Interdisciplinary Undergraduate Curriculum Development Testbed Institution-Wide Reform of Undergraduate Education in Science, Mathematics, Engineering, and Technology
The report 1990, A Michigan Education -- sponsored by the dean of the College of Literature, Sciences, and Arts (LS&A)--conducted 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 the faculty and administrators. Through a combination of financial commitments and initiatives U of M has attempted to establish a new momentum and sense of purpose in undergraduate education. The University of Michigan has embarked on a program of institution-wide reform in undergraduate education to creatively effect dramatic improvements in the integration of faculty research expertise in undergraduate education, through curricular and extra-curricular means. To accomplish this goal the University has partially funded several curriculum initiatives. The Undergraduate Curriculum Development Testbed is a University (UCDT--see Appendix A for more details) and NSF funded program initiative which was originally focused on the further development of interdisciplinary course sequences in global change (an area in which the University has significant strengths in both research and instruction). The limited initiative evolved into a much larger program designed to encourage systemic change at the University of Michigan. The ultimate goal of the Testbed is to develop, deploy, and evaluate new methodologies for the infusion of interdisciplinary undergraduate curricula into major research universities. In 1990, the president of U of M, Dr. James J. Duderstadt, initiated the university's Project for the Interdisciplinary Study of Global Change (GCP). The main purpose of GCP was to facilitate cross-cutting interactions among faculty and students. A team of faculty from units scattered across the university immediately started to work on a novel introductory undergraduate sequence called Introduction to Global Change, Part I and II (U110 and U111), a sequence that was taught for the first time in 1992.
|
| Outcomes of Instruction | Definition | Examples of Performance |
| 1. Intellectual skills | ability to apply a rule | learning how to identity a sonnet by its rhyme pattern |
| 2. Cognitive strategy | capabilities that govern the individual's own learning | using a model to solve a novel problem |
| 3. Verbal information | declarative knowledge-the information we are able to recall | stating the provisions of the fourth Amendment to the Constitution |
| 4. Motor skills | a skill that can be physically demonstrated | planning the edge of a board; printing the letter E; keyboarding |
| 5. Attitude | establishing a specific attitude toward a thing. A persistent state that modifies the individual's choices of action | choosing to read literature; choosing running as a regular form of exercise |
Instructional events are specific external processes designed to support the internal process of learning
Gagne's Instructional Events
| Instructional Events | Relation to Learning Process |
| 1. Gaining attention | The goal is to commanding the learner's attention. The student can be prepared for learning through moving displays, music, or the teacher banging on the desk. |
| 2. Informing the learner of the objective | The leaner should be informed about the kind of performance that will be required to evidence learning outcomes that have been achieved. |
| 3. Stimulating recall of prerequisite learning | Learning is depend on previous knowledge and perceptions. The prompter should utilize some previous capabilities the learner has acquired through past experiences. |
| 4. Presenting the stimulus material | The prompter should present the learning materials such that the critical elements in the lesson are identified and highlighted. The event should be coordinated to emphasize feature for selective perception. |
| 5. Providing the learning guidance | Learning may be scaffolded through a series of communications in the form of hints or questions. The amount of hinting and prompting involved in the learning guidance event will vary with the kind of learner. Too much guidance may seem condescending to the quick learner, whereas too little can simply lead to frustration on the part of the slow learner. |
| 6. Eliciting the performance | provide the learner with the opportunity to demonstrate that the actual internal combining event of learning has taken place. |
| 7. Providing feedback about performance correctness | provide feedback that rewards good performance and encourages hard work |
| 8. Assessing the performance | assess the learning outcomes |
| 9. Enhancing retention and transfer | when information or knowledge is to be recalled, the existence of the meaningful context in which the material has been learned appears to offer the best assurance that the information can be reinstated |
The instrument below was designed to help the evaluation team assess ELEs. The individual items were constructed using suggestion from Gagne's model and the team's ideas.
