Units of inquiry as organizing model for Core?

Sometimes faculty like the idea of organizing a Core Curriculum as a set of themes that will be addressed in a wide variety of courses. Instead of selecting from a pre-existing menu of courses shaped by the disciplinary concerns of faculty in separate departments, faculty would craft courses that "spoke to each other" by emphasizing, reinforcing and deepening common themes. Derek Bok calls this the "modes-of inquiry" approach, in his book Our Underachieving Colleges. The approach de-emphasizes "knowledge" and favors "methods", broadly speaking. Bok has four criticisms of the approach: Too superficial? Too little emphasis on major, important knowledge? Too hard for a disciplined-based faculty to accomplish? Too hard to monitor for continuous quality?

Bok advocates thinking about curriculum review as a process rather than an attempt to attain the perfect curriculum. He is skeptical of perfection and purists, and cites (p. 273) research by Astin who concludes, "the varieties of general education programs currently used in American higher education do not seem to make much difference in any aspect of a student's cognitive or affective development." One wonders how rigorous Astin's study was? Something to look for.

Bok comes down against general education, to the extent that he reaches a conclusion. His presumable preference (p. 277) is: quantitative literacy, world cultures and international relations, moral reasoning, American government and political philosophy, and economics. There it is: from 5-7 classes. He's clear about what is left out: literature and the arts, science, and history. But he notes (p. 279): "Educators should have good reason to believe that the goal will actually be accomplished to a meaningful degree within the time alloted in the curriculum. it is on this basis that general education progams must be judged and on this basis that they are most vulnerable."