the more general philosophy and values in the broader scope of curriculum. The values implied in the discussion of flexibility or structure in individual course content are the same as those values under discussion in the present question of flexibility or structure in program and institutional requirements. Such a discussion, occasionally taken from inferences of views, certainly has limitations. Views expressed must not be dogmatically assumed to be the positions always taken by persons who express those values. Rather, this study sometimes will suggest reasonable conclusions which those representing the different views would probably make concerning the question at hand. Following the analysis of alternatives in course selection, the application of those views will be considered. The application will be specifically directed to the Bible college curriculum, in which the writer is most directly concerned. Flexibility in Course Selection Freedom of students in learning and idividuatlity in learning have been central concerns to many in curriculum development, particularly to those often termed "of the humanistic persuasion." This respect for the individual in the classroom situation might also be generalized to include individualization in specirfic course selection, according to needs and desires of the student. High priority is placed upon the values of freedom and initiative by those within this persepctive. Probably the leading spokesman for the humanistic view of curriculum was Carl Rogers. He wrote: In our modern educational system, it seems to many that it is quite impossible to give students freedom to learn, because there are so many limits imposed from the outside. This is perhaps particularly true at the college level. How can students be set free if this is a required course, which they did not elect to take?1 The implication of such a statement, which might be supported by Rogers' philosophy of education in general, is that freedom of choice by students will result in more relevant and meaningful education. Specific requirements, both in individual classes and program requirements, may be dysfunctional to actual learning. Rogers viewed traditional education as undesirable because of the need for freedom for students in all aspects of their educational experience. Curiosity, exploration, individualization, and self-direction are key values in the education of students.2 Education initiated by the individual student would promote the learning of processess rather than static answers, the latter of which has charactized traditional education.3 Educators must be flexible and less rigid in their approach to education, thereby preparing students to adjust to the constant process of change within modern society.4 Applying these values to course selection, Rogers would seem to imply that student-initiated course selection would be desirable, perhaps even to the exclusion of any universal requirement of students. Instead of meeting fixed program requirements, curiosity would be encouraged and the free exploration of learning experiences entirely chosen by the student would be furthered. Course selection would be individualized to the student's own desires and needs. While Rogers describes several classrooms which appear to be within traditional college curriculum,5 he seems to imply that student-initiated instruction without specific courses might be preferable (such as that described in a sixth-grade class6). The traditional curriculum against which Rogers reacted is not without historical base. The highly specified program course requirements have been developed from a philosophy of education which arose earlier in this century. Consequently, an analysis of that history is desirable. The emphasis of "general education" has directed the question of course selection in higher education since the mid-1940's. The Harvard Report of 1945 capstoned a reaction movement which had been growing for many years in major universities. Previously, college curriculum had had the problem of lacking unity--programs were often fragmented collections of specialized bits of information, lacking relatedness.7 In response to the perceived need, universities began assigning students to a variety of survey courses in humanities, natural science, and social science.8 Such a course was either an introduction to a field of study, or a course which took its content from two or more fields.9 General education "...was to be two years of nonvocational, nonprofessional, nonspecialist education."10 The result of the new doctrine of general education was that students were required to take program requirements; no longer could they choose the instructors or classes as freely as previously. As one critic of the move has commented, "The effect was to lock up the students of the country in a prison of requirements...(and) strip them of a role in their education."11 Often the curriculum requirements were developed by faculty committees without adequate research of student needs or the needs of the outside community. Too often, the committees relied upon faculty opinions and reports from other colleges exclusively in designing general education and departmental requirements.12 Some have suggested that general education was highly structured partially as an outgrowth from military cooperation with universities during WWII--courses were a military-like "screening device."13 In the late 1960's and into the 1970's, reaction to this philosophy of general education has been intense, particularly from those who, like Rogers, view the highly structured curriculum as contrary to humanistic principles. An often-heard slogan in the late 1960's was "relevancy in education," the proponents of which focused on the need for students to related the classroom experience to real life. In 1969, William Glasser gave a full chapeter in his book Schools Without Failure to the question of relevance. Glasser cited research at a leading California college which stated that nearly 60 percent of interviewed students were not able to relate their current studies with their long-term occupational goals.14 He