Dimension for Critiquing Software
Application Type (i.e., Tutorial, Simulation, Tools--Appendix D):
(Note: different scales may be used to judge the value of the dimensions under consideration. For example, it may be appropriate to use excellent =1; good=2; fair=3; poor=4; not applicable = 5.)
| dimensions | scale | comments |
| 1. Congruency of software goals/design with the course goals | ||
| 2. Congruency of software goals/design with the needs of the intended learner | ||
| 3. Congruency of software with the relevant instructional paradigm or theory (e.g., Gagne's Instructional Events Model) | ||
| 4. Pace of instructional events | ||
| 5. Learner control over the instructional events (e.g., level of difficulty; sequence) | ||
| 6. Use of factors that may positively affect intrinsic motivation (e.g., challenge, fantasy, curiosity, fun, warmth) | ||
| 7. Use of factors that may positively affect extrinsic motivation (e.g., cooperation, competition, recognition, reward) | ||
| 8. Feedback about achievement (e.g., rewards, information) | ||
| 9. Screen output (readability, clarity of screen layout, aesthetic of composition, appropriate use of graphics) | ||
| 10. Audio output (e.g., incidental sounds, direct use of audio for instruction) | ||
| 11. Animation used to contribute towards the achievement of learning outcomes | ||
| 12. User interface (e.g., crash proof, simple instructions at first, suppression of extraneous items, continuous display of critical instructions, error handling, use of menus, use of input devices appropriate to varied needs/preferences or users) | ||
| 13. Utilization of hardware (e.g., I/O, RAM, CPU, etc.) | ||
| 14. Support materials (e.g., print, parsimonious instructions, trouble shooting guide) | ||
| 15. Overall assessment of quality |
Evaluation Plan for Systemic Reform AgendaThe University of Michigan is not unlike other research universities when it comes to interdisciplinarity. The University of Michigan has strong academic departments that exert considerable influence over faculty scholarship. The majority of the faculty confine themselves to disciplinary activities. As faculty mature in professional rank, some faculty experiment with inter-departmental research and teaching.
At the U of M their are many examples of faculty who have formed inter-departmental teaching and research teams. The evidence seems to indicate that this kind of grassroots organizing is the dominant form of extra-disciplinary activity. Interdisciplinarity appears in more structured formats within the research centers and institutes which ring the campus.
The Institute for Social Research and the Center for the Study of Women are examples of University of Michigan sponsored units which have faculty who conduct interdisciplinary research. These units are like magnets for faculty who want to do interdisciplinary research.
To accurately evaluate the current and future interdisciplinary context at the U of M would require a substantial protocol of surveys, interviews, archival analysis employed over many years. The National Science Foundation and central administration at the U of M has funded UCDT, in the current cycle, for two years. In those two years, UCDT is expected to create a revamped Global Change curriculum, and create tools and templates to change the institutional culture. Obviously, the likelihood of doing and measuring the latter goal is small. The U of M is like an ocean-liner, it can not turn on a dime. It may take many miles of ocean and much time before the effects of UCDT are recognizable.
Given this back ground, the evaluation team must make informed decisions about the UCDT products which have the potential to create systemic change. The evaluation team will evaluate the products' utility and document the perceptions of UCDT personnel regarding the systemic nature of the curricular products.
The evaluation team created a protocol to collect information about the climate for interdisciplinary teaching at the University of Michigan. Through purposive sampling we identified several individuals with knowledge and experience in this area. Three key faculty members of the UCDT curriculum development team and several deans and administrators were interviewed. The professors, all tenured and from different disciplines, were asked about their perceptions of previous and current interdisciplinary experiences; the influence of the institutional, disciplinary, and departmental context on interdisciplinary activity; the transferability of the UCDT experience to other programs at the university; and the resources and/or structural changes needed to support interdisciplinarity, in general, at the University of Michigan. In addition, the evaluation team reviewed university documents that addressed the issue of interdisciplinary teaching and/or research. This background information was reviewed to form general impressions of context of interdisciplinary the U of M..
