Problem
This study made the initial exploration of English major curricula among 101 members of the 2000-2001 Council for Christian Colleges and Universities (CCCU), describing their nature and state and discerning evidence of Christian thought.
Method
Stewart’s (1989) Modified Categories of English Majors and Eisner’s (1991) education criticism provided frameworks to categorize all curricula and to describe a purposeful sampling of 20 selected by region, religious, and enrollment.
Results
Types 1.0 Straight Literature and 1.5 Primarily Literature majors represented 78% of the population and 75% of the sampling; Type 2.0 More Flexible majors represented 18% of the population and 25% of the sampling. The sampling found two structural models: the traditional tripod model (45%) and the core-and-periphery (55%). Types 1.0 and 1.5 emphasized American and English/ British literatures, Type 1.0 by genres, and Type 1.5 by surveys; Type 2.0 stressed those literatures, but proliferated writing electives.
Content weaknesses included the (a) lack of goals; (b) slighting of writing, composition, and rhetoric; and (c) imbalance of 300-level courses. Strengths included (a) offering literary criticism, (b) requiring capstone/seminars, and (c) increasing writing programs. Christian thought appeared in four course categories: (a) biblical content, (b) integration, (c) major authors associated with Christianity, 5th through 19th centuries, and (d) those associated during the 20th century. Milton, Chaucer, and C. S. Lewis dominated.
Conclusions
The aggregate CCCU English major curriculum appeared to be: 1. Dominated by literature, especially British/English and American literatures 2. Structured in the traditional tripod of literature, composition, and grammar, or in the core-and-periphery model 3. Utilitarian-oriented toward “helping professions,” teaching, and graduate studies 4. Static with minimized composition, writing, rhetoric, linguistics, and non- traditional literatures 5. Accommodating of writing electives 6. Preserving of field-coverage in upper-level literature courses and 7. British-Christian influenced, reflecting Christian ideas through British historical, cultural, white-male perspective(s).
","abstract_html":"<p>Problem</p> <p>This study made the initial exploration of English major curricula among 101 members of the 2000-2001 Council for Christian Colleges and Universities (CCCU), describing their nature and state and discerning evidence of Christian thought.</p> <p>Method</p> <p>Stewart’s (1989) Modified Categories of English Majors and Eisner’s (1991) education criticism provided frameworks to categorize all curricula and to describe a purposeful sampling of 20 selected by region, religious, and enrollment.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Types 1.0 Straight Literature and 1.5 Primarily Literature majors represented 78% of the population and 75% of the sampling; Type 2.0 More Flexible majors represented 18% of the population and 25% of the sampling. The sampling found two structural models: the traditional tripod model (45%) and the core-and-periphery (55%). Types 1.0 and 1.5 emphasized American and English/ British literatures, Type 1.0 by genres, and Type 1.5 by surveys; Type 2.0 stressed those literatures, but proliferated writing electives.</p> <p>Content weaknesses included the (a) lack of goals; (b) slighting of writing, composition, and rhetoric; and (c) imbalance of 300-level courses. Strengths included (a) offering literary criticism, (b) requiring capstone/seminars, and (c) increasing writing programs. Christian thought appeared in four course categories: (a) biblical content, (b) integration, (c) major authors associated with Christianity, 5th through 19th centuries, and (d) those associated during the 20th century. Milton, Chaucer, and C. S. Lewis dominated.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>The aggregate CCCU English major curriculum appeared to be: 1. Dominated by literature, especially British/English and American literatures 2. Structured in the traditional tripod of literature, composition, and grammar, or in the core-and-periphery model 3. Utilitarian-oriented toward “helping professions,” teaching, and graduate studies 4. Static with minimized composition, writing, rhetoric, linguistics, and non- traditional literatures 5. Accommodating of writing electives 6. Preserving of field-coverage in upper-level literature courses and 7. British-Christian influenced, reflecting Christian ideas through British historical, cultural, white-male perspective(s).</p>","abstract_has_math":false,"creators":["Crandon, Maralee Sue"],"institution":null,"degree_name":"Doctor of Philosophy","degree_level":"Dissertation","degree_discipline":null,"degree_department":null,"school":null,"contributors":["Lyndon G. Furst","Larry D. Burton","Douglas A. Jones"],"advisors":[],"committee_chairs":[],"committee_members":[],"year":2008,"date_issued":"2008-01-01T08:00:00Z","date_published":"2008-01-01T08:00:00Z","updated_at":"2026-07-24T00:53:24Z","subjects":["English","Undegraduate","Curriculum","Education","Curriculum and Instruction","English Language and Literature"],"languages":[],"rights":[],"rights_urls":[],"identifier_entries":[]},"links":{"outbound_url":"https://digitalcommons.andrews.edu/dissertations/1710","outbound_label":"Repository record","outbound_source":"dc:identifier"},"metadata_groups":[{"id":"people","label":"People","entries":[{"key":"dc:contributor","label":"Contributor","values":["Lyndon G. Furst","Larry D. Burton","Douglas A. Jones"]},{"key":"dc:creator","label":"Author","values":["Crandon, Maralee Sue"]}]},{"id":"academic_context","label":"Academic Context","entries":[{"key":"dc:date.available","label":"Dc Date Available","values":["2020-04-10T07:00:00Z"]},{"key":"thesis:degree_level","label":"Degree Level","values":["Dissertation"]},{"key":"thesis:degree_name","label":"Degree Name","values":["Doctor of Philosophy"]}]},{"id":"subjects_keywords","label":"Subjects and Keywords","entries":[{"key":"dc:subject","label":"Dc Subject","values":["English","Undegraduate","Curriculum","Education","Curriculum and Instruction","English Language and Literature"]}]},{"id":"identifiers","label":"Identifiers","entries":[{"key":"dc:identifier","label":"Identifier","values":["https://digitalcommons.andrews.edu/dissertations/1710"]}]},{"id":"additional","label":"Additional Metadata","entries":[{"key":"dc:description.abstract","label":"Abstract","values":["Problem
This study made the initial exploration of English major curricula among 101 members of the 2000-2001 Council for Christian Colleges and Universities (CCCU), describing their nature and state and discerning evidence of Christian thought.
