National Academies Press: OpenBook
« Previous: 2 Higher Education and the Demands of the Twenty-First Century
Suggested Citation:"3 What Is Integration?." 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 57
Suggested Citation:"3 What Is Integration?." 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 58
Suggested Citation:"3 What Is Integration?." 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 59
Suggested Citation:"3 What Is Integration?." 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 60
Suggested Citation:"3 What Is Integration?." 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 61
Suggested Citation:"3 What Is Integration?." 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 62
Suggested Citation:"3 What Is Integration?." 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 63
Suggested Citation:"3 What Is Integration?." 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 64
Suggested Citation:"3 What Is Integration?." 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 65
Suggested Citation:"3 What Is Integration?." 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 66
Suggested Citation:"3 What Is Integration?." 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 67
Suggested Citation:"3 What Is Integration?." 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 68
Suggested Citation:"3 What Is Integration?." 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 69
Suggested Citation:"3 What Is Integration?." 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 70
Suggested Citation:"3 What Is Integration?." 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 71
Suggested Citation:"3 What Is Integration?." 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 72
Suggested Citation:"3 What Is Integration?." 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 73
Suggested Citation:"3 What Is Integration?." 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 74
Suggested Citation:"3 What Is Integration?." 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 75
Suggested Citation:"3 What Is Integration?." 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 76
Suggested Citation:"3 What Is Integration?." 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 77
Suggested Citation:"3 What Is Integration?." 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 78
Suggested Citation:"3 What Is Integration?." 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 79
Suggested Citation:"3 What Is Integration?." 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 80
Suggested Citation:"3 What Is Integration?." 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 81
Suggested Citation:"3 What Is Integration?." 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 82

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.

3 What Is Integration? Higher education has not yet agreed on a definition of what the inte- gration of the arts, humanities, and science, technology, engineering, math- ematics, and medicine (STEMM) fields is and what it is not. As a result, many questions continue to surround integration. Is the use of poetry or song assignments in a science course integrative if literature or music theory faculty are not involved? What makes a course with equal parts sculpture and engineering more or less integrative than a course focused on engi- neering design? Music theory courses may cover the mathematics found in music, but does that make them integrative? When an educator claims an educational experience is integrative, does that mean it actually is? Where in the higher education curricula should integrative approaches be adopted or experimented with? In general education? In the major? In co-curricular activities? The committee found that there are many diverse approaches to inte- gration. Different disciplines are integrated at different levels of depth and for different reasons. Different courses and programs use different peda- gogical approaches and appear in different aspects of the curriculum. This chapter explores some of this diversity and concludes that there is no single goal of an integrative approach, but rather many different goals. The many and varied goals of integration have implications for how the impact of integration on students should be evaluated by institutions. Below we offer definitions of the disciplines (arts, humanities, sci- ence, engineering, and medicine) that have been developed by others over the course of time and describe the characteristics of integration. We also describe forms of integration in the curriculum, broken into three categories: 57 PREPUBLICATION COPY—Uncorrected Proofs

58 BRANCHES FROM THE SAME TREE in-course, within-curriculum, and co-curricular. We describe the differences between “interdisciplinary” integration, “multidisciplinary” integration, and “transdisciplinary” integration and acknowledge that “integration” is a term used in higher education research that may or may not refer specifi- cally to the integration of the humanities, arts, and STEMM fields. Rather, “integration” in the context of the higher education scholarship may refer broadly to educational experiences that help students integrate or bring together ideas. THE DISCIPLINARY CONTEXT Integration of teaching and learning in higher education inevitably takes place within the context of disciplinary pedagogies, content, and epistemologies. Disciplines have their own ways of looking at the world, of making meaning and discovering truth. But these approaches are prag- matic, meant to arrive at certain human ends. The disciplines delimit their objects of study; their theoretical approaches, projects, and traditions; the forms of evidence, interpretation, and explanation that are appropriate to them; and the professional and institutional structures through which these parameters are articulated, regulated, taught, and, in effect, enforced. The disciplines are self-reinforcing, and disciplinary specialization and fragmen- tation have intensified as the disciplines have strengthened and solidified. As historians of higher education and of integrative learning have long observed, the disciplines have their strengths, but they were always meant to be engines of human invention and discovery rather than cubicles to constrain academic endeavors (Klein, 2010). To return to Einstein’s anal- ogy (see Chapter 1) that all disciplines of human knowledge are “branches from the same tree,” the vitality of the whole depends on the strength of the foundation. The trunk of the tree represents the core from which disciplines draw in higher education—the centralizing force that directs students through a course of academic study. The branches—where Einstein located religion, arts, and sciences—can be seen both as the disciplines and as potential locations for integration. Branches grow away from the trunk, yet they remain integrally connected to the core strengths of the whole; they intersect and tangle in new ways as they grow. While the disciplines are powerful, they are not, and need not be, treated as fixed. In his work on Conceptual Foundations for Multidisciplinary Thinking (1995), Stephen J. Kline explains the need to understand the connection between disciplines and the intellectual terrain as a whole: For at least a century, we have acted as if the uncollected major fragments of our knowledge, which we call disciplines, could by themselves give understanding of the emergent ideas that come from putting the concepts PREPUBLICATION COPY—Uncorrected Proofs

