This page provides a brief summary of findings from the University of Michigan's Undergraduate Curriculum Development Testbed (UCDT) as of February 1999. This briefing document is based upon data collected through an independently conducted evaluation undertaken since the inception of UCDT. The interim reports and data summaries that were produced through these activities, as well as additional information on the evaluation effort can be found at the general UCDT evaluation web site. This summary was created by Eric Dey, based upon documents written and information developed by Greg Barrett and Joseph Fenty (members of the UCDT evaluation team).   Summary of Findings Development, Deployment, and Evaluation of an Interdisciplinary Undergraduate Curriculum Development Testbed A project funded by the National Science Foundation program on Institution-Wide Reform of Undergraduate Education in Science, Mathematics, Engineering, and Technology   Program Background and Institutional Context Since July 1996, a team of professors from six schools and eight departments has been building the Undergraduate Curriculum Development Testbed (UCDT). This initiative was funded jointly by the National Science Foundation's Institution-Wide Reform in Undergraduate Education in Science, Mathematics, Engineering and Technology program and the University of Michigan. The Testbed built upon a pre-existing faculty collaboration to develop an interdisciplinary sequence of undergraduate lecture courses and laboratory modules in earth system science and global change. The overall goal of this initiative was to better understand institutional and systemic barriers to major expansion of interdisciplinary instruction and interdisciplinary curricula by establishing improved methodologies for the infusion of interdisciplinary courses and materials into the undergraduate programs of major research universities. The origins of the UCDT project can be traced to a number of research and educational initiatives at the University of Michigan. From a substantive perspective, the 1990 establishment of the Project for the Interdisciplinary Study of Global Change -- often referred to as the Global Change Project (GCP) -- helped establish the intellectual foundation of the UCDT effort. The GCP itself was largely a research initiative that was focused on creating interactions among faculty and students that cut across disciplinary boundaries, and included an educational component that was primarily focused on graduate education. Over time, the main purpose of GCP evolved to include undergraduate education through the establishment of a Curriculum Development Group, which was composed of a team of faculty from units throughout the University. This group created a novel introductory undergraduate sequence called Introduction to Global Change, Part I and II (U110 and U111). The curriculum was approved by the College of Literature, Science & the Arts (LS&A) -- the largest and most influential campus unit at the University of Michigan -- in 1992. In addition to the intellectual impetus created by the Global Change Project, certain aspects of the UCDT can also be identified in a number of educational reform efforts underway at Michigan. For example, the 1990 report, A Michigan Education, presented the results of a careful and systematic review of the undergraduate program at the University of Michigan. This report found that teaching was undervalued at U of M and other research universities. As a result of the report, the Dean of LS&A, the Provost, and the President set out to increase the valuation of teaching, both in reality and perception, among faculty and administrators. Through a combination of financial commitments and initiatives the University of Michigan has attempted to establish a new momentum and sense of purpose in undergraduate education. It is from this context and background that in 1995, the Curriculum Development Group (CDG) developed a proposal to the NSF's Institution-Wide Reform of Undergraduate Education Initiative. In the proposal, the CDG argued that the primary responsibility of the research university is to imbue the next generation with the benefits and the insights gained through scientific research. The CDG concluded that differential support structures and rewards for "teaching" and "research" functions within the University of Michigan (and similar institutions) had, in many ways, impeded progress in undergraduate education. As a result, the Curriculum Development Group argued that large research institutions must strive to return to an appropriate harmony between teaching and research. In order to return to this harmony, the CDG proposed to establish the Undergraduate Curriculum Development Testbed. The ultimate goal of the Testbed was to better understand institutional and systemic barriers to major expansion of interdisciplinary instruction and interdisciplinary curricula, to develop and test means of eliminating those barriers, and to develop templates and modules for interdisciplinary course development that could be exported to other areas. The CDG stated that the key elements of the Testbed would include: Establishing a university-wide introductory course sequence in global change and creating a capstone course in Earth-system science. Additionally, the Testbed would evaluate this course sequence for its potential to serve as a model for interdisciplinary course sequences; develop advanced instructional tools; and explore enhanced incentives for interdisciplinary teaching. This would include exploration of new teaching credit schemes, and development of research-intensive learning experiences utilizing various research laboratories and other resources maintained by the University. In order to assess the effectiveness of the UCDT, a comprehensive evaluation plan was developed and implemented by an independent team of educational researchers not otherwise affiliated with the UCDT program. This plan called for a small, independent evaluation team to work closely with the Curriculum Development Group to create a meaningful evaluation plan. The development of the evaluation plan was guided by four major principles. First, a formative perspective would dominate evaluation activities to identify and to develop relevant indicators for improving UCDT activities. Second, to ensure that these efforts generate maximally useful information, evaluation would become an integral part of UCDT activities rather than last-minute add-ons. Third, given the broad scope of UCDT goals and activities, the evaluation team would use multiple approaches to understanding UCDT's impact on macro (institutional) and micro (individual) outcomes within this diverse educational community. Finally, every effort would be made to use (adapt) existing resources and instruments for securing evaluation data.   