National Academies Press: OpenBook
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2018. The Integration of the Humanities and Arts with Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine in Higher Education: Branches from the Same Tree. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24988.
×
Page R1
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2018. The Integration of the Humanities and Arts with Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine in Higher Education: Branches from the Same Tree. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24988.
×
Page R2
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2018. The Integration of the Humanities and Arts with Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine in Higher Education: Branches from the Same Tree. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24988.
×
Page R3
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2018. The Integration of the Humanities and Arts with Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine in Higher Education: Branches from the Same Tree. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24988.
×
Page R4
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2018. The Integration of the Humanities and Arts with Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine in Higher Education: Branches from the Same Tree. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24988.
×
Page R5
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2018. The Integration of the Humanities and Arts with Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine in Higher Education: Branches from the Same Tree. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24988.
×
Page R6
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2018. The Integration of the Humanities and Arts with Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine in Higher Education: Branches from the Same Tree. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24988.
×
Page R7
Page viii Cite
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2018. The Integration of the Humanities and Arts with Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine in Higher Education: Branches from the Same Tree. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24988.
×
Page R8
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2018. The Integration of the Humanities and Arts with Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine in Higher Education: Branches from the Same Tree. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24988.
×
Page R9
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2018. The Integration of the Humanities and Arts with Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine in Higher Education: Branches from the Same Tree. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24988.
×
Page R10
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2018. The Integration of the Humanities and Arts with Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine in Higher Education: Branches from the Same Tree. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24988.
×
Page R11
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2018. The Integration of the Humanities and Arts with Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine in Higher Education: Branches from the Same Tree. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24988.
×
Page R12
Page xiii Cite
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2018. The Integration of the Humanities and Arts with Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine in Higher Education: Branches from the Same Tree. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24988.
×
Page R13
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2018. The Integration of the Humanities and Arts with Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine in Higher Education: Branches from the Same Tree. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24988.
×
Page R14
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2018. The Integration of the Humanities and Arts with Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine in Higher Education: Branches from the Same Tree. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24988.
×
Page R15
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2018. The Integration of the Humanities and Arts with Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine in Higher Education: Branches from the Same Tree. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24988.
×
Page R16
Page xvii Cite
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2018. The Integration of the Humanities and Arts with Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine in Higher Education: Branches from the Same Tree. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24988.
×
Page R17
Page xviii Cite
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2018. The Integration of the Humanities and Arts with Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine in Higher Education: Branches from the Same Tree. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24988.
×
Page R18
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2018. The Integration of the Humanities and Arts with Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine in Higher Education: Branches from the Same Tree. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24988.
×
Page R19
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2018. The Integration of the Humanities and Arts with Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine in Higher Education: Branches from the Same Tree. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24988.
×
Page R20
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2018. The Integration of the Humanities and Arts with Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine in Higher Education: Branches from the Same Tree. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24988.
×
Page R21
Page xxii Cite
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2018. The Integration of the Humanities and Arts with Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine in Higher Education: Branches from the Same Tree. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24988.
×
Page R22

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

THE INTEGRATION OF THE Humanities and Arts WITH Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine IN HIGHER EDUCATION Branches FROM THE Same Tree David Skorton and Ashley Bear, Editors Committee on Integrating Higher Education in the Arts, Humanities, Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine Board on Higher Education and Workforce Policy and Global Affairs A Consensus Study Report of PREPUBLICATION COPY—Uncorrected Proofs

THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS   500 Fifth Street, NW   Washington, DC 20001 This activity was supported by contracts between the National Academy of Sciences and the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation (#11600619), the National Endowment for the Humanities and the National Endowment for the Arts (#AH253080-16), and the National Academy of Sciences Scientists and Engineers for the Future Fund. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect the views of any organization or agency that provided support for the project. International Standard Book Number-13:  978-0-309-47061-2 International Standard Book Number-10:  0-309-47061-7 Digital Object Identifier:  https://doi.org/10.17226/24988 Library of Congress Control Number:  2018941713 Additional copies of this publication are available for sale from the National Acad- emies Press, 500 Fifth Street, NW, Keck 360, Washington, DC 20001; (800) 624- 6242 or (202) 334-3313; http://www.nap.edu. Copyright 2018 by the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. Printed in the United States of America Suggested citation: National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2018. The Integration of the Humanities and Arts with Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine in Higher Education: Branches from the Same Tree. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: https://doi.org/10.17226/24988. PREPUBLICATION COPY—Uncorrected Proofs

The National Academy of Sciences was established in 1863 by an Act of Congress, signed by President Lincoln, as a private, nongovernmental institu- tion to advise the nation on issues related to science and technology. Members are elected by their peers for outstanding contributions to research. Dr. Marcia McNutt is president. The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964 under the char- ter of the National Academy of Sciences to bring the practices of engineering to advising the nation. Members are elected by their peers for extraordinary contributions to engineering. Dr. C. D. Mote, Jr., is president. The National Academy of Medicine (formerly the Institute of Medicine) was established in 1970 under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences to advise the nation on medical and health issues. Members are elected by their peers for distinguished contributions to medicine and health. Dr. Victor J. Dzau is president. The three Academies work together as the National Academies of Sciences, Engi­ eering, and Medicine to provide independent, objective analysis and n a ­ dvice to the nation and conduct other activities to solve complex problems and inform public policy decisions. The National Academies also encourage education and research, recognize outstanding contributions to knowledge, and increase public understanding in matters of science, engineering, and medicine. Learn more about the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine at www.nationalacademies.org. PREPUBLICATION COPY—Uncorrected Proofs

Consensus Study Reports published by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine document the evidence-based consensus on the study’s statement of task by an authoring committee of experts. Reports typi- cally include findings, conclusions, and recommendations based on information gathered by the committee and the committee’s deliberations. Each report has been subjected to a rigorous and independent peer-review process and it represents the position of the National Academies on the statement of task. Proceedings published by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine chronicle the presentations and discussions at a workshop, symposium, or other event convened by the National Academies. The statements and ­ pinions o contained in proceedings are those of the participants and are not endorsed by other participants, the planning committee, or the National Academies. For information about other products and activities of the National Academies, please visit www.nationalacademies.org/about/whatwedo. PREPUBLICATION COPY—Uncorrected Proofs

COMMITTEE ON INTEGRATING HIGHER EDUCATION IN THE ARTS, HUMANITIES, SCIENCES, ENGINEERING, AND MEDICINE1 DAVID SKORTON (Chair), Secretary, Smithsonian Institution SUSAN ALBERTINE, Senior Scholar, Association of American Colleges & Universities NORMAN AUGUSTINE (NAS/NAE), Retired Chairman and CEO, Lockheed Martin Corporation LAURIE BAEFSKY, Executive Director, Arts Engine and the Alliance for the Arts in Research Universities (a2ru), University of Michigan KRISTIN BOUDREAU, The Paris and Fletcher Distinguished Professor of Humanities, Department Head, Humanities and Arts, Worcester Polytechnic Institute NORMAN BRADBURN, Senior Fellow, NORC, The Tiffany and Margaret Blake Distinguished Service Professor Emeritus, The University of Chicago AL BUNSHAFT, Senior Vice President, Global Affairs and Workforce of the Future, Dassault Systemes’ Americas GAIL BURD, Senior Vice Provost for Academic Affairs, Distinguished Professor, Molecular and Cellular Biology, Cellular and Molecular Medicine, University of Arizona EDWARD DERRICK, Independent Consultant E. THOMAS EWING, Professor of History, Associate Dean, Graduate Studies, Research, and Diversity, The College of Liberal Arts and Human Sciences, Virginia Tech J. BENJAMIN HURLBUT, Associate Professor of Biology and Society, The School of Life Sciences, Arizona State University PAMELA L. JENNINGS, former Program Officer, National Science Foundation CreativeIT Program; CEO, CONSTRUKTS, Inc. YOUNGMOO KIM, Director, The Expressive and Creative Interaction Technologies (ExCITe) Center, Associate Professor of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Drexel University ROBERT MARTELLO, Associate Dean for Curriculum and Academic Programs, Professor of the History of Science and Technology, Olin College GUNALAN NADARAJAN, Dean and Professor, The Penny W. Stamps School of Art and Design, The University of Michigan 1  PaulBevilaqua (NAE), Retired Manager, Advanced Development Programs, Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company, resigned from the committee in November 2017. v PREPUBLICATION COPY—Uncorrected Proofs

