CURRICULUM 2000

Based on the belief that the Duke educational experience ought to be one that is intellectually rigorous and distinctly formative, Curriculum 2000 provides a pathway through the undergraduate course of study that is more coherent than the present curriculum. The basic element of the curriculum is, naturally, the course, but our proposal recognizes explicitly that courses can and do teach more than a specific substantive topic. They often also teach ways of knowing, specific skills and/or the relationship of a specific topic to a broader, often interdisciplinary, theme. Curriculum 2000 explicitly recognizes and takes advantage of these features when instructors choose to employ them.

A curriculum, thus, is not simply the totality of courses offered but, rather an organization of the types and possible sequences of students' experiences leading to a rich and meaningful baccalaureate degree. The proposed curriculum is more structured than the current one, but continues to offer a great deal of choice within that structure. It also provides for more breadth by requiring that students take courses in all areas of knowledge required for general education, but continues to emphasize the importance at attaining depth by coursework in the major. The combination of structure with choice and breadth with depth also assures that Duke undergraduates will likely share a number of educational experiences.

The Committee formulated a framework that combines four interrelated features of the curriculum: Areas of Knowledge, Modes of Inquiry, Focused Inquiries, and Competencies. The interrelatedness of these dimensions is an essential element of the proposal not only in terms of the curricular structure but also in terms of developing students' skills of integration and synthesis. The curriculum recognizes that a single course can have several intellectual goals and intended student learning outcomes and, thus, can simultaneously incorporate several curricular features. Hence, while courses fall within Areas of Knowledge, they can also provide educational experiences in up to two Modes of Inquiry, Focused Inquiries or Competencies.

We list the specific requirements here. They are discussed in greater detail below:

Required Courses:
Areas of Knowledge: All students must take 3 courses in each of the following:

Arts and Literatures
Civilizations
Social Sciences
Natural Sciences and Mathematics (at least 2 from Natural Sciences)

Required Exposures within courses:
Modes of Inquiry: All students must take 2 courses designated as offering exposures to each of the Modes of Inquiry:

Quantitative, Inductive, and Deductive Reasoning
Interpretive and Aesthetic Approaches

Focused Inquiries: All students must take 2 courses designated as offering exposures to each of the three Focused Inquiries:

Cross-Cultural Inquiry
Science, Technology, and Society
Ethical Inquiry

Competencies: All students must take courses designated as offering exposures to the following competencies:

Foreign Language: All students must take at least one course in a Foreign Language. No student is required to take more than three courses in Foreign Language (see Appendix/Link 3: Languages Task Force Report)

Writing: All students are required to take three courses designated as offering an intensive opportunity to develop writing skills, one of which will be in the freshman year. The specific details of the requirement will be proposed to the Arts and Sciences Council in Spring 1999 by the Writing Task Force currently at work.

Research: All students are required to take two courses designated as offering a research-intensive experience, one of which must be in the major.

The total number of required courses is, therefore, a minimum of 13 and a maximum of 15 (if a student begins a language at the most elementary level and if a freshman writing course similar to the current UWC course is retained), as compared to 15 in the current curriculum (14 in areas of knowledge, plus UWC). It is expected that most students will satisfy several of their required exposures with courses in the major (e.g., research, writing and one of the Modes of Inquiry). It is also possible that many students will choose to complete their exposures with courses beyond those required to satisfy the Areas of Knowledge requirements.

In addition to this descriptive representation, Curriculum 2000 may also be represented metaphorically as a matrix:

Link to the Matrix

In either representation, descriptive or graphic, the interrelated structure of Curriculum 2000 has several specific advantages. First, it explicitly recognizes that courses in many departments and divisions may offer exposures to similar competencies and/or substantive knowledge. Quantitative skills are not just taught in mathematics courses, nor is comparative knowledge about different cultures only taught in social science departments. If our desire is to have students gain exposure to different competencies and thematic foci, and to offer them ways to gain these exposures in ways of their own choosing, given their interests, the proposed structure provides an excellent curricular vehicle. Second, the structure encourages professors to develop courses that match their disciplinary interests in ways that also meet our collective curricular priorities. The modes of inquiry, focused inquiries, and competencies should not become the bailiwicks of single departments or even divisions. Third, the structure promotes flexibility in curricular design and implementation, guided by a set of basic principles and ongoing faculty oversight.

Curriculum 2000's structure assures that students have sustained engagement with each of the areas of knowledge, and that they have sufficient exposure to each of the modes of inquiry, focused inquiries, and competencies to develop a moderate and integrated understanding of what they entail. We turn now to a detailed discussion of each component of Curriculum 2000.

Next: AREAS OF KNOWLEDGE