Abstract
In this article we examine a flexible curricular approach known as the “Option.” The Option enables students to supplement traditional majors with a coherent set of courses and other educational experiences in a related, often interdisciplinary field. Options can act as curricular bridges between mainstream academic fields and problems of professional practice. They can also give students experience with emerging subject areas (e.g., biomedical engineering). Options serve as laboratories for experimenting with new subject areas before incorporating them fully into the curriculum as majors and minors. Hence, Options promote creativity and risk-taking by providing a proving ground for potential new academic programs.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Association of American Colleges, Project on liberal learning, study-in-depth, and the arts and sciences major (1991). The challenge of connecting learning. Washington, DC: Association of American Colleges.
Barr, R. B., & Tagg, J. (1995). From teaching to learning: A new paradigm for undergraduate education. Change, 27(6), 12–25.
Boyer, E. L. (1987). College: The undergraduate experience in America. Princeton, NJ: Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.
Cohen, A. M. (1998). The shaping of American higher education: Emergence and growth of the contemporary system. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Gaff, J. G., & Ratcliff, J. L. (1996). Handbook of the undergraduate curriculum: A comprehensive guide to purposes, structures, practices, and change. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Guskin, A. E. (1997). Restructuring to enhance student learning (and reduce costs). Liberal Education, 83(2), 10–19.
Levine, A. (1978). Handbook on undergraduate curriculum. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Levine, A. (1989). Undergraduate curriculum 2000. In C. H. Pazandak (Vol. Ed.), Improving undergraduate education in large universities (pp. 77–84). New Directions for Higher Education, Vol. 66. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Levine, A. (1990). Curriculi-Curricula. Change, 22(2), 46–51.
Levine, A. (2001). The remaking of the American university. Innovative Higher Education, 25, 253–267.
Marcy, M., & Guskin, A. (2003). Project on the future of higher education: Teaching and learning in a climate of restricted resources. Liberal Education, 89(2), 22–29.
Registrar’s Office. (2002). Academic program terminology. East Lansing, MI: Michigan State University.
Stark, J. S., & Lattuca, L. R. (1997). Shaping the college curriculum: Academic plans in action. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Wingspread Group on Higher Education. (1993). An American imperative: Higher expectations for higher education. Racine, WI: The Johnson Foundation and others.
Wulf, W. A., & Fisher, G. M. C. (2002). A makeover for engineering education. Issues in Science and Technology, 18(3), 35–39.
Zemsky, R., & Massy, W. F. (1995). Toward an understanding of our current predicaments: Expanding perimeters, melting cores, and sticky functions. Change, 27(6), 40–49.
Additional information
Roger G. Baldwin received his doctorate in higher education from the University of Michigan. He is currently Professor of Higher, Adult, and Lifelong Education at Michigan State University. His research interests include curriculum development and reform, faculty career development, and organizational change. Melissa J. Baumann received her doctorate in Materials Science and Engineering from Case Western Reserve University. She is currently Associate Professor of Engineering at Michigan State University. Her research interests include biomedical materials research, specifically ceramic scaffolds in bone tissue engineering and biomedical engineering education.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Baldwin, R.G., Baumann, M.J. Options for Change: A Flexible Vehicle for Curriculum Evolution and Reform. Innov High Educ 30, 89–98 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10755-005-4958-7
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10755-005-4958-7