Running head: CASE STUDY #1

Case Study #1
Russell C Aivazian
Loyola University Chicago

CASE STUDY #1

It was quickly evident as I was researching for this case study that the idea of a core
curriculum is manifested in various forms across the country. For many institutions, there was
not a specific core curriculum or the curriculum was left to the discretion of individual colleges.
This directly challenged my idea of a core curriculum (my experience is in Jesuit education),
and made me interested in the various forms of core curricula practiced within universities in the
United States. In order to gain a diverse perspective of core curriculum structures, I chose
Seattle University, Syracuse University (College of Arts and Sciences), Texas Christian
University, The University of Utah, and The University of Washington. Below, each universitys
core curriculum is explained, with particular focus on the overall mission and structure of the
core curriculum.
Seattle University
Seattle Universitys core curriculum consists of 13 courses within four modules:
engaging academic inquiry, exploring the self and others, engaging the world, and reflection
(Curriculum, n.d.). According to the University Core Curriculum (n.d.) website, the institution
treats this part of the curriculum as the center of gravity of our undergraduate education and is
to be completed by every student, regardless of major. Within each module, students are
required to take courses that fall under certain topic areas that are considered, for the most part,
interdisciplinary. Each topic area seeks to engage students in various topic areas by providing
courses that are developed in congruence with an instructors area of passion and approved
through the central core curriculum office. For example, students are able to take a course titled
Understanding and Confronting Genocide, Terrorism, and Ethnic Violence to satisfy their
social sciences and global challenges requirement in the engaging the world module (Social
Sciences and Global Challenges, n.d.). Many courses are sequential and require students to gain

CASE STUDY #1

a foundational understanding of a topic area before moving on to coursework that involves

higher-order critical-thinking skills. As a result, Seattle Universitys core curriculum aims to
engage students in conversations about themselves, their community, and the world
(Curriculum, n.d.).
Syracuse University College of Arts and Sciences
For Syracuse Universitys College of Arts and Sciences, the Liberal Arts Core consists of:
the liberal skills requirement, the divisional perspectives requirement, and the critical reflections
on ethical and social issues requirement (Liberal Arts Core Guidebook, 2014). This core
structure is required for all students enrolled in the college and offers courses that cover
academic writing, language skills, quantitative skills, humanities, natural sciences and
mathematics, social sciences, critical reflections. As a result of the core curriculum, the College
of Arts and Sciences hopes to introduce fundamental knowledge and provide a space to build
complexity and reflect on a students learning experience. Of importance is the ability for
students to identify the applicability of liberal arts thinking to ethical and social issues in society
(Liberal Arts Core Guidebook, 2014). The core curriculum also includes a one-credit course for
first-year students to orient them to the university and the expectations of the College of Arts and
Sciences. All courses that are offered and meet the requirements for each section of the core are
listed in the Liberal Arts Core Guidebook on the colleges website.
Texas Christian University (TCU)
TCUs core curriculum is established with the goal to enable students to understand the
past, to comprehend the social order, to search for the good and the beautiful, and to integrate
knowledge into significant wholes (The TCU Core Curriculum, 2003, p. 1). The core
curriculum is divided into three components: the essential competencies curriculum, the human

CASE STUDY #1

experiences and endeavors curriculum, and the heritage, mission, vision, and values curriculum.
Within these components are groups of courses that both satisfy their component and explain the
competencies that are connected in order to act as a way to assess the outcomes of the core
curriculum and component courses. Even though each student is required to complete the
minimum 39 credit hours, individual colleges are encouraged to build upon the foundational
knowledge in each of the components. For TCU, this structure of curriculum is defined as a
move towards student-centered curriculum explain in depth) and is expressed as a series of
learning competencies and outcomes (The TCU Core Curriculum, 2003, p. 2). As Bransford,
Brown and Cocking (1999) explain, student (learner)-centered environments learner-centered
environments include teachers who are aware that learners construct their own meanings,
beginning with the beliefs, understandings, and cultural practices they bring to the classroom (p.
136).
The University of Utah
The University of Utahs core curriculum is known as the General Education and
Bachelor Degree Requirements for the institution. These requirements fulfill the State of Utahs
higher education policies, which mandate that education programs fulfill certain curricular
guidelines (General Education and Bachelor Degree Requirements, n.d.). In general, all students
are required to complete coursework in various requirement areas: American institutions, lower
division writing, quantitative reasoning, and intellectual explorations. Within the Intellectual
Explorations section, students are required to take two classes in three of the four areas (fine arts,
humanities, physical and life sciences, and applied sciences), in which a student is not majoring
(General Education and Bachelor Degree Requirements, n.d.). Students pursuing a Bachelor of
Arts or Bachelor of Sciences degree are additionally required to take courses in the areas of