Topology of Interdisciplinary. Latucca (1996), in her dissertation Envisioning
Interdisciplinarity, investigated three aspects of interdisciplinary
research and teaching: contexts, processes, and outcomes . She developed
a topology that offers valuable distinctions among interdisciplinary programs.
Included in the topology are informed disciplinary; synthetic interdisciplinarity;
transdisciplinarity; conceptual interdisciplinarity (see Figure1). As evaluators,
it is important that we consider the complexity of establishing the worth
and merit of interdisciplinary programs. Figure 2 contains a number of questions
that the evaluator should consider as they develop their plans, methods,
and reports.
Figure 1. Topology of Interdisciplinarity (Lattuca, 1996; Hurst, 1992)
| 1. Multidisciplinarity (disciplinary courses that are informed by other disciplines) | The disciplinary contributions may be mutual and cumulative, but they are not considered integrated. Communication among disciplines is considered to be minimal--thus it tends to be transitory and limited. |
| 2. Informed Disciplinarity (disciplinary courses that are informed by other disciplines) | Teaching issues and research questions of informed disciplinarity are essential disciplinary in nature, that is, they are motivated by a disciplinary question. When faculty use informed disciplinary teaching they make use of examples from other disciplines to help students make connections between disciplines. Nevertheless, these connections do not change the focus of the class from one discipline to another. This method borrows methods, theories, concepts, or other disciplinary components. |
| 3. Synthetic Interdisciplinarity (courses that link disciplines) Example: A course that examines historical and legal perspectives on public education. | Only when the borrowing described above is motivated by an interdisciplinary question or issue does scholarship qualify as interdisciplinary. Synthetic interdisciplinary occurs when teaching issues and research questions bridge disciplines. These bridging issues and questions are of two subtypes: (1) issues or questions that are found in the intersections of disciplines, and (2) issues and questions that are found in the gaps between disciplines. In the former case the issues questions belongs to both disciplines; in the latter, it belongs to neither. |
4. Transdisciplinarity (focuses is on developing an overarching synthesis) Example: Sociobiology--applies the principles of natural selection and evolutionary biology to the study of animal behavior. |
Application of theories, concepts, or methods across disciplines with the intend of developing an overarching synthesis. The theories, concepts, or methods transcend disciplines and applicable to many fields. The disciplines do not contribute components, but rather provide settings in which to test the transdisciplinary concept, theory, or method. The disciplines become subordinate to the larger framework. |
5. Conceptual Interdisciplinarity (examines issues without a compelling disciplinary basis) Example: Cultural studies, feminist theory, postmodernist, or critical theory. |
Typically begins with a critique focusing on the limitations of disciplinary understandings of the issue or question. The interdisciplinarian then proceeds to create their own framework to answer the question or address the issue. |
Figure 2. Issues to Consider When Evaluating Interdisciplinary Courses
| 1. What type of interdisciplinarity does the curriculum represent? | - understand the scope and intensity of conceptual interaction among the disciplines - use the Latucca topology |
2. In what interdisciplinary context did the curriculum emerged? |
- articulate what brought the faculty together to participate in the project - identify institutional factors affect the climate for interdisciplinarity - identify the disciplinary antecedents |
| 3. What process have faculty used to articulate the interdisciplinary curriculum? To what degree does the curriculum represent the shared vision of the collaborating faculty? To what degree are individual faculty committed to the curriculum? Which faculty will be around long enough to use evaluation data and analysis? | - identify what questions the curriculum is designed to address - describe how faculty defined the course objectives, readings, and assignments - describe conceptual threads that bind the curriculum together - identify faculty and administrators that have a multi-year commitment |
| 4. To what degree are the students prepared for innovative pedagogy? Are they prepared for the new learning experience? | - describe the degree to students are prepared for the curricular experiences which have or have not prepared them for an interdisciplinary experience |
| 5. To what degree does the curriculum exhibit structural integrity? To what extent do students experience "learning jet lag" due to abrupt shifts in pedagogy and expectations among faculty? | - describe the transitions involving instructors and topics - describe the degree to which the faculty share pedagogical practices - do students and/or faculty understand and use their curricular road maps |
