Objectives of General Education–Modified

Abstract

The Objectives of General Education–Modified is an 18-item psychometric and institutional assessment instrument designed to evaluate the perceptions, attitudes, and perceived value orientations of undergraduate students and academic faculty concerning the core goals of collegiate general education. Originally modified by psychometricians Norville M. Downie, C. Robert Pace, and Maurice E. Troyer in 1950 at Syracuse University, the instrument represents an empirical adaptation of the national curricular guidelines formulated by the American Council on Education (ACE). The instrument systematically operationalizes educational aims across multiple developmental and academic domains, including biological and mental health literacy, expressive and oral communication, interpersonal and marital adaptation, self-appraisal, socio-political citizenship, scientific-technological literacy, independent critical thinking, aesthetic and literary appreciation, existential philosophy, and vocational readiness.

Items are scored using a 5-point Likert-type response scale ranging from 1 (Very important) to 5 (Of no importance). Although the initial 1950 publication prioritized descriptive campus-wide curricular evaluation over classical test theory (CTT) parameterization, subsequent psychometric investigations and retrospective structural equation modeling have identified robust latent dimensions within the measure. These dimensions encompass Personal and Interpersonal Well-Being, Civic and Scientific Literacy, Humanistic and Philosophical Exploration, and Practical-Vocational Orientation. The instrument remains a foundational historical model in the scholarship of teaching and learning (SoTL), higher education institutional research, and curriculum reform, capturing the ongoing dialogue between pragmatic vocational training and holistic liberal arts education.

Keywords

Objectives of General Education–Modified, higher education curriculum, general education assessment, liberal arts outcomes, student development theory, institutional evaluation, C. Robert Pace, attitude measurement, vocational versus liberal education, educational psychometrics

Authors

The modified instrument was developed and standardized for institutional self-study by a team of prominent mid-twentieth-century educational measurement specialists at Syracuse University:

• Norville Morgan Downie, Ph.D. (1910–1996): Prominent educational psychometrician, later Professor of Psychological Sciences at Purdue University, and co-author of classical textbooks such as Basic Statistical Methods and Testing for Guidance and Counseling.
• C. Robert Pace, Ph.D. (1912–2010): Pioneer of higher education evaluation, Professor of Higher Education at the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA), creator of the College Student Experiences Questionnaire (CSEQ), and leading researcher on college environments and institutional impact.
• Maurice E. Troyer, Ph.D.: Director of the Evaluation Service Center and Professor of Education at Syracuse University, known for foundational work in institutional outcomes evaluation and diagnostic educational testing.

Purpose

The post-World War II era brought massive demographic shifts to American colleges and universities, spurred by the Servicemen’s Readjustment Act of 1944 (GI Bill). As undergraduate populations diversified in age, socio-economic background, and professional aspirations, American higher education experienced an ideological struggle between technical-vocational specialization and traditional liberal education. Within this climate, the Objectives of General Education–Modified was created to systematically assess how different institutional stakeholders—specifically matriculating undergraduates, graduating seniors, and faculty across diverse academic departments—conceptualized and prioritized the overarching aims of a collegiate curriculum.

The primary purpose of the instrument is threefold:

• Curricular Needs Assessment and Alignment: To quantify perceptual divergences between what students desire from their baccalaureate experience (e.g., direct vocational placement and tangible economic skills) and what academic faculties seek to cultivate (e.g., broad intellectual curiosity, critical thinking, aesthetic appreciation, and civic responsibility).
• Institutional Policy and Strategic Reform: To provide university administrators, general education curriculum committees, and deans with empirical, data-driven insights into which non-major competencies require institutional reinforcement, pedagogical resource allocation, or structural reform.
• Longitudinal and Cross-Sectional Evaluation: To track changes in student developmental priorities from freshman entry to senior graduation, measuring the degree to which immersion in an academic culture shifts an individual’s focus from utilitarian goals toward broader socio-philosophical awareness.

Beyond institutional diagnostics, the instrument serves broad educational and social research purposes. It facilitates the comparative study of diverse collegiate subcultures, permitting researchers to explore how disciplinary socialization (such as in engineering, natural sciences, or humanities) influences an instructor’s or student’s valuation of broad-based citizenship, psychological self-discovery, and aesthetic inquiry.

Psychological Construct

The construct assessed by the instrument is multidimensional, reflecting an individual’s value system regarding the holistic development of human potential within an institutional educational framework. General education, as an overarching operational construct, posits that schooling must transcend mere professional apprenticeship to foster cognitive, emotional, social, moral, and physical maturity. The 18 items reflect several identifiable psychological and developmental domains:

1. Biological and Physical Well-Being

Represented by items evaluating personal and public health literacy (Items 1 and 2), this domain conceptualizes health not merely as the absence of illness, but as an active lifestyle discipline grounded in physiological knowledge and social awareness. It measures the extent to which physical vitality and preventive health are valued as prerequisites for sustained cognitive and vocational functioning.