CASE STUDY #1

language, diversity, international, and upper-division communication and writing. Within each
of the areas (for both general education and bachelor degree requirements), courses are guided
by central learning outcomes and assessment measures that are used to judge the effectiveness of
the courses in the curriculum.
The University of Washington
The University of Washington (UW) characterizes its undergraduate experience as
consisting of a total of 180 credits, 50-90 of which are considered general education
requirements. UWs general education requirements consist of areas of knowledge and basic
skills. Areas of knowledge are subject areas that serve as the foundation of the educational
curriculum at the UW (Areas of Knowledge, n.d.). As the website explains, The objective is to
introduce you to many new ideas, rather than training you in one specific subject, so that you are
in a position to create linkages across a wide expanse of different topics and disciplines (Areas
of Knowledge, n.d.). This objective brings light to Bransford et al. (1999) observation of the
importance of creating linkages within learning in order to create effective learning
environments. These areas of knowledge include: visual, literary, and performing arts,
individuals and societies and natural world, with a variety of courses that meet each of the areas.
In addition to the areas of knowledge, students at the UW must demonstrate mastery (The
Undergraduate Degree, n.d.) in English composition, additional writing (after the English
composition requirement), and Quantitative and symbolic reasoning. The UW also recently
added a diversity requirement into their curriculum, which requires students to focus on the
sociocultural, political, and economic diversity of human experience at local, regional, or global
scales (Diversity, n.d.).
Analysis

CASE STUDY #1

Though examination of the literature surrounding the process of learning and the material
presented in institutional core curriculum, a few themes began to emerge. Specifically, an
attention to a learning hierarchy, importance of expert understanding, and emphasis on
significant learning experiences were found to transcend the examples as ways that the curricula
was observed to be similar and different.
Hierarchy
In a conversation about the habits of experts, Bransford et al. (1999) explained that
curricula shouldbe organized in ways that lead to conceptual understanding (p. 42). In other
words, the authors argue that curriculum should build off of foundational knowledge and
progress into higher learning and mastery of subject material. Through the examination of the
core curriculum at the universities selected, this phenomenon showed up in three of the
institutions. Interestingly, the attention directed at hierarchical learning of subject material only
appeared at the private institutions (Seattle University, Syracuse University, and TCU).
Specifically at these institutions, core courses were grouped into categories that seemed to build
upon one another. At Seattle University, courses were identified as foundational and required to
progress into other areas of the curriculum. Even though there was not any specific articulation
of the hierarchy of courses in the Syracuse and TCU models, there was strong emphasis on
creating course groupings that asked students to demonstrate progressively increasing levels of
curricular complexity.
In contrast to these institutions, The University of Utah and The UW placed courses in
groupings based on their academic disciplines. These institutions used groupings such as fine
arts, humanities, and English composition, among others. Even though this reduces the
uncertainty from students about the course material, it does not promote the interdisciplinary

