Loston Carley
Fall 2024
As of the fall of 2024, Oklahoma State University initiated a series of reforms aimed at “becoming the nation’s preeminent Land-Grant university”(Oklahoma State University, “We Are Land-Grant). Among these reforms, one of the primary directives is the overhaul of its general education curriculum. While this change has been presented as a long-overdue modernization, it may still be wise to view it with caution. Despite claims of a revolutionary new curriculum promising vast improvements to the structure of general education, these reforms may still encounter the same systemic challenges that have undermined their previous efforts. This cycle of over-promising and under-delivering is one that Oklahoma State University is all too familiar with. Still, many students and faculty believe this implementation will finally be the one to fulfill its commitments. This confidence stems, in part, from a series of significant changes, including improved funding allocations and enhanced organizational planning. By conducting a deeper analysis on the upcoming reforms, as well as the history of past reforms at Oklahoma State, we can objectively evaluate the likelihood that this initiative finds success.
In order to assess whether Oklahoma State’s restructuring can succeed, we must first understand the purpose and significance of general education. In her book, Why do I Have to Take This Course? A Guide to General Education, Kisha G. Tracy refers to “general education” as all the courses required for graduation that are not directly related to a student’s major (Tracy 31). The point of these courses is to ensure that graduates possess a wide array of skills that can be applied to any situation, especially those outside their expected careers. According to Oklahoma State’s Mission statement, the goal of their general education courses is to “prepare [graduates] for so much more than just [their] professional life”. Their responsibility lies in “[providing] OSU graduates with the tools to make a difference in the world” (Oklahoma State University, “General Education”). However, many students still struggle to see the value in their general education. Students often find themselves being overwhelmed by a high volume of seemingly irrelevant coursework, but this actually serves an important purpose. Shannon Watkins, a writer whose work has been featured in publications such as Townhall, the Washington Examiner, and the Carolina Journal, explains the value of general education in her report, Making General Education Meaningful. In her report, Watkins asserts that general education courses are crucial in the development of well rounded students (35). According to Watkins, a good general education program “can greatly deepen students intellectually by teaching them to reason in the fuller sense rather than merely criticize” (5). Additionally, a good general education program can be expected to “impart essential knowledge”, “reinforce the civic and humanistic values imperative for a flourishing society”, and “improve skill building by making it more meaningful” (Watkins 5). These courses serve as the building block upon which students can cultivate their critical thinking, creativity, and interdisciplinary connections (Watkins 33). Far from being “filler” classes, general education courses equip students with the skills they need to succeed in today’s rapidly evolving world.
Having examined the purpose and value of general education, it is important to examine academic reform itself – how it works, why it’s often needed, and the challenges it faces. Academic reform is typically a long and arduous process, filled with numerous hurdles. It occurs when a university recognizes that one of its many curricula have become bloated or have deviated from the stated goals of the institution. Once this happens, the university must decide to undergo a series of reforms in order to bring its curriculum back on track. In the article “Reflection on a Successful Process for General Education Reform”, Emily Esch and Barbara May discuss a successful reconstruction of the general education curriculum at the “College of Saint Benedict and Saint John’s University. In this article, they break the reform down into 4 primary stages. These stages include: “Review and Recommendation for Reform”, “Building Conceptual Foundations”, “Moving from Theory to Practice”, and “Implementation” (Esch and May 88-89).
The first stage of reform, “review and recommendation for reform”, rides on convincing key stakeholders, particularly the members of the board, that there is a need for change. This includes answering the question “Do we need reform, and if yes, how should it proceed?” (Esch and May 90). Esch and May write that their successful attempt at reform involved the creation of a report labelled “Making connections” which demonstrated the need for reform and provided a suitable plan. According to the authors, the key features of this report were a set of “Guiding Principles” and a 5 year timeline. These two elements allowed the reform to secure the support it needed to move forward (Esch and May 90). It is common for many attempts at reform to end during this stage due to a lack of clear evidence, insufficient planning, or failure to inspire sufficient support (Esch and May 90-92). However, by creating a strong foundation which is built on clear evidence, detailed planning, and a well-articulated vision, it is possible to minimize any chance of failure.
The second stage of reform described by Esch and May is “Building Conceptual Foundations” (92). During this stage, it is important to establish an “underlying philosophy”. This philosophy will serve as the primary objective of the reform (Esch and May 92). By ensuring that any and all decisions align with this central goal, it is possible to avoid individualistic proposals resulting in compromises. In the successful reform described by Esch and may, the underlying philosophy was built around an ideal version of the students that they hoped to develop (94). While the specific philosophy is not of paramount importance, its existence is essential. If an attempt at reform lacks a set of guiding principles, it is far more likely to become mired in compromises, and any rejection will oftentimes necessitate starting from scratch (Esch and May 94-96).