THOMAS F. NELSON LAIRD, Associate Professor, Higher Education and Student Affairs Program, and Director, Center for Postsecondary Research, Indiana University Bloomington LYNN PASQUERELLA, President, The Association of American Colleges & Universities SUZANNA ROSE, Founding Associate Provost, Office to Advance Women, Equity, and Diversity, Professor of Psychology and Women’s and Gender Studies, Florida International University BONNIE THORNTON DILL, Dean, College of Arts and Humanities and Professor of Women’s Studies, The University of Maryland LAURA VOSEJPKA, Founding Dean, College of Sciences and Liberal Arts, Kettering University LISA M. WONG, Co-Director, The Arts and Humanities Initiative, Assistant Clinical Professor of Pediatrics, Harvard Medical School Study Staff ASHLEY BEAR, Study Director IRENE NGUN, Research Associate THOMAS RUDIN, Director, Board on Higher Education and Workforce ADRIANA COUREMBIS, Financial Officer JAY LABOV, Senior Advisor for Education and Communication J.D. TALASEK, Director of Cultural Programs KELLYANN JONES-JAMTGAARD, Christine Mirzayan Science and Technology Policy Graduate Fellow ELIZABETH GARBEE, Christine Mirzayan Science and Technology Policy Graduate Fellow AUSTEN APPLEGATE, Senior Program Assistant Consultants STEVE OLSON, Writer MATTHEW MAYHEW, William Ray and Marie Adamson Flesher Professor of Educational Administration, The Ohio State University HANNAH STEWART-GAMBINO, Professor of Government & Law and International Affairs, Lafayette College JENN STROUD-ROSSMANN, Professor of Mechanical Engineering, Lafayette College vi PREPUBLICATION COPY—Uncorrected Proofs

Preface American higher education has for generations been the envy of the world. Whether because of the enormous output of research, scholarship, and creative activity or the great diversity of offerings—running the gamut from community colleges to liberal arts colleges, research universities, conservatories, technical schools, and many other categories—American colleges and universities are widely admired and emulated across the globe. In tracing the history of American higher education, we find much to be proud of, but we also see over the past few decades a growing ten- sion between the broad and integrated education commonly referred to as liberal education and the increasing specialization in higher education as individual disciplines and administrative structures drive a fragmentation of curricula. This tension between broad, integrated education and specialized, disciplinary studies has heightened during periods of economic challenge, particularly since the Great Recession that began in 2008. Students and parents increasingly have focused their aspirations and plans on a vocation- ally driven approach, emphasizing fields where immediate post-graduation employment seems more certain and more remunerative. Ironically, as this movement toward narrower, disciplinary education has progressed inexorably, many employers—even, and, in fact, especially in “high tech” areas—have emphasized that learning outcomes associated with integrated education, such as critical thinking, communication, team- work, and abilities for lifelong learning, are more, not less, desirable. With the enormous strides in technology, including artificial intelligence, machine learning, robotics, and communications, graduates will need such transfer- able and uniquely human skills to be able to adaptively and continuously vii PREPUBLICATION COPY—Uncorrected Proofs

