The value of curricular choice through student eyes
Dekker T.J.
2021
Curriculum Journal
5
10.1002/curj.71
In Europe, liberal arts and sciences undergraduate university programmes are typically characterised by a high degree of freedom of choice in the curriculum. Educators often present this as allowing students to design an integrated, interdisciplinary curriculum around their particular interests. This paper explores how students in such programmes understand and experience that freedom. It postulates a theoretical typology of reasons why one might value curricular freedom and, based on 59 interviews with students from 13 such programmes, considers what aspects of this typology resonate with students. The paper concludes that students overwhelmingly see freedom of choice in the curriculum as an opportunity to try out different disciplines to discover which ones they enjoy most. While this eventually does lead them to making tailored choices about their studies, their path to this goal is more meandering than is commonly understood. This insight allows programmes with a significant amount of freedom of choice to better support students in their educational development. © 2020 The Authors. The Curriculum Journal published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of British Educational Research Association
freedom of choice; higher education; liberal arts and sciences; open curriculum
AUC’s academic program, (2020); Becker J., What a liberal arts education is … and is not, (2014); Biddulph M., Articulating student voice and facilitating curriculum agency, The Curriculum Journal, 22, 3, pp. 381-399, (2011); Boetsch L., Balli V., Schreel L., Guide to emerging liberal arts and sciences practices in the EU, (2017); Boon L., Liberal arts and sciences in the Netherlands-development and relation to interdisciplinary education, University experiments in interdisciplinarity. Obstacles and opportunities, pp. 37-48, (2014); Dekker T., Liberal arts education: Systemic opportunities & educational possibilities—Lessons from the Netherlands, NEXD17 November Expert Days 2017- Universitätskolleg-Schriften Band 23, pp. 87-99, (2017); Dekker T., The headaches and joys of an open curriculum, What is liberal education and what could it be?, pp. 29-31, (2017); DeLuca C., Chapman-Chin A.E., LaPointe-McEwan D., Klinger D.A., Student perspectives on assessment for learning, The Curriculum Journal, 29, 1, pp. 77-94, (2018); Goldman Z.W., Cranmer G.A., Sollitto M., Labelle S., Lancaster A.L., What do college students want? A prioritization of instructional behaviors and characteristics, Communication Education, 66, 3, pp. 280-298, (2017); Hinck A., Tighe J., From the other side of the desk: Students’ discourses of teaching and learning, Communication Education, 69, 1, pp. 1-18, (2020); Hoff T., Kontowski D., ELAI database of liberal arts and sciences programs in Europe, (2017); Kincheloe J., McLaren P., Steinberg S., ) Critical pedagogy and qualitative research: Moving to the bricolage, The Sage handbook of qualitative research, pp. 163-178, (2011); Kontowski D., European liberal education: Evidence for and against a unified vision in recent European liberal arts initiatives, (2020); Murtagh L., The motivational paradox of feedback: Teacher and student perceptions, The Curriculum Journal, 25, 4, pp. 516-541, (2014); Perry W.G., Forms of ethical and intellectual development in the college years: A scheme, (1999); Rhoten D., Mansilla B., Chun M., Thompson Klein J., Interdisciplinary education at liberal arts institutions, (2006); Statement on the role, characteristics, and cooperation of liberal arts and sciences colleges in the Netherlands, (2015); Arts and sciences (BASc) programmes, (2020); Van der Wende M., The emergence of liberal arts and sciences education in Europe: A comparative perspective, The evolution of liberal arts in the global age, pp. 106-126, (2017)
John Wiley and Sons Inc
Article
All Open Access; Hybrid Gold Open Access
Scopus