Innovative Higher Education

, Volume 15, Issue 1, pp 43–54 | Cite as

Classic texts in undergraduate classes: So far so good

  • Teresa L. Scheid-Cook


This paper describes and evaluates a classic text project in terms of its stated objectives. First, to have a large number of students read a few classic works in more than one class. Second, to promote discussion of texts among students and faculty and third, to integrate core classes. Survey data collected from students and faculty evaluations point to the success of this project. The factors which contributed to its success are considered. The project was innovative because faculty selected important texts that could be used in a variety of courses and which would promote a broad based liberal education by exposing students to a diversity of perspectives.


Social Psychology Survey Data Faculty Evaluation Stated Objective Cross Cultural Psychology 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Association of American Colleges. (1985). Perspectives on Teaching from “Integrity in the College Classroom” A Report to the College Community.” College Teaching, 33: 117–124.Google Scholar
  2. Barnes, S., Bento, R., Hijiya, J. (1985). Beyond the Multidisciplinary in Nuclear Education. Journal of College Science Teaching, 15: 24–25.Google Scholar
  3. Bloom, A. (1974). The Failure of the University. Daedalus, 103: 58–66.Google Scholar
  4. Boyer, E.L. (1987). College: The Undergraduate Experience in America. The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
  5. Bok, D. (1986).Higher Learning. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Brick, E., McGrath, E.J. (1969).Innovation in Liberal Arts Colleges. Published for the Institute of Higher Learning by Teacher's College Press, Columbia University.Google Scholar
  7. Ellner, C.L., and Barnes, C.P. (1983). Studies of College Teaching. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.Google Scholar
  8. Gaff, J. (1988). Reforming Undergraduate General Education. Liberal Education, 74: 7–11.Google Scholar
  9. Hirsch, E.D. (1983). Cultural Literacy. American Scholar, 52: 159–169.Google Scholar
  10. Hook, S. (1988). An Open Letter to the Stanford University Faculty Senate. Partisan Review, 55: 653–659.Google Scholar
  11. Lawler, P.A. (1986). Reaganism, Liberal Education, and Conservatism. College Teaching, 34: 104–107.Google Scholar
  12. McLaughlin, M.B. (1986). A Book List and a “Common Text”: Redeeming a Good Idea Gone Wrong. College Teaching, 34: 150–154.Google Scholar
  13. Menges, R.J., Mathis, B.C., Halliburton, D., Marinoviche, M., Svinicki, M. (1988). Strengthening Professional Development: Lessons from the Program for Faculty Development at Stanford. Journal of Higher Education, 59: 291–304.Google Scholar
  14. Parr, S.R. (1985). Skills in a Vacuum. Antioch Review, 43: 434–444.Google Scholar
  15. Riley, G. (1979). Goals of a Liberal Education: Making the Actual and the Ideal Meet. Liberal Education, 4: 436–444.Google Scholar
  16. Schachter, H.L. (1986). Inquiry, Awareness, and Exposure to Classic Texts. Liberal Education, 72: 121–123.Google Scholar
  17. Todorov, T. (1989). Crimes Against Humanities. The New Republic, July 3: 26–30.Google Scholar
  18. Trimbur, J. (1986). To Reclaim a Legacy, Cultural Literacy and the Discourse of Crisis. Liberal Education, 72: 109–119.Google Scholar
  19. Vars, G.F. (1982). Designs for General Education: Alternative Approaches to Curriculum Integration. Journal of Higher Education, 53: 216–225.Google Scholar
  20. Wilson, J.D. (1981). Student Learning in Higher Education. New York: John Wiley and Sons.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Human Sciences Press 1990

Authors and Affiliations

  • Teresa L. Scheid-Cook
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of SociologyUNC-CharlotteCharlotte

Personalised recommendations