UCDT Objectives Broadly construed, UCDT has three general sets of objectives. One set of objectives and activities relates specifically to the educational outcomes of students enrolled in Global Change courses, and is focused on the development and enhancement of specific courses (and course sequences) as well as tools and technologies than can be used in other interdisciplinary settings. The second set of objectives is focused more on a macro level, and is concerned with institutional outcomes such as the dissemination (and adoption of tools and technologies). A third set of objectives is somewhat related to the second, but is not directed toward specific activities or products, but rather more generally on reforming the faculty reward structure and improving institutional climate toward interdisciplinary teaching. These objectives will be considered in turn.   Educational outcomes objectives In order to help guide program development and evaluation activities, the evaluation team worked with CDG (as well as course instructors who may not have been formal members of the CDG) to identify and articulate a set of ideal student outcomes which should emerge from the instructional and project experience. A set of seven student outcome objectives for Global Change I were identified. Unfortunately, no comparable set of outcome objectives were specifically developed for Global Change II. However, the Curriculum Development Group acknowledges that both courses might share similar ideal student outcomes. To improve students' understanding of the interdisciplinary scientific underpinnings involved in the study of Global Change. To study the evolution of the physical world to enable students to better appreciate the temporal and spatial scales of changes that have occurred in the past as well as those that might occur in the future. To understand why Global Change studies require a system perspective in which many interacting components must be described. To become better equipped to contribute to the important debates concerning global resource management, environment, environmental impact, and societal adaptation strategies. To learn to use the vast resources of the Internet to find and use environmental information. To learn to develop simple dynamical models of Earth system processes and to understand the importance of computer modeling of earth's complex physical systems as well as the limitations of their use. To learn about the inadequacies in the data and knowledge regarding Global Change; and, to learn about emerging strategies to improve the state of our knowledge. The resulting evaluation plan for the Global Change curriculum utilized a series of instruments to measure the two courses' impact on the accomplishment of these objectives. The evaluation instruments included a series of web-based student surveys: a baseline assessment, a midterm assessment, and a final assessment. Other evaluation techniques used included: faculty interviews, classroom and laboratory observations, focus group interviews, early course assessment techniques, and a variety of other classroom assessment techniques. The results presented below are drawn from the results from the 1997-98 academic year. Additional data and interpretative summaries of the evaluation results can be found in the Report section of the UCDT evaluation web site.   Results In general, the evaluation results point to increased student engagement, learning, and satisfaction as the Global Change courses have been refined over time. The use of several instructors from different disciplines appears to contribute to students' ability to understand global change concepts, while potential transition problems between instructors has been minimized by careful coordination within the instructional team. Students also report that the courses had improved their ability to think critically and to participate in debates about Global Change issues. In addition, more than eight in ten of the students indicated that they learned a good deal of factual material. The use of technology -- both in delivering course content through the World Wide Web and through data modeling and analysis with STELLA and ArcView software -- is viewed positively by most students. For example, by the conclusion of the Global Change I course, more than half of the students indicated that STELLA had helped them understand Global Change concepts and principles and the relationship among different variables. About half of the students also said that they felt confident in their ability to use STELLA to construct models. Overall, two-thirds of the students agreed that the labs contained the appropriate blend of lab discussions, computer assignments (i.e., STELLA), and movies to meet their learning needs. By the end of the course, nearly all of the students reported they could easily locate information on the web, and they felt confident in their ability to use the web to gather information about global change. Approximately eight in ten students reported the web made a significant contribution to their learning. Slightly more than half of the students reported that they used the web skills developed in the course to investigate areas that interest them. In addition, over sixty per cent of the students claimed they used their newly acquired web skills to complete academic work for other