Integrative Learning
By Rover, Diane T
Integrative Learning Integrative Learning: Mapping the Terrain By Mary Taylor Huber and Pat Hutchings Association of American Colleges and Universities and The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, 2004, 32 pages, ISBN 0-11696-98-9, http:// www.carnegiefoundation.org/ dynamic/publications/ elibrary_pdf_636.pdf Integrative Learning: Opportunities to Connect By Mary Taylor Huber, Cheryl Brown, Pat Hutchings, Richard Gale, Ross Miller, and Molly Breen, Editors Public Report of the Integrative Learning Project sponsored by the Association of American Colleges and Universities and The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, January 2007, http:// www.carnegiefoundation.org/elibrary/integrativelearning
The director of our university Center for Excellence in Learning and Teaching recently provided several pointers to readings on the subject of integrative learning. While I am always looking for interesting pieces to read, this drew special attention because of a project I have been involved with on curriculum integration. The project began as a planning grant from the National Science Foundation Department Level Reform program. It piloted a new curricula model to improve student learning through vertical integration of educational activities using a new program structure called a learning stream, a basic element designed specifically to integrate subject matter across courses. A traditional course sequence is replaced with an integrated stream sequence that creates tighter connections across content from the courses and laboratories.
The project is an example of curriculum integration, or integrated curricula. The January 2005 Journal of Engineering Education, a special issue on the Art and Science of Engineering Education Research, includes a paper by Froyd and Ohland on integrated engineering curricula. [1] This paper gives a comprehensive review of the topic, along with 171 references. Clearly, there is work being done within the engineering education community. Froyd and Ohland report that work on integrated engineering curricula began in 1988. They cite various types of integrated curricular projects and the broader context of learning communities, which create both interdisciplinary and social links to support student learning. The criteria met by the projects under review by Froyd and Ohland include the following: (1) collaboration by faculty members from multiple disciplines in developing and implementing the curricula; (2) availability of assessment data on student outcomes; and (3) students taking either an interdisciplinary course or courses from different disciplines.
The authors consistently address integrated curricula under these criteria. However, the term integrative is introduced and used in several sections, in phrases such as integrative activities, integrative learning, integrative educational goals, integrative thought processes, and integrative approach to complex systems. The authors conclude that integrative learning outcomes and assessment processes are essential to developing integrated curricula, and that no program has done this. This brings us to the emerging area of integrative learning. It sounds familiar, because we have been working on aspects of it in engineering education for some time. However, we will need to go beyond familiarity to engage fully in integrative teaching and learning.
Thus, returning to the pointers from the center director, these led to two publications of the Association of American Colleges and Universities and The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching that are the focus of this Academic Bookshelf article:
1. the monograph “Integrative Learning: Mapping the Terrain” by Mary Taylor Huber and Pat Hutchings; and
2. the public report of the Integrative Learning Project, “Integrative Learning: Opportunities to Connect” edited by Mary Taylor Huber, Cheryl Brown, Pat Hutchings, Richard Gale, Ross Miller, and Molly Breen.
The Integrative Learning monograph is part of The Academy in Transition series by the Association of American Colleges and Universities (AAC&U). Although it places integrative learning within the larger domain of liberal education, the monograph provides an overview that is equally applicable to engineering education. It is divided into the following sections:
* About This Series by Debra Humphreys
* Foreword by Andrea Leskes
* Acknowledgements
* Integrative Learning: Mapping the Terrain
* Appendix: A Statement on Integrative Learning
* Works Cited
* About the Authors
The Statement on Integrative Learning gives the following synopsis:
The undergraduate experience can be a fragmented landscape of general education courses, preparation for the major, co-curricular activities, and “the real world” beyond the campus. But an emphasis on integrative learning can help undergraduates put the pieces together and develop habits of mind that prepare them to make informed judgments in the conduct of personal, professional, and civic life.
Integrative learning comes in many varieties: connecting skills and knowledge from multiple sources and experiences; applying theory to practice in various settings; utilizing diverse and even contradictory points of view, and, understanding issues and positions contextually. Significant knowledge within individual disciplines serves as the foundation, but integrative learning goes beyond academic boundaries.
…
It is important for educators to work together to build knowledge about integrative learning in its many varieties, and about how it is best encouraged and assessed. Developing students’ capacities for integrative learning is central to personal success, social responsibility, and civic engagement in today’s global society. Students face a rapidly-changing and ever-more-interconnected world, in which integrative learning becomes not just a benefit, but a necessity.