The third stage of academic reform is “Moving from Theory to Practice” (Esch and May 94). In this stage, members begin to design potential models for new curriculum rather than focusing on possible concepts. (Esch and May 95). The goal is to turn the envisioned proposals into actual courses, program structures, and co-curricular activities that will eventually replace the past curriculum (Esch and May 95). During this stage, significant testing is involved in order to refine the proposals based on feedback from the committee over a series of iterations (Esch and May 96). Challenges encountered during this phase include aligning the curriculum with the institution’s logistical systems, addressing faculty concerns, and gaining final approval (Esch and May 97). Oftentimes, attempted reforms can stall during this stage if they lack clear goals and have competing priorities, but this can be avoided by ensuring that any and all changes align with the guiding principles of the reform.
The fourth and final stage of successful curriculum reforms is “implementation” (Esch and May 97). In their article, the authors acknowledge that “including the entirety of the process of implementation is impossible” because of its complex nature, but they still provide some insight into the core principles (97-98). According to the authors, “the appointment of a director is a crucial step” to oversee the process of implementation and to ensure “continuity” during this phase (98). Faculty involvement is another primary focus, as the professors are the ones responsible for designing courses, adapting existing courses, and matching the direction of their respective departments with that of the new curriculum (Esch and May 98). Regular assessment systems must also be put into place. This is to monitor the impact that the new curriculum has on students, and to use the information to make continuous improvements. Finally, the authors remark that maintaining clear communication with the “stakeholders” is imperative (Esch and May 98-99). This is done to foster a sense of trust and to minimize any resistance to future changes. Unfortunately, the implementation of a reform is also the most difficult stage. Transitioning to a new curriculum often requires significant time commitments from staff. This can often lead to resistance from members who feel overloaded. In addition, some faculty may feel as if the changes have failed to adequately address their concerns. However, as long as the institution adheres to the 4 key stages of successful reform, any attempt is likely to end in success.
Past Reforms at Oklahoma State
Over its many years, Oklahoma state has undergone a number of reforms, seeking to refine its curriculum to better serve its students. Unfortunately, accessing information about these materials is a challenge in and of itself. Much of the information regarding historical changes are locked away in the archives, scattered across hundreds of boxes each containing their own collections. This created difficulties while researching, as there was never a clear timeline to follow. Nevertheless, this is my attempt at compiling the history of curricular reforms at Oklahoma State.
The first documented instance of general education reformation at Oklahoma state (that I was able to find) took place in 1976 (Subseries 3: Humanities and General Education). It was at this time that the first general education task force (GEAC) was formed . While there is little information regarding this task force, existing records suggest they played a pivotal role in shaping the structure for general education of the following decades (Subseries 3: Humanities and General Education). Drawing on the ideas of prominent educational thinkers of their time, the GEAC sought to create a framework that incorporated these perspectives. Meeting details reveal that the committee referenced a quote from F.H.T. Rhodes of Cornell University, who stated: “General education urges the student ‘to see knowledge in a wider context, to seek a comprehensive view of life, without which technical skill, however refined, may well be misdirected, and scholarship, however subtle, will be barren.” (“Centennial Histories – Arts and Sciences”) Despite these lofty ideals, the GEAC ultimately failed to address many of the pressing issues of the time. The lack of documentation surrounding its work speaks volumes, suggesting that its efforts may have been hindered by disorganization and a failure to adequately tackle the challenges present in educational reform.
It would not be until 1986 that Oklahoma State revisited the subject of reform within its general education (“General Education, 1978–1982.”). In response to continued dissatisfaction with the current general education program, the University began a new series of changes. These efforts would be led by James Henry Boggs, the Vice President for Academic Affairs and Research (“General Education, 1978–1982”). In order to address the many issues left in the general education curriculum at Oklahoma State, Boggs formed the General Education Task Force (“Recommendations of the General Education Task Force”). According to the founding document of the GETF, the primary mission of the task force was to find “ways to vitalize the university’s general education program through the presidential college grant” (“Recommendations of the General Education Task Force”). In order to achieve this, the members of the GETF decided that a new standard for general education would need to be formed at Oklahoma State (“General Education Committee Revisions to General Education Program”). This resulted in the GETF drafting a document titled “Minimum Requirements and Criteria for General Education Courses”. Eventually, this document would be incorporated into another labelled “General education task force final report” (“Recommendations of the General Education Task Force”). This document became the primary guide for the task force and helped to create a more cohesive and effective general education framework.