concludes that either the curriculum must be changed, or students will drop out--"They won't learn what makes no sense to them, and even if they would, it would be a waste of time."15 Harold Taylor, a specialist in curriculum, echoes this concern for relevance. He emphasizes that general education requirements separate students from society by their focus on intellect rather than the actual needs of society.16 According to Taylor, general education courses are frustrating to students, particularly those students who have specific career goals, and even those without career goals rarely discover such goals by taking general education requirements.17 Such "compulsory exposure" has resulted in general education becoming a matter of merely passing the right exams.18 General education has not achieved its goal of unifying the curriculum; in Taylor's words, "...in practice (general education gave) a new ordering of subjects rather than a new infusion of purpose."19 Other writers have focused on additional weaknesses in the highly structured curricular program which has had its genesis in general education. High student attrition rates have been blamed upon irrelevant curriculum and the multiplicity of required courses.20 It has been pointed out that totalitarian societies also educate students with little or no choice in requirements.21 A third difficulty is that teachers tend to avoid teaching general education courses, consequently those with less status and less experience are forced into such positions.22 As opposed to the large number of required courses with the general education focus, those of the humanistic perspective in education would suggest that choice is the crucial value in learning,23 which would include a large number of student-selected classes. Yet, the alternatives in such choosing must be understandable in their content and in their consequences. Choice must be actual, and not merely illusion--"We should not try to fool him (the student) into thinking that he is a free agent and then disappoint him when we refuse to honor his choice."24 This implies the willingness of educators to allow students to act on their own choices., including the choosing of classes.25 It should be noted that some writers in curriculum are moderately in favor of the humanistic view of choice and individuality in course selection, yet include some element of direction or aid in such choosing. Alternatives without any direction may lead to confusion of values.26 One solution to this possibility of confusion is suggested by college testing programs such as ACT, which may be used jointly by student and advisor to discover needs and desires, and then develop a program to meet the individual needs of the student. The use of such a testing profile in the advising process would seem to imply some degree of flexibility in the number and type of required courses. John Dewey, in one of his later books, also suggests some type of combination of structure and freedom in curriculum. He stated that educational curriculum needs continuity,27 yet also that thought should not be considered static, but rather a dynamic process.28 In contrast with some of a strictly humanistic viewpoint, he stated that freedom should not be an end in itself, but rather a means to purpose, wise judgment, and self control.29 J. Victor Baldridge has also attempted a synthesis of structure and alternatives in curriculum, which he states in his book Academic Governance. Colleges need many kinds of programs and courses to meet the differing needs of students, yet changes should come through analysis of existing systems and their effectiveness.30 Course selections and other administrative decisions should come as the result of communication and cooperation between administrators, faculty, and students, with students particularly given a strong voice in decision making.31 The desire for freedom and individuality in college education has been a concern to those who favor the humanistic philosophy of education. These important values have arisen in reaction to general education, which has emphasized a large number of required courses often unrelated to vocational goals. However, freedom in educational curriculum (and particularly the matter of freedom in course selection) also needs some degree of direction and information to be meaningful. The freedom of students in choosing must also be combined with the responsibilities which the instructor has to the student and to society's needs.32 Externally Designed Course Selection In contrast to both general education and those advocating flexibility in course selection, many educators would suggest specific courses be required to achieve specific skills in chosen program areas. While such a focus is most predominant in vocational training, leading advocates (such as Roger Mager) suggest that the concept may also apply to more general academic experience.33 The structured approach to course selection and the more humanistic stance stated in the first portion of this report should not be viewed as exhaustive of curriculum approaches, since a large number of distinctive perspectives have been suggested.34 Preferably, the humanistic and structured points of view can be understood to be endpoints of a continuum between which many possible combinations are articulated. The values implicit in the structured emphasis in curriculum have been stated by several proponents. Robert Mager emphasizes that "...the main justification for the existence of instruction is that it assists an individual to learn something better than he would by himself."35 This could be contrasted with humanistic self-direction and individual needs of the student. While Mager's immediate context is classroom instruction, the same value could be applied to course requirements--how can the student know all the courses which would develop needed skills? Relevance is also a central value among some who favor a structured curriculum. However, relevance is not associated with student choice, as in humanistic education, but in the practice of skills needed.36 Such practice should be equivalent to the