viii PREFACE learn to work with, and alongside, new technologies. Further, each person entering the job market today will look forward not only to several jobs, but also several careers, during her working life. All of these factors have led to the expectation that current generations entering the workforce may, for the first time in recent American history, face a more uncertain future than their parents’ generation. Faculty and administrators, who are concerned that an education focused on a single discipline will not best prepare graduates for the chal- lenges and opportunities presented by work, life, and citizenship in the 21st century, are advocating for an approach to education that moves beyond the general education requirements found at almost all institutions, to an approach to higher education that intentionally integrates knowledge in the arts, humanities, physical and life sciences, social sciences, engineering, technology, mathematics, and the biomedical disciplines. In this approach, which we refer to in this report simply as “integration,” professors help students understand the connections among the disciplines and emphasize the point made by Einstein that all disciplines and forms of inquiry are “branches from the same tree.” Extending this metaphor, advocates of integration see all human knowledge as both fundamentally connected, a network of branches arising from a trunk made up of human curiosity, passion, and drive, but also generative, as new branches split off and grow from old branches, extending into new spaces or coming in contact with other branches in new ways. Against this backdrop, the Board on Higher Education and Work- force (BHEW) of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine conducted a study focused on better understanding the impact of an integrated educational approach on students. Specifically, the com- mittee was charged with “examining the evidence behind the assertion that educational programs that mutually integrate learning experiences in the humanities and arts with science, technology, engineering, math, and medicine (STEMM) lead to improved educational and career outcomes for undergraduate and graduate students.” To be clear, our task was neither to reject the disciplines, which this committee sees as vital sources of exper- tise, creativity, and innovation, nor to argue that an integrative approach is superior to more established models of general education. Rather, our task was to examine what the existing evidence can tell us about the impact on students of a new, and in many ways old, integrative approach to higher education that many faculty believe will serve to effectively prepare students for work, life, and citizenship in the 21st century. To accomplish this challenging study, the National Academies assem- bled a committee composed of leaders and scholars in higher education and industry with expertise in the arts, humanities, social sciences, natural sciences, engineering, and medicine—and the intersections among these disciplines—whose affiliations reflected the diversity of types of institu- PREPUBLICATION COPY—Uncorrected Proofs

PREFACE ix tions in American higher education. I have learned an enormous amount from these colleagues and, now, friends, and am indebted to them for their tireless efforts, knowledge, insights, and savvy. The study was also made possible by the superb professionals from the National Academies, and the leadership of the Study Director, Ashley Bear, and the Director of the BHEW, Tom Rudin, as well as the research efforts of Irene Ngun and Kellyann Jones-Jamtgaard, and the logistical expertise of Austen Applegate. To inform our deliberations, we heard from experts from beyond the committee, held public sessions in three cities, commissioned litera- ture reviews, and heard from faculty across the country who submitted responses to a “Dear Colleague” letter asking for evidence and input from the broader higher education community. WHAT DID WE FIND? Assessing student learning outcomes across the breadth of American higher education is a daunting task, confounded by the number and types of institutions, the broadly varying backgrounds of the students matricu- lating, and, importantly, the fact that curricular decisions are—appropri- ately—in the hands of local faculty members, not subject to any broad, national consensus except in the case of accreditation of specific disciplines. For these reasons, as well as the lack of agreement on the most effective ways to assess student learning outcomes, we found that large, controlled, randomized testing of the hypothesis that integrated education would lead to educational and employment benefits are rare and likely to remain so. Nonetheless, we found abundant narrative and anecdotal evidence, some evidence from research studies, and, very importantly, a broad, national groundswell of interest in developing approaches to integrated education. Though causal evidence on the impact of integration on students is limited, it is this committee’s consensus opinion that further effort be expeditiously exerted to develop and disseminate a variety of approaches to integrated education and that further research on the impact of such programs and courses on students be supported and conducted. Ultimately, the decision will rest with the faculty of American higher education. We hope that our faculty colleagues will take the time to exam- ine this report and will thereby join with us in further exploring the value and role of integrated education. We believe the future of our nation will be affected by our collective decisions. David J. Skorton Chair Committee on Integrating Higher Education in the Arts, Humanities, Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine PREPUBLICATION COPY—Uncorrected Proofs

