*2.2. Approaches to General Education*

Walker and Soltis (1997) summarize three approaches to general education that reflect institutional academic values and intended learning outcomes: the first is a subject-centered approach that focuses on transmitting knowledge to the next generation, and general education is delivered by teaching basic skills, critical thinking, and mastery of important facts and information; the second is a society-centered approach that focuses on creating and ensuring a prosperous and healthy society, so the aims of education focus on civic responsibility, vocational training, ethical values, development of democratic attitudes, and the preparation of individuals for an industrialized society and for economic competence; and the third one is an individual-centered approach, which emphasizes the importance of individual freedoms, talent, and happiness, developing the student's potential, and preparing them for community life [20].

Aldegether (2015) points out that there are three perspectives on general education requirements, namely the traditional or conservative perspective, the multicultural perspective, and the radical perspective [21]. Each of these perspectives holds a different view of academic values and hence the direction of education. The traditional perspective emphasizes the importance of the classical curriculum, which deals with how to live right and suggests teaching the courses for that purpose in their original texts. The multicultural perspective emphasizes that general education should include multiple perspectives rather than a single-knowledge perspective to help students search for reliable knowledge about the world by teaching them to use their own judgments on what they read or learn about and what is happening around them. The radical perspective emphasizes the importance of critical pedagogy through which educators and students can think critically about how knowledge is produced and transformed in relation to the construction of social experiences and help students change their current social practices. In brief, Aldegether's summary draws the distinctions by knowledge-based, society-based and individual-agency-based and resonates with Walker and Soltis' categorization of subject-centered, society-centered and individual-centered.

#### *2.3. Models of General Educaiton*

Models of general education play a crucial role in structuring the core curriculum for undergraduate students. Several models have been identified and elaborated upon in the literature, each with its own advantages and challenges. This section summarizes different models of general education and their key features.

The liberal arts model emphasizes a well-rounded education in the humanities, social sciences, and natural sciences [22]. It originated from the classical curriculum of colonial colleges and focuses on subjects such as literature, history, philosophy, and foreign languages. However, it does not include distribution requirements in natural or social sciences. While this model develops critical thinking skills, it has been criticized for prioritizing subjects distant from the practical skills valued by employers [23].

The core model of general education assumes the existence of a discrete body of knowledge that every educated person should know [24–26]. It requires all students to complete a series of prescribed interdisciplinary courses outside their academic department. The core model promotes interconnections across different disciplines, diverse methodologies, and various ways of viewing the world. However, designing and sustaining these courses can be expensive, and students may struggle to see the benefits, particularly if they are more focused on their majors [26].

The distribution model requires students to take a certain number of courses in different subject areas, such as humanities, social sciences, and natural sciences [27]. This model aims to provide breadth and exposure to a wide range of ideas. It introduces students to various disciplines and their bodies of knowledge and methodologies. However, one challenge is that students may prioritize ease or schedule convenience over actual learning [26,28]. Students may also perceive these requirements as arbitrary hoops to jump through without clear value or connection to their personal or professional goals [29].

In the thematic model, courses are organized around a central theme or set of themes to provide students with a coherent and integrated education that helps them understand the connections between different subject areas. By structuring courses around a theme, it offers students the opportunity to explore a specific theme or set of themes in depth, while also gaining a broad understanding of various disciplines and perspectives [30].

The competency-framed model focuses on individual abilities and skills of learning and personal growth [24]. It emphasizes the development of specific competencies rather than the acquisition of specific content knowledge. This model allows for overlap with the requirements of the major and focuses on transferable skills. However, it presents challenges in determining the distinctiveness and necessity of general education courses outside the major, as well as coordination and communication between faculty and administrators [31].

In practice, many institutions employ a hybrid model that combines elements from different models to create a unique program that meets their specific needs. Hybrid models can include thematic strands, core-distribution approaches, or combinations of core, distribution, and competency elements [26,32]. These hybrid models aim to integrate different perspectives and requirements and provide students with a more comprehensive and personalized educational experience.

Overall, the selection of a general education model depends on the goals and values of an institution, as well as the desired outcomes for undergraduate students. Each model has its own strengths and weaknesses, and institutions often strike a balance by adopting a combination of models that best suits their educational philosophy and student needs.

## *2.4. Theoretical Framework*

To gain insights into the organizational aspects of developing, implementing, and supporting general education programs in alignment with the university's overarching goals, this study employs Bolman and Deal's (1991) four frames of organizational thought, namely the structural, human resources, political, and symbolic frames, as its theoretical framework [33]. These frames offer distinct perspectives that shed light on the functioning of organizations and can be effectively applied to comprehend the nature and operation of general education. By using these frames, this study aims to gain a comprehensive understanding of how general education operates within an organizational context.

Structural frame: The structural frame emphasizes the importance of formal roles, responsibilities, and organizational structure. It views organizations as systems that adapt to their environment and allocate resources and responsibilities accordingly. In the context of general education, this frame suggests that colleges and universities have established goals and objectives, and the curriculum is structured to achieve those goals. General education courses provide a foundational knowledge base and ensure coordination and integration across different academic disciplines.

Human resources frame: The human resources frame focuses on the interdependence between individuals and organizations. It recognizes that organizations are composed of people with diverse needs, skills, and values. In the context of general education, this frame emphasizes the personal and professional growth of students. It seeks to align educational experiences with students' needs and values, allowing them to develop critical thinking, analytical skills, and informed value judgments. The human resources frame values relationships beyond formal organizational structures, encouraging students to engage in holistic learning experiences.

Political frame: The political frame views organizations as arenas where different interest groups compete for power and resources. It acknowledges the presence of conflicts and the diverse perspectives and needs among individuals and groups within an organization. In the context of general education, this frame recognizes the existence of power dynamics and the distribution of resources within educational institutions. It suggests that decision-making processes, resource allocation, and curriculum design can be influenced by various stakeholders, including institutional leaders, faculty, administrators, students, and external forces.

Symbolic frame: The symbolic frame emphasizes the social and cultural aspects of organizations. It recognizes that organizations are driven by symbols, rituals, ceremonies, stories, and myths. In the context of general education, this frame highlights the importance of the educational institution's culture, values, and history. General education serves as a manifestation of an institution's educational philosophy and reflects its distinctive characteristics. It may also be exploited as legitimacy or norms set by benchmark institution in the field. Symbolic elements, such as institutional traditions, educational experiences, and shared values, shape students' perceptions and contribute to their overall educational journey.

By employing Bolman and Deal's (1991) four frames, the analysis of general education can encompass the structural aspects of curriculum design and organizational goals, the interpersonal and developmental aspects of student growth, the power dynamics and resource allocation processes, and the cultural and symbolic elements that shape the educational experience. This multidimensional approach provides a comprehensive theoretical framework for examining general education and understanding its role within the larger educational landscape.
