A Framework for Holistic General Studies Curriculum Integration and Assessment

Thesis Abstract

This study addresses the fragmentation of General Studies (GS) curricula in higher education and its impact on students’ integrative thinking, transfer of learning, and civic mindedness. Despite policy-wide emphasis on interdisciplinary competencies, GS programs often operate as loosely connected modules, leading to repetitive content, siloed assessment practices, and limited demonstration of integrative outcomes. The aim is to develop and validate a holistic GS curriculum integration and assessment framework that explicitly aligns learning outcomes, instructional strategies, and assessment rubrics across disciplines to foster systemic thinking and transferable competencies. Specific objectives are (1) to identify current fragmentation patterns in GS offerings across three faculties within a large public university; (2) to design a theoretical framework that synthesizes integrative learning theories, notably Dewey’s experiential learning, Kolb’s cycle of experiential learning, and the integrative education principles of Zhao and Corrigan; (3) to operationalize a set of cross-cutting, competency-based GS outcomes and corresponding assessment anchors; (4) to pilot-test the framework in two GS courses and evaluate using mixed methods; and (5) to propose scalable policies and implementation steps for sustained integration. The methodology adopts a convergent mixed-methods design. The population includes all GS courses offered in the 2023/2024 academic year across the Faculty of Arts, Faculty of Social Sciences, and Faculty of Education at a flagship university. A purposive sample of 12 GS courses (4 per faculty) is selected for in-depth analysis. Data collection instruments comprise (i) curriculum mapping rubrics to capture alignment of aims, content, pedagogy, and assessment; (ii) semi-structured interviews with 18 course coordinators and 36 teaching staff to explore integration practices and barriers; (iii) student surveys (n = 600) measuring perceived integrative learning, metacognition, and transferable competencies; and (iv) artifact analysis of 120 student work samples to assess evidence of cross-disciplinary synthesis. Validity and reliability are addressed through expert panel review of the mapping rubrics (Content Validity Index > 0.80), triangulation across data sources, and Cronbach’s alpha for survey scales (? > 0.80). Data analysis comprises (a) descriptive statistics and correlational analyses to profile current integration levels; (b) thematic analysis of interview transcripts guided by the integrative framework; (c) structural equation modeling (SEM) to test hypothesized relationships between instructional integration, student engagement, and outcomes; and (d) multilevel regression to examine course- and faculty-level effects on cross-cutting competencies. The model specification includes explicit paths from instructional integration and aligned assessment to gains in systems thinking, ethical reasoning, and civic literacy, controlling for prior achievement and demographic covariates. Expected findings indicate significant positive associations between higher levels of curricular integration (as evidenced by simultaneous alignment of aims, methods, and assessments across GS modules) and improvements in students’ systems thinking, interdisciplinary literacy, and transferable problem-solving skills. The SEM is anticipated to demonstrate that integrated assessment acts as a mediator between instructional design and outcome gains, while multilevel analysis reveals that faculty support and leadership climate moderate integration effects. The study also expects qualitative insights into practical enablers and constraints, such as cross-faculty collaboration practices, workload considerations, and institutional governance structures. The contribution to knowledge encompasses (i) a theoretically grounded, implementable framework for holistic GS curriculum integration and assessment that integrates experiential learning, interdisciplinary pedagogy, and competency-based assessment; (ii) an empirically validated model linking concrete curricular interventions to measurable student outcomes, with implications for program design, accreditation, and policy; and (iii) a scalable blueprint for institutionalizing cross-disciplinary GS integration across faculties, including governance mechanisms, resource requirements, and a phased implementation plan. The main conclusion posits that holistic GS curriculum integration, anchored by a coherent theory-driven framework and assessed through aligned, multisource measures, yields superior development of integrated and transferable competencies compared to traditional siloed approaches. Recommendations include adopting the framework as a university-wide standard, establishing an inter-faculty GS coordination unit, investing in faculty development for integrative pedagogy and assessment, and conducting longitudinal follow-up studies to assess long-term impacts on graduate employability and civic engagement.