classes. Although these results indicate general success at achieving the identified educational outcomes, a few student concerns persist. First, students report a moderate degree of disconnection between lecture and lab topics, and second, technical problems with the computers in labs frustrate students (and sometimes confound lab instructors). Progress toward resolving these issues continues. It should be noted that the evaluation results to date have focused on data collected through student surveys. Work on the development of more direct measures of learning and cognitive development began in earnest with the Winter 1998 semester. The evaluation team coordinated with the Graduate Student Instructors (GSIs) to develop cognitive outcomes which were embedded in the laboratory curriculum. The cognitive outcomes were designed to articulate analytic abilities, and problem solving and technical skills. Various problems emerged when the GSIs attempted to operationalize the outcomes they developed. The data collection instrument (a take-home assignment) was only marginally successful. A second collection of cognitive data was undertaken in the Fall 1998 semester, and the results of this effort are currently being analyzed and will be posted to the evaluation web site when completed.   Institutional objectives In order to implement an evaluation of the institutional, or macro level objectives, the evaluation team used the set of eight institutional outcome statements which were elaborated in the original proposal to the National Science Foundation. Those objectives included: Create a university-wide introductory course sequence in global change Create an upper division, capstone course in Earth system science Develop pedagogical tools: a) create multimedia laboratory modules b) create customized educational CD-ROMS c) develop hands-on experimental and computational components for inquiry-based learning d) create software tools and lab modules for infusion into the curriculum both on- and off-campus Require students to use the WWW and other Internet services as learning tools. Encourage students to utilize the NSF-sponsored U of M Digital Library Foster a partnership with the 21 colleges and universities participating in the NASA Earth System Science Education Program Foster a partnership with the 9 colleges and universities in the Michigan Space Grant Program Foster a partnership with the University of Michigan's ongoing Undergraduate Research Opportunity Program. Our first order of business will be to report briefly on the Curriculum Development Group's progress on all of the institutional outcome activities. Following that, we will report in-depth on the CDG's success in identifying the climate for interdisciplinary teaching at the University of Michigan and in developing enhanced incentives and support for interdisciplinary teaching through the direct participation of the deans of the schools of the faculty involved.   Results Relating to the creation of a university-wide introductory course sequence in global change, Introduction to Global Change I and II are already in existence. The Curriculum Development Group is planning to have a proposal for Introduction to Global Change III on the agenda of the Curriculum Committee of the College of Literature, Science & the Arts during the 1998-99 academic year. Plans are also in the offing for the Capstone course in global change, though the proposal may not be on the LS&A Curriculum Committee's agenda during the Winter 1999 semester. As noted previously, the CDG has developed and updated the multimedia laboratory modules throughout the two years of the NSF grant. These laboratory exercises have incorporated computational components and experimental experiences through using the dynamical modeling software STELLA and the Global Information System software package ArcView. All of the laboratory exercises have been posted to the course home page on the World Wide Web (WWW). This will allow for diffusion to and possible use of the lab exercises by Earth System Science professionals around the World. Customized educational CD-ROMS have not been developed, but they have been discussed periodically. Other priorities took precedence over their development. Additionally, increased network bandwidth as well as the constantly updated content of the courses makes the need for static CD-ROMS less clear. Since the Introduction to Global Change web page incorporates all of the lecture notes and laboratory exercises, students in the course are not only encouraged to use the WWW, but compelled to use it in order to be prepared for the course examinations. As noted in the earlier mentioned final reports, over forty per cent of the students in Global Change II took advantage of the links to other sources of information about global change issues which the CDG provided. Though not questioned about it in the evaluation, students were encouraged to utilize the NSF-sponsored U of M Digital Library during the very first lab session on utilizing the Internet as a reference tool. Additionally, strong partnerships have been forged with the 21 colleges and universities of the NASA Earth System Science Education Program (ESSE), including the hosting of an ESSE Summer Workshop in June of 1998. Another solid partnership has been established with the 9 colleges and universities of the Michigan Space Grant Program. Key members of the CDG and the UCDT faculty advisory Group assisted in a instructing a series of workshops on applications of the STELLA dynamical modeling software for Kindergarten through Grade 12 educators over the past year. Finally, each semester of the grant period one or more students who are participating in the University of Michigan's Undergraduate Research Opportunity Program (UROP) have been employed by the Curriculum Development Group. These UROP students have assisted with course development activities and assisted in finding useful links to sources of information which the students who are enrolled in the course can utilize.   