Acknowledgments The Committee on the Integration of Education in the Sciences, Engi- neering, and Medicine with the Arts and Humanities at the Undergraduate and Graduate Levels would like to acknowledge and thank the many people who made this study possible. First, we would like to acknowledge the support of the standing National Academies Board on Higher Education and Workforce (BHEW), which offered oversight for the study. Secondly, we would like to acknowledge that this report was informed by the efforts of the many people who shared their data, insights, ideas, enthusiasm, and expertise with the committee. We would especially like to thank the follow- ing people (listed alphabetically) who presented at the committee’s meetings and information gathering workshops: William “Bro” Adams, National Endowment for the Humanities Amy Banzaert, Department of Engineering, Wellesley College Dan Brabander, Wellesley College Fritz Breithaupt, Germanic Studies, Indiana University Bloomington Loren B. Byrne, Roger Williams University Rita Charon, Program in Narrative Medicine, Columbia University Helen Drinan, Simmons College Ethan Eagle, Department of Mechanical Engineering, Wayne State University Pam Eddinger, Bunker Hill Community College David Edwards, School of Engineering and Applied Sciences at Harvard University and Le Laboratoire Bret Eynon, LaGuardia Community College xi PREPUBLICATION COPY—Uncorrected Proofs

xii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Ed Finn, School of Arts, Media + Engineering, Arizona State University Marie Adamson Flesher, The Ohio State University Howard Gardner, Harvard Graduate School of Education David Guston, Future of Innovation in Society, Arizona State University Kevin Hamilton, College of Fine and Applied Arts at the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign Maria Hesse, Academic Partnerships, Arizona State University Ed Hundert, Harvard Medical School Joel Katz, Internal Medicine Residency Program, Harvard Medical School JoAnn Kuchera-Morin, Media Arts & Technology and Music, University of California Liz Lerman, Liz Lerman Dance Exchange and Herberger Institute for Design and the Arts, Arizona State University Michelle Morse, Partners In Health, EqualHealth, Brigham and Women’s Internal Medicine Residency Dan Nathan-Roberts, Industrial and Systems Engineering, San José State University Scott Page, Department of Political Science, and Economics at the University of Michigan Lee Pelton, Emerson College Peter Pesic, Science Institute, St. John’s College Andrea Polli, Art and Ecology, University of New Mexico Catherine Pride, Middlesex Community College Bob Pura, Greenfield Community College William Ray, The Ohio State University Robert Root-Bernstein, Michigan State University Joaquin Ruiz, College of Letters, Arts, and Science, University of Arizona Ben Schmidt, Northeastern University Vandana Singh, Framingham State University Jim Spohrer, Cognitive OpenTech, IBM Research – Almaden Raymond Tymas-Jones, University of Utah College of Fine Arts Rick Vaz, Center for Project-Based Learning, Worcester Polytechnic Institute David Weaver, Professor of Physics, Estrella Mountain Community College Rosalind Williams, Massachusetts Institute of Technology Sha Xin Wei, School of Arts, Media and Engineering, Arizona State University Emma Smith Zbarsky, Department of Applied Mathematics, Wentworth Institute of Technology The committee would also like to thank students from Arizona State University, Cecilia Chou, Matt Contursi, Tess Doezema, and Anna PREPUBLICATION COPY—Uncorrected Proofs