| 6. What are the student outcomes? Have the faculty collective articulated measurable student performance objectives? | -outline the student outcomes and their operationalized definitions. - articulate cognitive and affective outcomes. |
| 7. What is the quality of the reading materials (i.e., textbooks, course packs, handouts)? If reading materials have been developed for this curriculum to what degree do they facilitate learning? | - develop a rubric to determine the utility of the reading materials |
| 8. What examinations are available and viable? Will new examinations need to be created? | -describe the validity and reliability of these instruments |
| 9. How will the information be reported to the stakeholders? | - identify how the stakeholders process information |
| 10. What are the long-term prospects for continuation of the project? | - determine the likelihood that the project will continue, and how long the current personnel intend to be associated with the project |
A review of the literature about interdisciplinary research and teaching indicated that there are both impediments and catalyst. The impediments take the form of institutional, disciplinary, and individual factors which collectively function as potent disincentives. Early career faculty tend to be especially venerable to these influences. On the other hand, there are catalyst that enhance the likelihood that interdisciplinary programs will germinate and flourish. Below are ideas about interdisciplinary teaching gleamed from the literature (Latucca, 1996 & Hurst, 1995)
Interdisciplinary Teaching Impediments
Control of disciplinary communities. Disciplinary cultures exert
powerful social and psychological pressures which shape the epistemology
and ontology of faculty. The disciplinary community--through its disciplinary
organizations, conferences, and journals--control the levers of professional
reputation and career advancement. Academic cultures, by in large, determine
the questions that will be investigated and the methods which will employed.
For many faculty the disciplinary culture provides the conceptual framework
from which reality is interpreted. Frameworks that emerge from different
circumstances are typically dismissed.
Academic disciplines are often associated with specific jargon and research methodologies. These symbolic and epistemological hurdles make it difficult for faculty to nurture important interdisciplinary relationships. Interdisciplinarians must invest time and effort to build relationships and research programs. These start up cost tend to be much higher when compared to cost associated with disciplinary research.
Venues for Publication and Conference Presentations. Scholarly
journals are often the means of evaluating the worth of a scholar. Journals
that have disciplinary focus bestow the greatest prestige on the professors
who publish under their auspices. Venues for publishing interdisciplinary
research are fewer and are sometimes seen as purveyors of less than the
best science In academia, reputations are often a function of publications
in disciplinary journals
Evaluation. Traditional evaluation methods of examining research,
teaching, and service focus on individual accomplishments in these areas.
Evaluation of research and teaching are more problematic when a faculty
member engages in interdisciplinary work. It is difficult to create evaluation
criteria which unpack the individual faculty members work when it is packaged
in a collective product. If interdisciplinary activity is to become the
norm new models of personnel evaluation must be deployed.
Department Control. In a research university the academic departments
are the primary agents for executing the institutional mission. Academic
departments are often autonomous, loosely coupled units which are designed
to minimize "communication cost" and to subsidize the "academic
norms of professionalism (Hurst, 1992, p.13)." Academic departments
and their allied academic communities exert tremendous pressure on faculty
to conform to disciplinary norms.
Academic departments typically provide the basis for reward and resource. Funds are disbursed to academic departments to achieve excellence in specific spheres of intellectual influence. The boundaries between academic departments are well understood and respected by faculty and administrators. Faculty who venture outside their academic departments may be seen as siphoning off important resources in pursue of endeavors which have minimal impact on the prestige of the department.
Institutional Resource Allocation. At large research universities,
academic units tend to be loosely coupled to each other financial and intellectually.
Financial management systems, such as Responsibility Center Budgeting (RCB),
encourage academic units to engage in revenue maximizing behavior to optimize
student FTE and research revenues. Each unit is expected to be as self-supporting
as possible. The notion of "each tub on its own bottom" is the
prevailing style of central management.