The section “Integrative Learning: Mapping the Terrain” consists of subsections on various aspects of integrative learning:
* Learning That Is Greater Than the Sum of Its Parts
* Against the Grain: Challenges to Achieving Integrative Learning
* Intentional Learning
* Intentional Teaching
* Assessment of Integrative Learning
* Building Knowledge About Integrative Learning
* A key to integrative learning that is underscored throughout these subsections is the need to develop students’ capacity to make connections for themselves, and the role that pedagogy plays in this. In the “Parts” subsection, the motivation is that learning should be greater than the sum of its parts. The value of integrative learning is described from the different perspectives of scholars, educators, students, and the workplace. The “Challenges” subsection identifies several of the impediments to implementing integrative learning, some of which are systemic to the institution. For example, an academic department holds itself responsible to train students within the particular discipline or profession. Also seen as problematic is the division of a program of study into a general education component and a major component. Furthermore, some view traditional structures of courses and credits as constraining. The authors cite an edited collection by Wellman and Ehrlich that presents a broad consideration of the student credit hour. [2] The topics include its history, policies and practices, barriers to innovation, faculty instructional workload, accreditation, the federal government, public budgeting, and international educational systems. I found this treatise on the student credit hour particularly interesting, because my aforementioned auricular integration project has dealt with program structures. Finally, Taylor Huber and Hutchings identify the challenge posed by faculty rewards systems not recognizing broader forms of scholarship nor acknowledging the effort required for instruction and assessment of integrative learning.
The subsections on “Intentional Learning” and “Intentional Teaching” highlight that there are mutual expectations of both students and faculty to accomplish integrative learning. Students need to develop the capacity to make connections. This requires students to be strategic, self-directed learners for which reflection and metacognition are evident. Faculty’s role is to help students “go meta,” to provide opportunities to make connections, and this requires faculty to engage in the scholarship of teaching and learning. The subsection on “Assessment” reinforces the Froyd and Ohland conclusion with the observation that there is “underdeveloped assessment territory.” Essential to assessment are the kinds of connections, the contexts, and the ways that they are demonstrated. For example, graduating students would be expected to engage in different kinds and levels of connections than first-year students. Student self-assessment and indirect measures may take on more meaning in assessing integrative learning.
The subsection on “Building Knowledge” is an introduction to the Integrative Learning Project, which is the subject of the public report, “Integrative Learning: Opportunities to Connect.” The goals of the project were (1) to support selected campus projects to advance practices that enhance students’ abilities to learn in more intentional, connected ways, and (2) to develop resources for the higher education community. Ten campuses were selected to develop and assess models and strategies: two community colleges (College of San Mateo in California and LaGuardia Community College in New York); three baccalaureate institutions (Carleton College in Minnesota, the Massachusetts College of Liberal Arts, and the University of Charleston in West Virginia); three master’s universities (Philadelphia University, Salve Regina University in Rhode Island, and the State University of New York College at Oswego); and two doctoral/research universities (Michigan State University and Portland State University). Project activities at each of these campuses are reported at the website. In addition to the campus projects, sections of the public report include: * Introducing Integrative Learning
* What is Integrative Learning?
* Fostering Integrative Learning
* Leading Campus Change
* Essays on Fostering Integrative Learning
In “Leading Campus Change,” the report states:
The experience of campuses participating in the ILP [Integrative Learning Project] suggests that leaders of campus initiatives to strengthen integrative learning should do their best to: 1) make integrative learning a campus-wide concern; 2) design initiatives strategically, 3) support faculty creatively, 4) make a commitment to knowledge-building, 5) recognize that institutionalization is a long-term process; and 6) build networks beyond campus for collaboration and exchange.
The four essays on integrative learning provide overviews in the areas of curriculum, pedagogy, assessment, and faculty development. These are useful resources to continue one’s exploration into integrative learning. The “Fostering Integrative Learning” section links to a special issue of the AAC&U’s Peer Review from Spring 2005, which includes an array of articles with the following titles: Integrative Learning for Liberal Education; Integrative Learning and Assessment; Making Connections: Integrated Learning, Integrated Lives; Integrative Learning Coherence out of Chaos; Integrative Learning, E-portfolios, and the Transfer Student; and Integrative Learning Nationwide: Emerging Themes and Practices. The campus project websites provide specific examples that may offer the greatest insights into various directions for implementation.
The backdrop of the monograph and public report has helped put some of my own educational activities in a new light. I see both the greater potential of the activities as well as the work that remains to be accomplished. For example, we launched a new student leadership development initiative in the college last year (http:// www.eng.iastate.edu/leadership/). A team of faculty, staff, and students spent much of the past year defining the student outcomes for the auricular and co-curricular learning experiences. We elaborated and expanded on the ABET program outcomes to capture new kinds and levels of learning. Indeed, I now see student leadership development as a form of integrative learning. In fact, many of the advanced abilities implied in the ABET outcomes and criteria represent the roots of integrative learning, such as social and cultural awareness, multidisciplinary teaming, culminating engineering design experiences, etc. Engineering educators and students alike have already taken steps toward integrative learning. However, there are many steps to be taken to develop an integrative learning environment that is effective, scalable, and sustainable. As experts have noted, there is a need for integrative learning outcomes and assessment processes. This may be the key, prerequisite step to fully engaging in integrative teaching and learning, as it builds awareness and understanding among faculty and students.
REFERENCES
[1] Froyd, Jeffrey E., and Matthew W. Ohland, “Integrated Engineering Curricula,” Journal of Engineering Education, January 2005, Vol. 94, No. 1, pp. 147-164.
[2] Wellman, Jane, and Thomas Ehrlich, Editors, How the Student Credit Hour Shapes Higher Education: The Tie That Binds, San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, 2003.
Copyright AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR ENGINEERING EDUCATION Jul 2007
(c) 2007 Journal of Engineering Education. Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning. All rights Reserved.