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS xiii ­Guerrero, for sharing their experience with the committee, as well as the respondents to the committee’s “Dear Colleague” letter, for all their valu- able input on integrative courses and programs. Further, the committee would like thank the sponsors that made this study possible: The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation, the National Endowment for the Humanities, the National Endowment for the Arts, the National Academy of Sciences Scientists and Engineers for the Future Fund, and the Teagle Foundation. We would also like to express our sincere gratitude for the generosity of the hosts of the study’s two regional information gathering workshops: Le Laboratoire, Cambridge, MA, and Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ. The committee would like to acknowledge the work of the consultants who have contributed to the report: Dr. Matthew Mayhew, Dr. Hannah Stewart-Gambino, and Dr. Jennifer Stroud-Rossman and the report writer, Steve Olson. ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF REVIEWERS This Consensus Study Report was reviewed in draft form by individuals chosen for their diverse perspectives and technical expertise. The purpose of this independent review is to provide candid and critical comments that will assist the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine in making each published report as sound as possible and to ensure that it meets the institutional standards for quality, objectivity, evidence, and responsiveness to the study charge. The review comments and draft manu- script remain confidential to protect the integrity of the deliberative process. We wish to thank the following individuals for their review of this report: James Barber, William and Mary; May Berenbaum, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign; Rita Charon, Columbia University; Dianne Chong, Boeing Research and Technology (Retired); Michele Cuomo, Montgomery County Community College; Jerry Jacobs, University of Penn- sylvania; Leah Jamieson, Purdue University; Christine Ortiz, Massachu- setts Institute of Technology; Robert Pura, Greenfield Community College; Robert Root-Bernstein, Michigan State University; Jack Schultz, University of Missouri; and James Spohrer, IBM. Although the reviewers listed above provided many constructive com- ments and suggestions, they were not asked to endorse the conclusions or recommendations of this report nor did they see the final draft before its release. The review of this report was overseen by Maryellen Giger, Univer- sity of Chicago, and Cora Marrett, University of Wisconsin-Madison. They were responsible for making certain that an independent examination of this report was carried out in accordance with the standards of the National Academies and that all review comments were carefully considered. Respon- PREPUBLICATION COPY—Uncorrected Proofs

xiv ACKNOWLEDGMENTS sibility for the final content rests entirely with the authoring committee and the National Academies. Finally, we thank the staff of this project for their valuable leadership, input, and support. Specifically, we would like to thank Program Officer and Study Director, Ashley Bear; BHEW Director, Tom Rudin; Research Associate, Irene Ngun; Christine Mirzayan Science and Technology Fellow, Kellyann Jones-Jamtgaard; Senior Program Assistant, Austen Applegate; Senior Advisor, Jay Labov; and the Director of the Cul- tural Programs for the National Academies, J. D. Talasek. PREPUBLICATION COPY—Uncorrected Proofs

Contents SUMMARY 1 1 CHALLENGES AND OPPORTUNITIES FOR INTEGRATING ESTABLISHED DISCIPLINES IN HIGHER EDUCATION 9 The Charge to the Committee, 17 The Limits of Acronyms, 23 The Organization of the Report, 24 2 HIGHER EDUCATION AND THE DEMANDS OF THE TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY 25 A Brief Historical Overview of Higher Education in the United  States, 26  Disciplinary Integration and Issues of Equity and Diversity in Higher Education, 30 The Disciplinary Segregation of Higher Education, 32 The Need for Graduates to Be Adaptable, Lifelong Learners, 37 Integration and Human Learning, 38 There Is Broad Agreement Between Employers and Institutions of Higher Education on Certain Student Learning Goals, 40 What Do Students Want?, 48 Integration and the Innovation Economy, 50 The Correlation Between Participation in the Arts and the Advancement of Science, Engineering, and Medicine, 52 Shifting Ground in Higher Education, 54 xv PREPUBLICATION COPY—Uncorrected Proofs