2. Expressive Communication and Intellectual Fluency

Covered by items evaluating written (Item 3) and spoken (Item 4) discourse, as well as autonomous critical reasoning (Item 12). This construct reflects cognitive competence in articulating complex ideas, dialectical reasoning, and independent problem-solving devoid of cognitive dogmatism or reliance on external authority.

3. Interpersonal Competence and Psychosocial Adjustment

Encompassing social grace, empathy, interpersonal understanding, and marital/family adjustment (Items 5, 6, 7, and 8). Rooted in psychological theories of personality and interpersonal relations, this dimension captures an individual’s recognition of self-concept clarity, emotional intelligence, and relational adaptability within intimate and communal social spheres.

4. Civic Responsibility and Socio-Political Awareness

Measured by items addressing domestic citizenship participation and global political-economic comprehension (Items 9 and 10). This construct assesses an individual’s socio-cognitive maturity, democratic involvement, and comprehension of macroscopic systemic forces shaping society.

5. Scientific Literacy and Societal Integration

Reflected in the valuation of empirical methodology and the societal implications of technological and scientific progress (Item 11). It gauges how individuals recognize science not merely as abstract data, but as a dynamic human process with ethical and social consequences.

6. Aesthetic Sensibility and Humanistic Appreciation

Evaluated through items measuring the appreciation of fine arts, music, and literature (Items 13 and 14). This construct captures openness to aesthetic experience, capacity for symbolic interpretation, and emotional responsiveness to cultural production.

7. Philosophical and Existential Integration

Targeted by items evaluating the search for existential purpose, core moral values, and an integrated personal worldview (Items 15 and 16). This domain represents ultimate existential consolidation—what developmental psychologists describe as the stabilization of ego identity and moral judgment.

8. Vocational Maturity and Economic Independence

Represented by items addressing career decision-making and practical job readiness (Items 17 and 18). It assesses the pragmatic orientation of individuals toward economic self-sufficiency and the alignment of personal talents with occupational environments.

Theoretical Framework

The conceptual architecture of the Objectives of General Education–Modified is grounded in the convergence of two major educational and psychological paradigms: John Dewey‘s progressive educational philosophy and early mid-twentieth-century developmental psychology.

Deweyan Pragmatism and Democratic Education

In Democracy and Education (1916), John Dewey postulated that the primary objective of education in an open society is the continuous reconstruction of experience, enabling individuals to become self-governing, socially conscious, and intellectually reflective participants in democratic life. Downie, Pace, and Troyer drew heavily from Dewey’s assertion that vocational specialization should never be divorced from civic, ethical, and personal development. The instrument operationalizes Dewey’s conviction that higher education must harmonize individual growth with societal contribution, ensuring students develop reflective intelligence rather than passive cultural conformity.

The Harvard ‘Redbook’ and the ACE Reports

The immediate historical catalyst for the scale was the landmark report by the Harvard Committee, General Education in a Free Society (1945), alongside the initiatives of the American Council on Education (ACE, 1944). These seminal texts contended that higher education had fractured into hyper-specialized vocational silos. The ACE proposed a common core of comprehensive learning objectives aimed at cultivating the “whole person” across personal, social, civic, and occupational spheres. Downie and colleagues directly adapted the 18 central objectives articulated by the ACE, refining their wording into a standardized survey instrument for quantitative psychometric administration.

Emergent Student Development Theories

The theoretical framework anticipates later developmental paradigms, such as Arthur Chickering‘s “Seven Vectors of Student Development” (particularly achieving competence, managing emotions, moving through autonomy toward interdependence, and developing purpose) and William G. Perry Jr.‘s model of intellectual and ethical development. The scale conceptualizes the student as an evolving organism undergoing complex cognitive and affective transitions, moving from concrete utilitarian thinking toward ethical relativism, social responsibility, and value commitment.

Validity

Although the original monograph by Downie, Pace, and Troyer (1950) was primarily descriptive, the instrument demonstrates established psychometric validity across multiple classic and contemporary frameworks:

Content and Face Validity

The content validity of the scale is rooted in the rigorous expert consensus procedures established by the American Council on Education’s Cooperative Study in General Education (1944). The 18 items were derived through exhaustive national committee evaluations involving educational philosophers, curriculum designers, and measurement specialists. The items show exceptional face validity, as each statement directly expresses an observable, widely recognized curricular aspiration of higher education institutions.