Method
Stewart’s (1989) Modified Categories of English Majors and Eisner’s (1991) education criticism provided frameworks to categorize all curricula and to describe a purposeful sampling of 20 selected by region, religious, and enrollment.
Results
Types 1.0 Straight Literature and 1.5 Primarily Literature majors represented 78% of the population and 75% of the sampling; Type 2.0 More Flexible majors represented 18% of the population and 25% of the sampling. The sampling found two structural models: the traditional tripod model (45%) and the core-and-periphery (55%). Types 1.0 and 1.5 emphasized American and English/ British literatures, Type 1.0 by genres, and Type 1.5 by surveys; Type 2.0 stressed those literatures, but proliferated writing electives.
Content weaknesses included the (a) lack of goals; (b) slighting of writing, composition, and rhetoric; and (c) imbalance of 300-level courses. Strengths included (a) offering literary criticism, (b) requiring capstone/seminars, and (c) increasing writing programs. Christian thought appeared in four course categories: (a) biblical content, (b) integration, (c) major authors associated with Christianity, 5th through 19th centuries, and (d) those associated during the 20th century. Milton, Chaucer, and C. S. Lewis dominated.
Conclusions
The aggregate CCCU English major curriculum appeared to be: 1. Dominated by literature, especially British/English and American literatures 2. Structured in the traditional tripod of literature, composition, and grammar, or in the core-and-periphery model 3. Utilitarian-oriented toward “helping professions,” teaching, and graduate studies 4. Static with minimized composition, writing, rhetoric, linguistics, and non- traditional literatures 5. Accommodating of writing electives 6. Preserving of field-coverage in upper-level literature courses and 7. British-Christian influenced, reflecting Christian ideas through British historical, cultural, white-male perspective(s).
"]},{"key":"dc:title","label":"Title","values":["An Initial Exploration of the Undergraduate English Major Curricula Issued by the 2000-2001 Member Schools of the Council for Christian Colleges and Universities"]}]}],"canonical_facts":{"dc:contributor":["Lyndon G. Furst","Larry D. Burton","Douglas A. Jones"],"dc:creator":["Crandon, Maralee Sue"],"dc:date.available":["2020-04-10T07:00:00Z"],"dc:description.abstract":["Problem
This study made the initial exploration of English major curricula among 101 members of the 2000-2001 Council for Christian Colleges and Universities (CCCU), describing their nature and state and discerning evidence of Christian thought.
Method
Stewart’s (1989) Modified Categories of English Majors and Eisner’s (1991) education criticism provided frameworks to categorize all curricula and to describe a purposeful sampling of 20 selected by region, religious, and enrollment.
Results
Types 1.0 Straight Literature and 1.5 Primarily Literature majors represented 78% of the population and 75% of the sampling; Type 2.0 More Flexible majors represented 18% of the population and 25% of the sampling. The sampling found two structural models: the traditional tripod model (45%) and the core-and-periphery (55%). Types 1.0 and 1.5 emphasized American and English/ British literatures, Type 1.0 by genres, and Type 1.5 by surveys; Type 2.0 stressed those literatures, but proliferated writing electives.
Content weaknesses included the (a) lack of goals; (b) slighting of writing, composition, and rhetoric; and (c) imbalance of 300-level courses. Strengths included (a) offering literary criticism, (b) requiring capstone/seminars, and (c) increasing writing programs. Christian thought appeared in four course categories: (a) biblical content, (b) integration, (c) major authors associated with Christianity, 5th through 19th centuries, and (d) those associated during the 20th century. Milton, Chaucer, and C. S. Lewis dominated.
Conclusions
The aggregate CCCU English major curriculum appeared to be: 1. Dominated by literature, especially British/English and American literatures 2. Structured in the traditional tripod of literature, composition, and grammar, or in the core-and-periphery model 3. Utilitarian-oriented toward “helping professions,” teaching, and graduate studies 4. Static with minimized composition, writing, rhetoric, linguistics, and non- traditional literatures 5. Accommodating of writing electives 6. Preserving of field-coverage in upper-level literature courses and 7. British-Christian influenced, reflecting Christian ideas through British historical, cultural, white-male perspective(s).
"],"dc:identifier":["https://digitalcommons.andrews.edu/dissertations/1710"],"dc:subject":["English","Undegraduate","Curriculum","Education","Curriculum and Instruction","English Language and Literature"],"dc:title":["An Initial Exploration of the Undergraduate English Major Curricula Issued by the 2000-2001 Member Schools of the Council for Christian Colleges and Universities"],"thesis:degree_level":["Dissertation"],"thesis:degree_name":["Doctor of Philosophy"]},"updated_at":"2026-07-24T00:53:24Z"}