xvi CONTENTS 3 WHAT IS INTEGRATION? 57 The Disciplinary Context, 58 The Disciplines Defined, 59 Multidisciplinary, Interdisciplinary, and Transdisciplinary Integration, 63 Integration in the Curriculum, 64 Studies of Integrative Experiences Do Not Always Involve the Integration of the Humanities, Arts, and STEMM, 80 What Is Integrative Learning? 80 4 THE CHALLENGES OF ASSESSING THE IMPACT OF INTEGRATION IN HIGHER EDUCATION ON STUDENTS 83 Evidence-based Decision Making in Real-World Contexts, 84 The Challenges and Limitations of Research on Integration, 87 The Path Ahead, 89 5 UNDERSTANDING AND OVERCOMING THE BARRIERS TO INTEGRATION IN HIGHER EDUCATION 95 The Institutional Barriers to Integration in Higher Education, 96 Overcoming the Barriers to Integration in Higher Education, 101 Existing Practices Aimed at Overcoming Common Barriers to Integration, 102 6 THE EFFECTS OF INTEGRATION ON STUDENTS AT THE UNDERGRADUATE LEVEL 107 The Committee’s Approach, 108 Does the Direction of the Integration Matter? 110 Integration of the Arts and Humanities into the Academic Programs of Undergraduate Students Majoring in STEM, 111 Exposure to the Arts Can Support Success in STEM Through the Development of Visio-Spatial Skills, 121 Integration of STEM into the Academic Programs of  Undergraduate Students Majoring in the Arts and Humanities, 122 The Importance of Moving from Anecdote to Evaluation, 132 Key Insights from a “Dear Colleague” Letter, 132 The Impact of Integration on Groups Underrepresented in the Sciences and Engineering, 138 Summary of the Evidence from Undergraduate and Programs and Courses, 139 PREPUBLICATION COPY—Uncorrected Proofs

CONTENTS xvii 7 INTEGRATION IN GRADUATE AND MEDICAL EDUCATION 141 Federal Agencies and Foundations Have Supported Integrative Graduate Education, 142 Most of the Research Has Focused on Integration in Graduate Education Between Similar Disciplines, 144 Graduate Education in Established Interdisciplinary Fields, 147 The Impact of Graduate Programs That Integrate the Humanities, Arts, and STEMM, 149 What Can we Learn About Promising Practices for Integration  Between Similar Disciplines That Could Apply to the Integration of the Humanities, Arts, and STEMM, 153 Summary of Evidence on Integration in Graduate Education, 154 Integration in Medical Education, 155 Integrating Medicine into the Arts and Humanities, 162 Summary of Evidence on Integration in Medical Education, 166 8 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 169 Findings, 171 Recommendations,177 EPILOGUE 181 REFERENCES 183 APPENDIXES I Committee and Staff Biographies 199 II Statement of Task 219 III Meeting Agendas 221 PREPUBLICATION COPY—Uncorrected Proofs

Boxes, Figures, and Tables BOXES 1-1 The Power of STEMM, the Arts, and Humanities in Responding to the Ebola Epidemic, 13 1-2 The Need for Disciplinary Integration in Addressing Climate Change, 14 2-1 MIT Alumni Survey Shows Graduates Use Communication Skills More Than Technical Skills in Their Careers, 45 2-2 Cook Stoves and the Need for Integration, 50 2-3 The Brighton Fuse Project, 51 3-1 Is It Integrated?, 65 3-2 In-Course Integration in Practice, 67 3-3 Engineering Design as an Integrative Tool, 72 3-4 Integrated General Education Program at the University of Virginia, 75 3-5 Integration at a Community College, 78 4-1 Backward Design and Integrative Educational Experiences, 90 7-1 Story Map and Gap Analysis from Strategies for Arts + Science + Technology Research: A Joint Meeting of the National Science Foundation and the National Endowment for the Arts, 146 7-2 Improving Physical Diagnosis Through Art Interaction, 158 xix PREPUBLICATION COPY—Uncorrected Proofs

xx BOXES, FIGURES, AND TABLES 7-3 Integration of Art Making to Improve Clinical Observations, 160 7-4 Medical Illustration, 162 7-5 The Work of Artist-in-Residence, Deborah Aschheim, 164 7-6 Walter Reed Bethesda Art Therapy at the National Intrepid Center of Excellence, 165 FIGURES 2-1 Surveys of American Association of Colleges and Universities member institutions demonstrate a growing commitment to common learning outcomes, 38 2-2 Proportion of people graduating in each college major and employed in each occupation group, 42 2-3 The essential learning outcomes of the American Association of Colleges and Universities’ (AAC&U) Liberal Education and America’s Promise (LEAP) initiative, 43 7-1 Data from the American Association of Medical Colleges showing the number of medical schools including topic in required courses and elective courses: medical humanities, 155 TABLES 6-1 Learning Outcomes from In-Course Integrative Programs, 113 6-2 Learning Outcomes from Within-Curriculum Integrative Programs, 116 IMAGES FROM GALLERY OF ILLUMINATING AND INSPIRATIONAL INTEGRATIVE PRACTICES IN HIGHER EDUCATION Kinetrope: Creating Cross-disciplinary Spaces to Promote Discoveries and Changed Perspectives Citizen Science/Citizen Artist and Community Engagement Performance as Platform for Building Bridges Between Disciplines Imagining a Better Future Through Creative Writing Cultural Display of the Integration of Art and Science Creation of Solutions That Improve Lives and Creates New Industry Models Creating Research Facilities That are Immersive and Transdisciplinary Creating Robotic and Plant Life Interfaces Pioneering Integration and the Creation of New Industries PREPUBLICATION COPY—Uncorrected Proofs

BOXES, FIGURES, AND TABLES xxi Collaboration and Aesthetics Exploring the Interconnections Between Biology and Sociology Animating Research and Activating Spaces of Knowledge Production Inspiring New Innovation Through Traditional Paper Techniques Fostering Creative Processes to Advance Exploration and Expression Cross-disciplinary Collaboration for Community Impact Investigating Biological Sciences and Digital Technologies Through Architectural Installations Imagining Climate Change Through Food Exploring Social Discrimination Through Interactive Narrative and Gaming Technology Community, Skateboards, and Motion Data Capture Science Practice and Tools in Art Schools PREPUBLICATION COPY—Uncorrected Proofs

Next: Summary »
The Integration of the Humanities and Arts with Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine in Higher Education: Branches from the Same Tree Get This Book
×
Buy Prepub | $79.00 Buy Paperback | $70.00
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

In the United States, broad study in an array of different disciplines —arts, humanities, science, mathematics, engineering— as well as an in-depth study within a special area of interest, have been defining characteristics of a higher education. But over time, in-depth study in a major discipline has come to dominate the curricula at many institutions. This evolution of the curriculum has been driven, in part, by increasing specialization in the academic disciplines. There is little doubt that disciplinary specialization has helped produce many of the achievement of the past century. Researchers in all academic disciplines have been able to delve more deeply into their areas of expertise, grappling with ever more specialized and fundamental problems.

Yet today, many leaders, scholars, parents, and students are asking whether higher education has moved too far from its integrative tradition towards an approach heavily rooted in disciplinary “silos”. These “silos” represent what many see as an artificial separation of academic disciplines. This study reflects a growing concern that the approach to higher education that favors disciplinary specialization is poorly calibrated to the challenges and opportunities of our time.

The Integration of the Humanities and Arts with Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine in Higher Education examines the evidence behind the assertion that educational programs that mutually integrate learning experiences in the humanities and arts with science, technology, engineering, mathematics, and medicine (STEMM) lead to improved educational and career outcomes for undergraduate and graduate students. It explores evidence regarding the value of integrating more STEMM curricula and labs into the academic programs of students majoring in the humanities and arts and evidence regarding the value of integrating curricula and experiences in the arts and humanities into college and university STEMM education programs.

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!