The document “General education task force final report” created by OSU’s General Education Task Force in 1987 was a comprehensive attempt to bring structure and clarity to the university’s general education program. This document was organized into several appendices, each addressing key elements necessary to improve the effectiveness and cohesion of general education at OSU.
Appendix 1: General Education Requirements
This section laid out the minimum criteria that students had to meet in their general education in order to graduate. It served as a framework to ensure that all students, regardless of their major, received a diverse and well rounded education. These criteria emphasized interdisciplinary learning, intellectual breadth, and exposure to diverse academic disciplines. However, while this appendix succeeded in establishing a baseline for what the university expected of its general education program, its rigidity sometimes caused conflicts between departments. Faculty often disagreed over how these requirements aligned with the specialized goals of their own departments, leading to tension between courses in general education and those in major-specific courses.
Appendix 2: The Constitution of the General Education Council
The second appendix outlined the new purpose and responsibilities of the General Education Council. While in the past it had served as an overseer of the general education program, it often lacked the power to enforce any changes. The constitution served to redefine the council’s primary roles assigning it the tasks of “Advising the Vice President of Academic Affairs on all matters related to general Education”, and “Monitoring, evaluating, and coordinating faculty and departmental activities to maintain the quality of General Education.” It also served as a “cross-fertilizing body,” encouraging collaboration between departments. By formalizing the General Education Council as the governing body over general education at OSU, the GETF empowered the Council to take a more proactive role in the formation and administration of the General Education program and improved the effectiveness of the system as a whole. However, despite this redirection of the GEC, the council faced many issues in terms of authority and resources and it often failed to properly resolve conflicts between departments when they arose.
Appendix 4: Guidelines for Evaluating Courses
The fourth (and final relevant) appendix laid the groundwork for the overhauled General Education system. It provided detailed instructions for faculty and departments to submit courses for general education designation as well as clarifying the minimum criteria that courses had to meet to be approved. Any proposed class had to be in alignment with the University’s goals, such as critical thinking, communication, and cultural awareness. It also had to feature Interdisciplinary content to ensure a diverse education. Finally, it had to have academic rigor, ensuring courses challenged students while still remaining accessible.
While the guidelines outlined by this document represented significant progress for the general education program at Oklahoma state, the actual implementation proved to be much more difficult. Faculty often viewed the new criteria as overly bureaucratic, and many departments lacked the resources to revise their courses to meet the new standards (“Interviews on General Education”). However, the issues that Oklahoma State faced with a lack of funding for their liberal arts courses were not exclusive to the university. Across the nation, general education and liberal arts programs struggled to obtain funding, even at some of the nation’s most well-funded universities (Subseries 3, Box 3, Folder 8). For instance, in 1987, Johns Hopkins University received $476 million in federal research grants – the most of any university – and an additional $512 million from private donors. Despite this, the liberal arts core had a $4 million deficit and projected an additional $7 million shortfall for the following (Subseries 3, Box 3, Folder 8). This disparity highlights the systemic undervaluation of liberal arts programs, where even the largest universities struggled to properly fund them. The issue would be even more apparent at Oklahoma State. The true extent of the funding problem at OSU would be revealed in a letter written by Mary Rohrberger in August of 1990 titled “Gen Ed.”. In it, she writes: “There is no way we can afford the kind of Gen Ed that we dream of. Committees are called to dream up ideal G.E. They soon realize that there is no money to support it. The new Gen Ed program doesn’t have a ghost of a chance. Hachitt tried to find a way to put money aside for GE- But he never could find it” (Subseries 3, Box 3, Folder 8, OSU Archives). This statement underscores the systemic nature of the issue. Even with the committees and leaders determined to make changes, financial constraints consistently undermined the university’s ambitions for its general education program.
By the year 2000, it had become clear that the previous efforts made to reform the General Education program at Oklahoma State had fallen short. The university faced persistent challenges including underfunding, conflicts within curriculum, and disorganization (“Interviews on General Education”). In response, OSU established a new task force with the goal of assessing and improving the effectiveness of its curriculum. This new task force was the first group of OSU faculty who were actually paid to work on the university-wide assessment project and marked a renewed commitment to general education by the university(“General Education Assessment Annual Report, 2010”). One of the major accomplishments of this task force was the inclusion of standardized tests and surveys as part of the assessment. This was a significant improvement over the reforms of the past which had no methods of actually evaluating their own success (Subseries 3, Box 3, Folder 36). This reform was also one of the most successful with several key developments being made.