Institutional Climate and Rewards Related to Interdisciplinary Teaching The remainder of this report deals with two important institutional outcome objectives. Taken from the institutional outcomes described above, these are: Identify the climate for interdisciplinary teaching at the University of Michigan Develop enhanced incentives and support for interdisciplinary teaching through the direct participation of deans from several schools First, we look at the joint efforts of the Curriculum Development Group and the Evaluation Team to identify the institutional climate for interdisciplinarity at the University of Michigan. Then, we review the CDG's efforts to develop enhanced incentives and support for interdisciplinary teaching through the direct participation of the deans of the several schools.   Results The administrators interviewed for this study, in general, echo the view that interdisciplinary teaching and research are highly valued at the University of Michigan. The literature about interdisciplinary teaching highlights a number of benefits such courses have for teaching and learning. The views of administrators in the central administration are congruent with this literature. These administrators believe interdisciplinary teaching may encourage important discoveries and improve the educational experiences of students. One Associate Dean who was intereviewed reported that interdisciplinary team teaching, as we defined it, is rare and is poorly received by students. He believes students are more willing to support an interdisciplinary course when the course is taught by a single professor (probably one with a joint appointment) as opposed to a course taught by multiple instructors. This dean's opinion is important because from his position as the chief administrator for his college's curriculum committee, he is in an important position of influence. Thus, while central administrators are enthusiastic about interdisciplinary team teaching, administrators closest to the campus units may be substantively more cautious. This Associate Dean made another important point. He argued that meaningful relationships among faculty in different departments emerge from mutual research interests. If research agendas provide the true impetus for interdisciplinary teaching, then the central administration might encourage interdisciplinary teaching by funding projects which combine the research and curriculum development functions. Projects that help faculty in funding their research and require them to develop curriculum products are more likely to better the interests both of students and of the institution. In general, the administrators interviewed acknowledge the difficulties that faculty members encounter when they participate in interdisciplinary teaching projects. Interdisciplinarians often do not get the credit they deserve. The impediments identified in the literature -- resource constraints, steep learning curves, problems evaluating the work -- appear to be operating at the University of Michigan. Faculty who participate in interdisciplinary teaching projects are probably going to be fighting an uphill battle. One primary means through which administrators shape the institution is through budgetary policies. The University of Michigan has been through a difficult set of budgetary policy changes. Under one approach that was proposed by the previous campus administration (but never fully implemented), funds followed enrollment in courses. Students were seen as paying customers who had to be courted. As a consequence, this model created a fair amount of entrepreneurship and competitiveness between administrators in the different schools and colleges. Under these conditions, campus units were not inclined to collaborate unless financial incentives were available. As a countervailing force, special funding from the Office of the Vice President for Research (OVPR) and the Office of the Provost was planned to help support interdisciplinary research and teaching. With the installation of a new President, the proposed budgetary approach described above was never implemented because the incoming President believed it was deleterious to students and it inhibited collegiality and cooperation among the faculty. As a consequence, the new Provost was charged with reverting to the old budgetary system under which funds follow enrolled majors. The reintroduction of this model appears to have quelled some of the competition for students between administrators, but it has done nothing to improve the climate for interdisciplinary teaching. With tuition dollars remaining in college or school responsible for the student's declared major, the costs of instructing a student from another field actually becomes a financial drain on the school or college offering the course. To compensate for continuing concerns about instructional costs and revenues, plans have been developed to combine the efforts of the OVPR, the Office of the Provost, and the Rackham School of Graduate Studies to provide "one-stop shopping" for faculty interested in securing funding for interdisciplinary teaching and research. It is important to note that both budgetary approaches contemplated recently at the University of Michigan have required budgetary policies to support the continuation of interdisciplinary activities within the University. We believe that without these compensatory policies the development of new interdisciplinary curricula would be greatly curtailed. Scholars who have studied the participation of untenured faculty in interdisciplinary teaching have found that these faculty may suffer as a result. Untenured interdisciplinarians run the risk of having too few publications, publications in less prestigious journals, and diminished support from faculty and administrators within their departments. The administrators we interviewed expressed concern for untenured faculty. One was emphatic: "I think it's very dangerous to careers of untenured faculty to encourage them to launch out in ways that are not going to establish them in the administrative division that will be making recommendations about tenure and promotion." Interdisciplinary