Innovative Higher Education

, Volume 30, Issue 2, pp 89–98 | Cite as

Options for Change: A Flexible Vehicle for Curriculum Evolution and Reform

  • Roger G. Baldwin
  • Melissa J. Baumann


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.

Key Words

curriculum reform development experimentation laboratory 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 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.Google Scholar
  2. Barr, R. B., & Tagg, J. (1995). From teaching to learning: A new paradigm for undergraduate education. Change, 27(6), 12–25.Google Scholar
  3. Boyer, E. L. (1987). College: The undergraduate experience in America. Princeton, NJ: Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.Google Scholar
  4. Cohen, A. M. (1998). The shaping of American higher education: Emergence and growth of the contemporary system. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  5. 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.Google Scholar
  6. Guskin, A. E. (1997). Restructuring to enhance student learning (and reduce costs). Liberal Education, 83(2), 10–19.Google Scholar
  7. Levine, A. (1978). Handbook on undergraduate curriculum. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  8. 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.Google Scholar
  9. Levine, A. (1990). Curriculi-Curricula. Change, 22(2), 46–51.Google Scholar
  10. Levine, A. (2001). The remaking of the American university. Innovative Higher Education, 25, 253–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 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.Google Scholar
  12. Registrar’s Office. (2002). Academic program terminology. East Lansing, MI: Michigan State University.Google Scholar
  13. Stark, J. S., & Lattuca, L. R. (1997). Shaping the college curriculum: Academic plans in action. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon.Google Scholar
  14. Wingspread Group on Higher Education. (1993). An American imperative: Higher expectations for higher education. Racine, WI: The Johnson Foundation and others.Google Scholar
  15. Wulf, W. A., & Fisher, G. M. C. (2002). A makeover for engineering education. Issues in Science and Technology, 18(3), 35–39.Google Scholar
  16. 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.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science + Business Media, Inc. 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Roger G. Baldwin
  • Melissa J. Baumann

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations