Core Curriculum Outcomes: Discrepant Beliefs about the Field

Abstract

When disciplines perceived as to mission of their liberal arts college are reinforced and those regarded as non-central are eliminated, merged, or subsumed into a more contributing discipline, faculty in negatively targeted fields may be prompted to inform their university colleagues about importance of theories and skills of their discipline. As part of such an effort, they may point to knowledge that is special to their discipline and, at same time, crucial to other currently more favored disciplines. What knowledge, beyond technical skills, is special province of journalism and mass communication?(1) The present survey examined selected beliefs to probe whether a journalism and mass communication curriculum instilled a more sophisticated view of media reality in formal coursework for majors than for non-majors who learn about media from daily experience. The goal was to use this information to initiate a fruitful discussion, which might culminate in consensus(2) about core understandings that could distinguish a person who has received a mass communication education. Such a core could then be offered as a vital component of a comprehensive university to colleagues and administrators. Since 1984, national studies and gatherings (e.g., Oregon Report, 1987; Stark and Lowther, 1988; Wingspread Project, 1989; Blanchard and Christ, 1993; State of Field, 1994; What Makes a Great Journalism School, 1995) have explored domain of journalism and mass communication education. However, these books, reports, and conferences, while continuing to generate discussion about new paradigms for curricular development and role of mass communication education in changing university cultures, have failed to define current baseline. To establish a baseline, consensus about basic concepts of mass communication education is necessary. However, effort to reach consensus for even a modest list of belief statements for this exploratory study emphatically reinforced what Blanchard and Christ (1993, p.92) discovered in their 1990 national survey: Across country there is great diversity in number of required core courses in journalism and mass communication programs and no pattern. A review of core courses would have been another way to assess faculty philosophy and to demonstrate what a school believes is basic and fundamental to discipline (Blanchard and Christ, 1993, p. 92). However, after two years of surveys and discussion, even Oregon Report (1987) suggested only broad-based communication competencies--general literacy, visual literacy, computer literacy, information-gathering ability, media-writing capability--not specific outcomes. At University of Michigan, two-year Professional Preparation Network (Stark and Lowther, 1988) also recommended general competencies that overlap or expand Oregon Report. Scanning course titles in a curriculum, or examining syllabi for these courses, did not reveal outcomes of interest here, actual mass communication-related understandings of graduating seniors, and fit of these understandings to those of their instructors. The Professional Preparation Network (Stark and Lowther, 1988, p. 23) concluded that journalism educators should expect students to learn to identify, understand, and critique media's values in courses common to mass communication programs across country. Despite different emphases at different institutions, mass communication majors should learn media value systems in ethics courses, restrictions and regulation in law courses, impact of media in media and society courses, leadership in management, internship and capstone courses, and scholarly concern for improvement in research and communication theory courses (Christ and McCall, 1974). Mass communication programs have been admonished to distinguish themselves nationally, and to contribute to their local campuses through the promotion of media literacy and fostering of freedom of expression (Oregon Report, p. …