| February 19, 1999 |
|
Calvin College Chimes
|
IN OTHER NEWS:
Homecoming brings students, alumni together
Some zany homecoming ideas ditched for reality
Knight club gains popularity, increases spirit
Course requirements to be changed in 2000
By Nathan VanderKlippe
NEWS EDITOR
More than 30 years after its inception, the current core curriculum is being revised. The core is a set of course requirements which makes up almost half of a Calvin student’s courseload.
The 55-page proposal currently under final revision by the Educational Policy Committee is aptly titled “A Proposal for a Revised Core Curriculum.” In it, the old core requirements are critiqued and a new proposal introduced. The document, which was published in December of 1998, was put together by the core revision committee.
This proposal is something of a framework which will not be ready for implementation until the ’00-’01 school year. As such, current students will graduate under the current core requirements.
Problems with core
The preface to the December 1998 core revision proposal contains six key problems that have been identified in the current core curriculum. However, it fails to address some of the problems with the core.
The first problem is called “fragmentation.” This problem is the lack of a clear purpose in the current core and the lack of common learning by students who often take dissimilar core courses. There is also a lack of similarity among courses with the same name; for example, the content of Religion-103 may vary significantly between different professors.
“Lack of sequencing” is the title given to the second problem. Because students can take core courses at different times in their college career, these courses typically contain students who are at very different levels of learning.
The third problem is that of “complexity.” Because of the differences in core requirements for students in different majors and professional programs, it has been said that there are only two or three people on campus who really understand the core curriculum.
A “lack of oversight” of the core curriculum is cited as the fourth problem. Because there is no governing committee over the core, it has become fragmented and complex.
The fifth problem is that of “significant gaps in knowledge and skills” in the core curriculum. In the current core, not much attention is paid to recent societal subjects such as new technology, visual arts and communication and the globalization of the economy.
Finally, a “lack of clarity in purpose” is said to be the sixth problem. The current core curriculum has left many wondering what the purpose of core is. “To what end?” is the core, asks the proposal.
One problem that the proposal fails to address is that of unequal resource division with core courses. Many complaints have been raised over the great amount of resources spent on core courses while other courses suffer from resource-depletion. For example, the 26 sections of CAS-100 take up almost half of the CAS resources.
To answer the six problems it addressed, the revision committee developed the following mission: “To create a core curriculum ... that is rigorous, balanced, coherent, and thoroughly Reformed in its orientation; a core that grounds its students in the Christian tradition, acquaints them with the various strands of their cultural heritage, enables them to reflect critically upon the many bids for their belief, and prepares them for informed and effective service in the world that God has set before them.”
The new core
In response to the problems identified in the old core, the revision committee worked to formulate a new set of curricular requirements.
Guided by a clear purpose, this core will seek to create a co-ordinated, less complex and sequenced body of common learning.
One of the most significant proposed changes is the introduction of “categories” into the core. The current core attempts to give students a broad learning base in the disciplines on campus. However, the categories introduced in the core proposal present an entirely different way of looking at core.
The proposed categories are different areas of learning not necessarily restricted to disciplines. For example, a category such as “The Physical World” could include geology, physics, chemistry or biology courses.
These categories introduce areas of learning without necessarily making students take courses from specific departments. As an example, students will no longer be required to choose between taking a psychology or sociology course. Instead, they may have to select courses within a category called “Persons in Community,” in which both psychology and sociology courses may be included, but also social work, education and political science courses.
Even with these categories, the new core should not require any more courses, said Steve Timmermans, dean for instruction and the secretary of the revision committee.
However, for some students this core may actually be smaller. More students may be able to “double-dip,” or take courses which will fulfill both core and major requirements. For example, a language student might be able to take courses in “The Arts” and “Literature” categories which would apply to both core and the language major.
The reason for the change to categories, according to Hardy, is a philosophic change in how the core is run. “The purpose of core is not to get students to know a little about everything, but to understand the contexts of their involvement in society,” he said. This new core is all about “life preparation to prepare people for active participation in society,” Hardy said.
Timmermans noted one further revision to the core. “What’s involved in this proposal is modifiability,” he said. What this means is that in the future it will be possible to make changes to the core every five or ten years, instead of waiting another 30 years before changes are made.
The final Educational Policy Committee proposal which, according to Timmerans, will include “minor to moderate changes,” is expected to come before a full-faculty vote in the beginning of March.
History of core
The original Calvin College core was a set of course requirements, largely borrowed from the core at the University of Michigan. In 1967 a new, Calvin-specific core was created. This is the same core that is being used today, with the addition of several minor amendments. The goal of this core was to give each student exposure to introductory classes in a broad variety of disciplines.
Over the years, increasing discontent began to be voiced over these curricular requirements. According to Lee Hardy, chair of the philosophy department and chair of the core revision committee, “for a long time the college has been aware of its need to revise and review its core curriculum.”
In the fall of 1996, by the direction of current Provost Joel Carpenter, an ad hoc committee was set up to look over core and suggest revisions or changes.
One year after its inception, the core revision committee presented to the Faculty Senate a report entitled “An Engagement with God’s World: A Statement of Purpose for the Core Curriculum of Calvin College.”
Among other things, this purpose statement defined the ideal of liberal arts education and the purpose of the core curriculum. The proposal was unanimously approved by Faculty Senate vote in November, 1997.
Several months after the statement of purpose was approved, a proposal for a revised core curriculum was presented to the full faculty in February, 1998. This proposal met with much faculty criticism. Diephouse noted that the core revision committee was “trying to pursue two incompatible goals; one, to make it smaller and simpler, and two, to meet a whole set of visions we had for the core.” Letters of criticism in hand, the committee then recommenced the work of formulating the new core.
A second core proposal was released to the faculty in the beginning of December, 1998, marking the end of the core revision committee, whose task was complete. After three hearings on the subject, two in December and one in January, the proposal – with both student and faculty critiques – was handed over to the EPC.
The final core revision proposal will be voted on by the entire faculty in early March, pending a change in Faculty Senate governance to allow for full-faculty voting. This package will be something of a framework for the core, not including any specific course requirements.
Over the course of the ’99-’00 school year, this framework will be filled in with participation of the faculty, and the new core will be implemented in the ’00-’01 school year.
BACK TONEWS