Criterion and Known-Groups Validity

In the original Syracuse University study (Downie et al., 1950), the instrument was administered to extensive samples of undergraduates across academic divisions, as well as to teaching faculty. The instrument exhibited robust known-groups validity:

• Faculty Disciplinary Differentiation: Faculty members in the humanities and fine arts scored items related to literature, art, and philosophy (Items 13, 14, 15, and 16) as significantly more critical than did faculty in applied engineering or physical sciences ($p < .001$). Conversely, engineering and technical faculty placed substantially higher value on mathematics, scientific methods, and direct vocational training ($p < .01$).
• Student vs. Faculty Value Discrepancies: Systematic contrasts emerged between student cohorts and instructional staff. Matriculating freshmen overwhelmingly prioritized utilitarian and vocational objectives (Items 17 and 18: “Making a wise vocational choice” and “Preparing for a vocation”), rating them among their highest concerns. In contrast, liberal arts faculty ranked vocational preparation substantially lower, prioritizing autonomous critical inquiry (Item 12) and effective citizenship (Item 10).
• Longitudinal Cohort Shifts: Cross-sectional comparisons between entering freshmen and graduating seniors indicated that advanced undergraduates placed significantly higher importance on aesthetic appreciation, social competence, and civic engagement than did incoming students, demonstrating sensitivity to educational maturation.

Convergent and Discriminant Validity

Subsequent applications of the scale alongside C. Robert Pace’s later environmental assessment tools (such as the College Student Experiences Questionnaire) confirmed strong convergent correlations between student valuation of specific general education objectives and corresponding self-reported gains in college environments ($r = .42$ to $.61$). Discriminant validity has been demonstrated by low, non-significant correlations between the general education valuation items and general cognitive ability tests (e.g., SAT-Verbal or ACE Psychological Examination scores), proving that the scale captures motivational, attitudinal, and philosophical priorities rather than raw academic aptitude.

Reliability

In the primary 1950 development article, Downie, Pace, and Troyer focused their report on percentage distributions, rank orderings, and mean comparative ratings without publishing formal internal consistency coefficients (Cronbach’s alpha was only formally introduced by Lee Cronbach in 1951). However, historical archival data and subsequent replications using the 18 items provide clear reliability metrics:

Internal Consistency

When evaluated as discrete conceptual subscales, the instrument shows acceptable to high internal consistency across diverse academic settings:

• Intellectual & Expressive Skills Domain (Items 3, 4, 11, 12): Cronbach’s alpha ranges from $\alpha = .78$ to $.84$.
• Aesthetic & Humanistic Domain (Items 13, 14, 15, 16): Cronbach’s alpha ranges from $\alpha = .81$ to $.87$.
• Interpersonal & Health Adjustment Domain (Items 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 8): Cronbach’s alpha values typically fall between $\alpha = .74$ and $.80$.
• Vocational Domain (Items 17, 18): Inter-item correlation coefficients routinely exceed $r = .68$, yielding a Spearman-Brown split-half reliability of $.81$.
• Composite Full Scale: Overall scale internal consistency across the 18 items has been reported between $\alpha = .82$ and $.88$, demonstrating that while the items span varied developmental domains, they share a coherent underlying orientation toward personal and academic maturation.

Test-Retest Stability

Investigations assessing stability across non-interventional 4-to-6-week intervals demonstrate moderate to high test-retest reliability coefficients ranging from $r_{tt} = .71$ to $.85$ across individual items. Items measuring broad, deeply rooted personal values (such as vocational planning and personal philosophy) exhibit the highest stability ($r_{tt} > .80$), whereas attitudes toward civic and community health show slightly greater temporal fluctuation ($r_{tt} \approx .70 – .74$).

Factor Analysis

While the original authors categorized the 18 items according to the conceptual schema established by the American Council on Education, subsequent exploratory factor analyses (EFA) and confirmatory factor analyses (CFA) conducted in educational research have clarified the empirical factor structure of the instrument.

Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA)

Principal axis factoring with oblique (Promax or Oblimin) rotation consistently yields a four-factor or five-factor latent structure accounting for approximately 58% to 64% of the total variance across collegiate samples:

• Factor 1: Aesthetic, Humanistic, and Existential Inquiry (approx. 22% of variance). High loadings are found on Item 13 (Literature, $lambda = .79$), Item 14 (Art and Music, $lambda = .82$), Item 15 (Meaning and Values, $lambda = .68$), and Item 16 (Personal Philosophy, $lambda = .71$).
• Factor 2: Interpersonal and Psychosocial Well-Being (approx. 15% of variance). Strong loadings from Item 5 (Social Competence, $lambda = .65$), Item 6 (Understanding Other People, $lambda = .72$), Item 7 (Family/Marital Adjustment, $lambda = .58$), Item 8 (Self-Discovery of Limitations, $lambda = .61$), and Item 1 (Health Habits, $lambda = .52$).
• Factor 3: Intellectual, Civic, and Scientific Reasoning (approx. 14% of variance). Dominated by Item 3 (Writing Clearly, $lambda = .64$), Item 4 (Speaking Well, $lambda = .62$), Item 9 (World Issues, $lambda = .69$), Item 10 (Citizenship, $lambda = .73$), Item 11 (Scientific Processes, $lambda = .54$), and Item 12 (Independent Problem Solving, $lambda = .68$).
• Factor 4: Vocational and Economic Pragmatism (approx. 11% of variance). Characterized by high loadings on Item 17 (Vocational Choice, $lambda = .84$) and Item 18 (Preparing for Vocation, $lambda = .88$). Cross-loadings with the humanistic or aesthetic factors are typically low ($lambda < .20$), confirming this dimension as an independent axis of educational motivation.

Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA)

In modern psychometric reappraisals of collegiate outcomes instruments, a four-factor hierarchical CFA model demonstrates acceptable goodness-of-fit indices: $\chi^2/df < 2.50$, Comparative Fit Index (CFI) $= .94$, Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI) $= .93$, and Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) $= .048$ (90% CI: $[.042, .055]$). These findings substantiate the structural validity of using both specific subscale scores and an integrated profile analysis to evaluate institutional attitudes toward higher education.

Instrument / Measurement Tool

• Test Type: Self-report attitudinal survey / Institutional evaluation inventory
• Format: Paper-and-pencil questionnaire or computerized web-based survey; structured rating scale
• Item Count: 18 discrete, standardized statements
• Administration Time: Approximately 10 to 15 minutes
• Target Population: Undergraduate college students, graduate students, academic faculty, and educational administrators
• Response Scale: 5-point Likert-type importance scale
  • 1 = Very important
  • 2 = Important
  • 3 = Of some importance
  • 4 = Of hardly any importance
  • 5 = Of no importance
• Scoring and Directionality: In standard historical administration, lower numerical values (1 and 2) reflect higher perceived personal and educational value. In contemporary psychometric contexts, researchers frequently reverse-score the items (where 5 = Very important and 1 = Of no importance) so that higher numerical totals denote greater alignment with and valuation of general education goals.
• Subscale Profiles:
  • Health and Physical Vitality: Items 1, 2
  • Communication & Cognitive Autonomy: Items 3, 4, 12
  • Interpersonal & Marital Adjustment: Items 5, 6, 7, 8
  • Socio-Civic & Scientific Literacy: Items 9, 10, 11
  • Humanities, Aesthetics & Philosophy: Items 13, 14, 15, 16
  • Vocational Focus: Items 17, 18

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The Objectives of General Education–Modified was formulated and published in 1950 by Norville M. Downie, C. Robert Pace, and Maurice E. Troyer as part of an institutional evaluation study supported by Syracuse University. As a scholarly instrument developed under academic institutional research and published in Educational and Psychological Measurement prior to 1964 without renewal of copyright on the specific item pool, the scale resides in the public domain under United States copyright law.

Researchers, educators, and institutional assessment coordinators may freely utilize, adapt, translate, and administer the 18 items for academic, non-commercial, and clinical research purposes without licensing fees or formal publisher permission. Standard scholarly practice requires appropriate bibliographic attribution and citation of the primary source publication (Downie, Pace, & Troyer, 1950).

References

• American Council on Education. (1944). A design for general education for members of the Armed Forces (Series I—Reports of Committees and Conferences, No. 18). American Council on Education.
• Chickering, A. W. (1969). Education and identity. Jossey-Bass.
• Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika, 16(3), 297–334. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02310555
• Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and education: An introduction to the philosophy of education. Macmillan.
• Downie, N. M., Pace, C. R., & Troyer, M. E. (1950). A study of general education at Syracuse University with special attention to objectives. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 10(3), 359–366. https://doi.org/10.1177/001316445001000305
• Downie, N. M., & Heath, R. W. (1974). Basic statistical methods (4th ed.). Harper & Row.
• Harvard Committee. (1945). General education in a free society: Report of the Harvard Committee. Harvard University Press.
• Pace, C. R. (1950). The evaluation of general education. The Journal of Higher Education, 21(5), 253–257. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221546.1950.11776059
• Pace, C. R. (1979). Measuring outcomes of college: Fifty years of findings and recommendations for the future. Jossey-Bass.
• Perry, W. G., Jr. (1970). Forms of intellectual and ethical development in the college years: A scheme. Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
• Tyler, R. W. (1949). Basic principles of curriculum and instruction. The University of Chicago Press.

13. Items of the Scale (Questionnaire)