CASE STUDY #1

style of learning promoted by Bransford et al. (1999). When students engage with material from
various viewpoints they are able to move towards relativism and self-authorship. Nilson also
explains that knowledge structures, which can be equated to core curriculums, must be
hierarchical to distinguish the more general and core conceptsfrom the condition specific and
derivative (pg. 7). When core courses are defined merely by their discipline, universities may
fail to realize the development that occurs when students engage with different types of material.
Additionally, by labeling some courses or areas of the curricula as foundational knowledge,
where other courses can build, universities can better recognize a students learning process and
design a more conducive academic environment.
Expert Understanding
Bransford et al. (1999) dedicates a portion of the analysis on learning by examining the
process by which experts come to be experts and think about the world. Specifically, experts
have been able to gain a deep understanding of their subject area because they have spent
considerable time understanding the foundational knowledge necessary for their field. In order
to move novices, as Bransford et al. (1999) puts it, to better understating the material and
mastering of their learning environment, students must be able to gain a deep understanding of a
topic, rather than a general coverage of facts.
Seattle University and TCUs core curriculum seem to leverage the expertise of faculty in
order to design courses that delve deeper into a specific content area. In order for courses to be
approved in both of these universities, faculty must submit proposals and demonstrate that they
are able to provide students foundational and deep knowledge about a particular subject area.
In the other core curriculum structures, a similar strategy is used, however, the course catalogs
and course offerings seem to be dominated by survey-level courses meant to introduce students

CASE STUDY #1

to broad topic areas. Courses that focus on specific focus areas or areas of interest for faculty
can be more engaging for students and allow students to apply what they learn in the classroom
to real-world concepts and topics. Additionally, as Nilson (2010) suggests, students identify that
their learning environments are effective when faculty have passion for their subject and are able
to transfer that passion to their students.
Significant Learning Experiences
Fink (2013) explains that the field of higher education will improve its educational
quality if we can find ways to identify and create learning experiences that students and others
can agree are truly significant (p.7). Significant learning experiences can be characterized by
activities or courses that not only stimulate student learning, but to allow students to engage with
their role of being an engaged citizen and embrace cultural differences and diversity as well. It
was interesting to see that The UW, a large research institution, was the only institution that had a
specific diversity component required in their curriculum. Conclusions could be made that other
institutions would provide this level of engagement or critical thinking, but was not as clearly
laid out.
Fink (2013) further explained that many industries have identified that respect for
people different from oneself is a critical competency (p.19) for students in higher education.
Even though Fink describes other forms of critical learning experiences, diversity and
appreciation of cultural differences must be at the foundation of a core curriculum that seeks to
prepare students for the challenges and opportunities in modern society. This is an important
omission to highlight, given that Fink describes this type of learning and skill development that
is often missing in the learning environments at our universities. When students interact with
and learn from people who they identify as different from them, students can gain a deeper level

CASE STUDY #1

of understanding about themselves and their environment. This type of learning can go beyond
foundational knowledge and put the classroom material into the context of a students life
experiences.
Conclusion
It was evident through the research for this case study that core curriculum can vary
based on institution type, size, or location. As Bransford et al. (1999), Nilson (2010), and Fink
(2013) may argue, it is not these characteristics that should hinder the development of a
curriculum that engages students in higher-order learning utilizing hierarchy, expert
understanding, and significant learning experiences, among others, to develop a curriculum that
meets students needs for a changing world.

CASE STUDY #1

10
References

Areas of Knowledge. (n.d.). Retrieved January 19, 2015, from

http://www.washington.edu/uaa/advising/general-education-requirements/areas-ofknowledge/
Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (Eds.) (1999). How People Learn: Brain,
Mind, Experience, and School. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Curriculum. (n.d.). Retrieved January 19, 2015, from http://www.seattleu.edu/core/curriculum/
Diversity. (n.d.). Retrieved January 19, 2015, from
http://www.washington.edu/uaa/advising/general-education-requirements/diversity/
Fink, L.D. (2013). Creating significant learning experiences: An integrated approach to
developing college courses. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Liberal Arts Core Guidebook. (2014). Retrieved January 19, 2015, from
http://casadvising.syr.edu/_pdfs_docs/LAC_2014.pdf
Nilson, L.B. (2010). Teaching at Its Best: A Research-Based Resource for College Instructors.
San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Social Sciences and Global Challenges. (n.d.). Retrieved January 19, 2015, from
http://www.seattleu.edu/core/curriculum/module3/social-sciences-and-global-challenges/
The TCU Core Curriculum. (2003, November 21). Retrieved January 19, 2015, from
http://www.core.tcu.edu/documents/Corestatement11-21-03.pdf
The Undergraduate Degree. (n.d.). Retrieved January 19, 2015, from
http://www.washington.edu/uaa/advising/general-education-requirements/overview/
University Core Curriculum. (n.d.). Retrieved January 19, 2015, from
http://www.seattleu.edu/core/