Development of assessment tools:
The task force created standardized tests and surveys in order to monitor the effectiveness of the changes they made. This not only gave feedback on the changes being implemented but provided a basis which future reforms could use (Subseries 3, Box 3, Folder 36).
Development of Institutional Portfolios:
The task force introduced the use of institutional portfolios, which are collections of student work across the various curriculums. These are utilized to evaluate student achievement concerning specific general education subject areas such as written communication skills (Subseries 3, Box 3, Folder 36).
Implementation of Continuous Improvement Processes:
The reform emphasized the importance of gathering and utilizing data in order to drive continuous improvement in teaching and learning. Departments were encouraged to regularly review assessment outcomes and make necessary adjustments to curricula and instructional methods (Subseries 3, Box 3, Folder 36).
Holistic Assessment Approach:
The reform emphasized a holistic approach to assessing general education by combining the analysis of student work produced throughout their entire academic careers with standardized testing in order to gain a comprehensive evaluation of student success (Subseries 3, Box 3, Folder 36).
Overall, the 2000 general education reform created a more structured and faculty driven approach to general education which succeeded in better incorporating the performance of the students into the curriculum. It highlighted the importance of both aligning education with institutional goals and implementing a system to measure the effectiveness of reforms. The lessons learned from the reforms in 2000 have been used to create the educational framework in use today, demonstrating a remarkable evolution in how OSU approaches general education. This influence is evident in the constant efforts to adapt and refine the program to meet the changing needs of students and the institution as a whole.
Upcoming Reforms at Oklahoma State
The following analysis is based entirely on a personal interview with Dr. Tamara Mix, conducted on October 21, 2024. Unless explicitly stated otherwise, all quotes and/or paraphrased content within the following section was obtained from this interview.
Oklahoma State’s newest attempt at reform marks a significant shift from years past. Led by Dr. Tamara Mix, the Department Head of Sociology and Faculty Fellow for General Education Reform, the new reforms are some of the first to receive university-wide backing, allowing for a far more structured approach to be taken.
During an interview with Dr Mix, she revealed many issues with the current general education program and detailed steps the university is taking to fix them. According to Dr Mix, the current general education system is made up of a series of random, uncoordinated classes that fail to align with any clear objectives. In order to solve this issue, Oklahoma State is implementing a new “trail system” within their general education curriculum. This “trail system” is a restructuring of the current general education courses in order to ensure their relevance toward students’ majors. It is achieved by creating groups of similar classes and forming them into academic “trails.” Students can opt in to participate in a “trail” rather than taking standard general education courses. By implementing a trail system, Oklahoma State will ensure that their curriculum is structured to benefit every student regardless of their major. The system of trails is a direct extension of the university’s overarching philosophy of the “Cowboy Compass.” When asked how the “Cowboy Compass” affects individual students, Dr. Mix stated, “Cowboy Compass is about directing students in specific ways, helping them explore and discover their individual interests”. According to Dr. Mix, the new system embraces the idea of making education “more personalized to each student”, in the hopes that “students have a lot [more] say in terms of what’s interesting to them.” By embracing the philosophy of the “Cowboy Compass”, the university is putting the students first, serving as a clear, guiding framework for the upcoming reforms.
The development of the reform began with a series of reflective discussions among the General Education Council. Dr Mix explained that the council sought input from a variety of sources including the faculty, staff, and students, in order to identify what parts of their General Education curriculum were working and which parts could be improved. After careful deliberation, the council decided on a “tiered approach to general education.” The council determined that organizing related courses into tiers would create a natural progression with each tier building upon the last, all while remaining relevant to the student’s major. This “Student First” approach formed the conceptual foundation of the reform, guiding the structure and intent of the changes.