Binkman and Morgan (1997) say this,
RCB is a system where by all of part of the tuition reflected in enrollments, along with sponsored research and other revenues, is returned to units in proportion to what the unit "earns." In theory, the units controls its own pricing policy and is responsible for all, or nearly all its cost (Berg, 1985). Surpluses and deficits are the responsibility of the unit. Additionally, in most RCB systems, the central administration of an institution oversees a taxing or subvention system where some activities such as libraries, judged to be valued but outside of proper market forces are subsided. Other central services, such as computing or printing, often operate on a charge-back system and must compete with outside vendors (p. 295).
This financial system discourages cross unit collaboration at the grassroots level. Individual faculty in different academic units wishing to collaborate must be conscious of the financial impact of their decisions on their home unit. Sharing student and faculty FTE between units may mean trimming revenues which might otherwise contribute to the bottom line for the home unit. To counteract the financial disincentives to participate in interdisciplinarity, funds acquired through the subvention system may be distributed to faculty initiating interdisciplinary programs.
Central administration, in order to sustain some level of interdisciplinarity, may use the subvention system to provide important seed money to help fledging programs. Nevertheless, the interdisciplinarians have a short window of opportunity to become rooted into the academic infrastructure. New interdisciplinary programs must acquire a stable financial and human capital. Because seed money will soon be exhausted, the interdisciplinarians must financially attach themselves to a department or external funder as well as acquire new professors who are willing and able to participate.
RCB, a system designed to maintain the "substantial independence of subsidiary budgetary units (Brinkman & Morgan, 1997, p. 295, " creates powerful disincentives for interdisciplinary activity. RCB system assigns decision-making about efficiency and effectiveness of programs at the program level. At this level it may be difficulty for deans and program coordinators to understand and to appreciate the contribution an interdisciplinary program makes to the institution as a whole. Even traditional courses, such as those that fall under general education, have been cannibalized by professional schools seeking to maximize financial returns. Some professional schools administer general education programs for their students. Thus, they endrun the traditional offerings of liberal arts colleges within their own institution. Given this competitive environment, it may be difficult for interdisciplinary programs to emerge.
Interdisciplinary Teaching Catalysts
1. Size: small group of disciplinary/interdisciplinary professors (3-7 members) who actively participate in the development of the curriculum
2. Deductively defined conceptual framework that emerges from a perceived gap in curricular offerings
3. Highly interactive team that meets regularly or a strong leader who can offer definitive answers
4. Excellent rapport among team members which emerges out of a strong affinity to a conceptual issue
5. Resources have been allocated toward team building, a communication infrastructure, and evaluation
6. A well defined user group conceptualized by the faculty
7. Adequate recognition and rewards for the curriculum development team from administrators
8. Multi-year commitments among tenured faculty
9. Interdisciplinary research centers (e.g., the Institute for Social Research) and other pre-established interdisciplinary communities (e.g., School of Natural Resources and the Environment)
ReferencesAngelo, T. A. (1993). Classroom assessment techniques: A handbook for college teachers. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Brinkman, P. T. & Morgan, A. W. (1997). Planning and management for a changing environment (pp. 288-306). In M. W. Peterson (Ed.) Improving academic management. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Cousins, J. B. & Earl, L. M. (1992). The case for participatory evaluation. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 14(4), 397-418.
Gagne, R. M., Briggs, L. J. & Wager, W. W. (1992). Principles of instructional design (4th. Edition). Forth Worth, Texas: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich College Publishers.
Hurst, P. J. (1992). The research university as an organizational context. Unpublished dissertation. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan.
Lattuca, L. (1996). Envisioning interdisciplinarity. Unpublished dissertation. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan.
Appendices
Appendix A -
UCDT Project Components
Appendix B - Evaluation Work Plan
Appendix C - Comparison of Midterm and Final
Assessment Results
Appendix
D -Qualities of Good Software by Dr. Jerome Johnston
Last content update: 21 July 1997
Last html update: 23 November 1997