desired terminal behavior, or at least similar to the behavior.37 Others within the structured view suggest that relevancy is a myth because student tastes change drastically from generation to generation.38 Efficiency of the educational process is also listed as an important value,39 including avoiding duplication of effort.40 Effectiveness is a similar value espoused by those favoring the structured approach, the lack of which is considered a contributor to unemployment, underemployment, and unhappy employment.41 Other often-mentioned values are discipline42 and observable behavioral outcomes.43 According to those favoring the structured approach, detailed planning is essential to implementing their values. Four basic steps can be detailed in such planning, by extracting information from two leading advocates of the structured curriculum, Ralph W. Tyler and Robert Mager.44 Similar outlines of curriculum development have been suggested by Beauchamp45 and Taba.46 Individual course selection, the principal concern of this report, would be the by-product of this larger process of curriculum development. I. Needs Analysis Analysis of society's general needs, institutional resources, and available knowledge comprise valuable input data.47 These will delimit the programs which the institution will develop, as well as the individual courses which will be offered, thereby either increasing or decreasing choice of classes by students. II. Institutional and Program Goals Following from the information in the first step, the institution can develop a general philosophy of education and more specific program goals. Such programs may come from within the present system (from students or new applications of former and existing programs), by borrowing ideas from other institutions, from the needs and ideas of the community served, or from an analysis of the resources and personnel available.48 Job descriptions for those occupations relating to program areas are an essential part of curriculum development. Mager emphasizes that these descriptions should not emphasize knowledge, but rather the actual behavior of the employee.49 The listing of specific tasks within those occupations follows, so that these skills may be formed into behavioral objectives.50 It would be assumed that course selection would then occur with the purpose of fulfilling these objectives. In such a situation, the student would choose the desired occupation and related program, but individual course selection would be decided by those in the institution in terms of the skills needed for the desired occupation. Teacher involvement in curriculum planning at this stage should be encouraged, in most cases.51 Student participation is more questionable because of lack of knowledge, non-completion of decisions, and the tendency of educators to attend to the most outspoken students rather than those who are more quiet but equally talented.52 Student criticism of curriculum can be helpful, however.53 As a consequence, individual student participation in selecting courses would be diminished. III. Objectives Specific statements of educational outcomes are called objectives, which often are stated in terms of behavior. Behavioral objectives focus on the performance of the individual rather than merely the subject matter of the instructional unit.54 The ultimate aim of objectives is always the terminal behavior that is desired at the completion of the unit. Under the more structured approach to curriculum, the student would rarely--if ever--choose the individual objectives to be fulfilled. This is because the whole of the system of learning is essential; each segment of learning only has value as it relates to the whole, as specified in institutional and program goals. As Mager has stated, Isolated parts can rarely provide adequate information about the system, but the system can certainly provide extremely valuable information about the functions which can or must be fulfilled by each component.55 Consequently, objectives and the courses which attempt to teach the behaviors specified by objectives would rarely be chosen by students, if the objectives of the program were completely specified in all curriculum areas. IV. Output, Evaluation, and Modification The conclusion of the curriculum cycle is the measurement of educational results. In this step, outcomes must be compared with the criteria established in educational objectives, as well as the program and institutional goals set previously.56 The data which results from measurement of educational outcomes becomes the source of revisions to the curricular program.57 The process of curriculum is always dynamic, never static; continual improvement is accomplished through the modification of goals, objectives, and procedures.58 Of course, the purpose of such change must be greater efficiency, not just change for the sake of change.59 The process outlined above is an ongoing cycle of progress, as contrasted with the general educational approach which humanistic education reacted against. Consequently, the dynamic view of curriculum development and modification has lessened disagreement between those who favor progressive education and those who favor the more structured approach.60 Yet, the student may have little more to say about individual course selection than under the general education plan. Course Choice and the Bible College Curriculum The question of choice of courses is important in the direction of the Bible college curriculum. Since the beginning of the movement less than one hundred years ago, many variations concerning the degree of choice in curriculum have come to exist. The American Association of Bible Colleges (AABC) has become the major influence on curriculum development among the estimated 250 Bible colleges that exist.61 AABC is a member of the Council on Postsecondary Accreditation (COPA) and is recognized by the United States Office of Education (USOE) and other agencies in the federal government.62 AABC has achieved high credibility and respect among Bible colleges, as is evidenced by the growing number of colleges participating (as