Across the entire university, educators are being involved in the restructuring. According to Dr. Mix, faculty have been asked to assist in the creation of the trails, becoming known as “trailblazers.” These “trailblazers” are asked to create new trails from the various sets of courses currently available. The resulting trails are expected to both align with the students’ majors, and to provide students at Oklahoma State a comprehensive general education. Faculty at Oklahoma State are also being asked to cycle out any courses that no longer fit within the updated framework. According to Dr Mix, many current colleges have between “40 and 50 different general education courses.” Of these, many lack any clear purpose or connection to the rest of the general education curriculum. While the current set of courses is nowhere near as overwhelming as the hundreds of options that students had in the past, “trimming” the current set of courses is helping to ensure that the new curriculum remains “relevant” and “manageable.” However, some faculty still feel attached to the existing set of courses, and they argue that by maintaining a large selection of courses, they are offering a wide array of options for students to choose from. Despite these concerns, Dr Mix emphasized that the vast majority of the faculty support the changes. Oklahoma State, as a university, has a troubled history with educational reform. Over the years, it has repeatedly failed to address major problems within its curriculums. These failures have resulted in decades of sub-par educations being provided to hundreds of thousands of its students. However, the restructuring currently taking place at Oklahoma State, specifically that pertaining to its general education curriculum, is on track to be one of the most successful reforms that Oklahoma State has ever experienced. As the reforms at OSU progress into their final stage, the university faces the daunting task of finalizing the implementation of its changes. That being said, the groundwork that has so far been laid, coupled with the firm commitment of putting its students first, suggests that the reforms at Oklahoma State are on a very promising trajectory.
Works Cited
“Arts & Sciences, General Education Council, 1982.” W. David Baird Papers, Series III: Projects, Box 4, Folder 20, Oklahoma State University, 1988.
“Centennial Histories – Arts and Sciences.” Box 3, Folder 31, Oklahoma State University Archives, Stillwater, OK.
Esch, Emily. “Guiding Principles: A Template for General Education Reform.” Journal of General Education 69, no. 1–2 (January 1, 2020): 102–16.
Esch, Emily, and Barb J. May. “Reflection on a Successful Process for General Education Reform.” The Journal of General Education 69, no. 1–2 (March 1, 2021): 86–101.
“General Education, 1978–1982.” W. David Baird Papers, Series III: Projects, Box 4, Folder 14, Oklahoma State University Archives, 1988.
“General Education.” Subseries 3: Humanities and General Education, Box 3, Folder 36. Oklahoma State University Archives, Stillwater, OK.
“General Education – Geoffrey Pill Corrections.” Subseries 3: Humanities and General Education, Box 3, Folder 8. Oklahoma State University Archives, Stillwater, OK.
“General Education Committee Revisions to General Education Program, 1990.” James Harlow Boggs Papers, Series I: Papers, Box 3, Folder 1, Oklahoma State University Archives, 2004.
“General Education Assessment Annual Report, 2010.” Box 7, Folder 9, Committee for the Assessment of General Education and The Office of University Assessment, Oklahoma State University Archives, Stillwater, OK.
“Interviews on General Education.” Box 3, Folder 22, General Education Collection, Oklahoma State University Archives, Stillwater, OK.
Oklahoma State University. “Oklahoma State University Strategic Plan: Teaching and Learning.” Oklahoma State University, go.okstate.edu/about-osu/leadership/president/strategic-plan/teaching.html. Accessed 7 Nov. 2024.
Oklahoma State University. “General Education.” Academicaffairs.okstate.edu, 16 Dec. 2020, academicaffairs.okstate.edu/general-education/. Accessed 9 Dec. 2024.
Oklahoma State University. “Oklahoma State University Strategic Plan: Align General Education Curriculum.” College of Arts and Sciences, Oklahoma State University, cas.okstate.edu/about_the_college/strategic_plan/align_gen_ed_curriculum.html. Accessed 7 Nov. 2024.
Oklahoma State University. “Strategic Plan Updates.” Oklahoma State University, go.okstate.edu/about-osu/leadership/president/strategic-plan/process/updates.html. Accessed 7 Nov. 2024.
“Recommendations of the General Education Task Force – 1987.” James Harlow Boggs Collection, Box 3, Oklahoma State University Archives, Stillwater, OK.
“Subseries 3: Humanities and General Education.” Oklahoma State University Archives, Oklahoma State University, 1893–1991.
Tracy, Kisha G. Why Do I Have to Take This Course? A Guide to General Education. ROTEL Project, Fitchburg State University, 2024, pp. 31-105.
Wardle, Elizabeth. “‘Mutt Genres’ and the Goal of FYC: Can We Help Students Write the Genres of the University?” College Composition & Communication, vol. 60, no. 4, June 2009, pp. 765–89. DOI.org (Crossref), https://doi.org/10.58680/ccc20097196.
Watkins, Shannon. Making General Education Meaningful. James G. Martin Center for Academic Renewal, Sept. 2023, pp. 1-46.
archiveoklahoma.com 