teaching is not going to "establish" an untenured faculty member in their discipline. In fact, it may estrange the untenured faculty member from his or her department by sending the wrong message about the Junior faculty member's priorities. Interdisciplinary courses are vulnerable to staff changes, budgetary shortages, turf disputes, and a collapse in leadership. These conditions are not entirely unintentional. In the curricular environment of a large research university, a number of forces are at play. Courses that have the most compelling intellectual basis, draw substantial numbers of students, and garner political support have a chance to become incorporated into the core curriculum. Courses that fail to muster the needed support fade into oblivion. The Provost believes that Michigan is a stronger institution because "we have a constant incubation of new interdisciplinary teaching." The administrators recommended a number of steps that can be used to improve the milieu for interdisciplinary teaching. All of the administrators supported the continued use of central administration funds to seed interdisciplinary activity. This funding will provide the incentives needed to get interdisciplinary programs up and running. The coordination of this funding and the evaluation of project proposals may become the responsibility of a single institutional committee. A consortium composed of the Office of the Vice President for Research, the Office of the Provost, and the Rackham Graduate School may play the pivotal role in this arrangement. In addition, a centralized committee charged with shepherding courses designated as University or "U" courses may look after this special class of interdisciplinary courses. As the UCDT grant cycle draws to an end, the Curriculum Development Group has been exploring sources of financial support. Negotiations to institutionalize support for the Testbed have been conducted with individual deans and the provost. Thanks to dramatically increased enrollments and the aforementioned negotiations, four Graduate Student Instructor positions have been institutionalized by two of the colleges. Two GSI positions have been funded by the Department of Atmospheric, Oceanic and Space Sciences in the College of Engineering and one GSI position each from the Biology and Geoscience Departments of the College of Literature, Science & the Arts. Even so, additional outside funding will need to be found to continue the course in it's present form after the end of the current grant.   Concluding Observations As the initial funding cycle of the Undergraduate Curriculum Development Testbed nears completion, the results obtained through the independent evaluation suggest that this program has largely been successful. The evaluation results show that the Global Change I and II courses are successfully engaging students in important topics, as well as providing them with authentic experiences with computer-based tools that will likely become increasingly important in their lives. The instructional team associated with these courses continues to seek direct feedback from students through classroom assessment techniques, and seeks to continuously improve the courses on the basis of this information. A good deal of activity and progress has also been directed at the institutional objectives of the Testbed. Although it is arguably the case that the dissemination and reform agendas of UCDT are not as fully developed as the courses, but it should be noted that it is difficult to realistically equate progress across these areas. Faculty have much more direct control over course activities than they do over dissemination and reform, which are by their nature cooperative activities. Moreover, given that the faculty reward structure has been shaped by many decades of institutional and disciplinary history, demonstrable reform is unlikely to occur over the course of a three-year project. This is not to say, however, that progress has not been made. Although these institutional objectives have not yet been fully realized, it is nevertheless the case that these issues are now explicitly part of the leadership agenda at the University of Michigan, in part due to the activities of the UCDT team. For example, UCDT team members have been involved in helping shape and support the new Provost's statements on interdisciplinarity, which specifically acknowledged the centrality of the UCDT experiment in interdisciplinary team teaching. In addition, UCDT team member have been involved in: Creating a new Dean's Council on the Environment Revising the budgetary model to better support interdisciplinary teaching and research Institutionalizing the support of Graduate Student Instructors on an intercollegiate basis Promoting the "role of the professoriate retreat," which charges the U-M to develop a plan for better integration of research and education Creating a new model for minors in LS&A Developing an upcoming national policy conference (e.g., the Wiesner symposium) on integration of research and teaching Establishing new programs (e.g., within OVPR and UROP) supporting the development of interdisciplinary course content Providing presentations at the provost's seminar on teaching Demonstrating the effective use of instructional technology Although the cause and effect relationships are never perfectly clear in the complex operating environment of a large research university, it is clear that the Testbed and its participating faculty have played a strong role in shaping the thinking of the University community on these important issues. The Testbed cannot, of course, claim singular credit for creating these institutional agendas, but it seems clear that the Testbed was a very important element in the confluence of forces shaping these agendas. This represents tremendous programmatic progress over a short period of time, and helps provide a solid foundation for leveraging future progress toward the original goals of the Undergraduate Curriculum Development Testbed project.

Last content update: 17 February 1999
Last html update: 13 February 1999