WHAT IS INTEGRATION? 59 and results together. It is much as if we tried to understand and teach the geography of the 48 contiguous states of the United States by handing out maps of the 48 states, but never took the trouble to assemble a map of the country. It is important to note that the purpose of this report is not to pre- scribe that institutions move away from disciplinary studies or, in the other extreme, to integrate all human knowledge within the educational experi- ence of an individual student—that would be impossible—but rather to offer new insight into the impact of an approach to education that seeks to help students understand how the knowledge they have accumulated is connected. THE DISCIPLINES DEFINED Every field of study has its own epistemology that is learned through disciplinary preparation. The process of disciplinary education is charac- terized by certain conceptual gateways that are preconditions to any deep disciplinary understanding. As Meyer and Land (2003, p. 1) describe these conceptual understandings: A threshold concept can be considered as akin to a portal, opening up a new and previously inaccessible way of thinking about something. It rep- resents a transformed way of understanding, or interpreting, or viewing something without which the learner cannot progress. As a consequence of comprehending a threshold concept there may thus be a transformed internal view of subject matter, subject landscape, or even world view. This transformation may be sudden or it may be protracted over a considerable period of time, with the transition to understanding proving troublesome. Such a transformed view or landscape may represent how people “think” in a particular discipline, or how they perceive, apprehend, or experience particular phenomena within that discipline (or more generally). These threshold concepts point to the kinds of problems that each discipline is trying to solve or the contributions it is aimed at making to human understanding. However, these concepts tend to differ by disciplin- ary category and evolve over time as the “branches” of the disciplines fur- ther bifurcate or—in the case of established integrative discipline—intersect. Some integrative disciplines that are now relatively mature, such as Sci- ence, Technology, and Society; Gender Studies; Bioethics; and Computer– Human Interaction, historically have arisen at the intersections of existing fields. These new disciplines represent the potential for academic innovation through integration. PREPUBLICATION COPY—Uncorrected Proofs

60 BRANCHES FROM THE SAME TREE The Humanities According to definitions adopted by the federal government, to study within the humanities, students focus on disciplines such as language, both modern and classical; linguistics; literature; history; juris- prudence; philosophy; archeology; comparative religion; ethics; the history, criticism, and theory of the arts; those aspects of the social sciences which have humanistic content and employ humanistic methods; and the study and application of the humanities to the human environment with particu- lar attention to reflecting our diverse heritage, traditions, and history and to the relevance of the humanities to the current conditions of national life. (20 U.S.C. 952 (a)) A traditional liberal arts education included these humanistic disciplines as well as training in politics and abstract mathematics (Hirt, 2006; Lucas, 1994; Roche, 2013). Though classifications differ, the qualitatively oriented social sciences tend to be classified with the humanities. The humanities teach close reading practices as an essential tool, an appreciation for context across time and space, qualitative analysis of social structures and relationships, the importance of perspective, the capacity for empathic understanding, analysis of the structure of an argument (or of the analysis itself), and study of phenomenology in the human world. The Arts The domain of the fine and performing arts includes, but is not limited to, music (instrumental and vocal), dance, drama, folk art, creative writing, architecture and allied fields, painting, sculpture, photography, graphic and craft arts, industrial design, costume and fashion design, motion pictures, television, radio, film, video, tape and sound recording, the arts related to the presentation, performance, execution, and exhibition of such major art forms, all those traditional arts practiced by the diverse peoples of this country, and the study and application of the arts to the human environment. (20 U.S.C. 952 (b)) The arts teach creative means of expression, understanding of differ- ent perspectives, an awareness of knowledge and emotions throughout the human experience, and the shaping and sharing of perceptions through artistic creation and practices in the expressive world. An art student’s training in the methods and tools of a creative platform is complemented with studies in written and visual semiotics; critical and cultural theories and philosophies; historical antecedents that shape contemporary forms of PREPUBLICATION COPY—Uncorrected Proofs

WHAT IS INTEGRATION? 61 cultural expression; and reflection-in-action through deep observation and constructive feedback. The arts include not only all of these artifacts, intangible, tangible, and performative, but also the effect they have on people who participate and observe a given artistic expression. This impact has the capacity to build empathy and create new meaning for individuals in fields not limited to those traditionally associated with the arts, such as the social sciences. The Sciences The sciences include specialized fields covering the physical and math- ematical sciences (i.e., chemistry, physics, and mathematics), the life sci- ences (e.g., cell biology, ecology, and genetics), the geosciences, computer science, and the quantitative social sciences (e.g., anthropology and sociol- ogy) (National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, 2006). The sciences teach “the use of evidence to construct testable explana- tions and predictions of natural phenomena, as well as the knowledge generated through this process” (National Academy of Sciences, 2008). According to the UK Science Council, scientific methodology includes objective observation, evidence, experimentation, induction, repetition, critical analysis, verification, and testing (Science Council, 2017). The quantitatively oriented social sciences are generally included within the sci- ences. For example, the National Science Foundation, the federal agency whose stated mission is “to promote the progress of science; to advance the national health, prosperity, and welfare; [and] to secure the national defense,”1 includes the social and behavioral sciences among its divisions and in its funding priorities. Engineering Engineering is the study and practice of designing artifacts and processes under the constraints of “the laws of nature or science” and constraints such as “time, money, available materials, ergonomics, environmental regu- lations, manufacturability, [and] reparability” (National Academy of Engi- neering and National Research Council, 2009, p. 17). It includes specialized engineering fields that focus on specific aspects of technology or the natural world, such as electrical, mechanical, chemical, civil, environmental, com- puter, biomedical, aerospace, and systems engineering. Engineering teaches how to develop plans and directions for construct- ing artifacts and processes, such as computer chips, bridges, and drug 1  For more information on the National Science Foundation see https://www.nsf.gov/about/ glance.jsp (accessed July 16, 2017). PREPUBLICATION COPY—Uncorrected Proofs

62 BRANCHES FROM THE SAME TREE manufacturing processes (National Academy of Engineering and National Research Council, 2009). This is taught using design as a problem-solving approach that can “integrate various skills and types of thinking—analyti- cal and synthetic things; detailed understanding and holistic understanding; planning and building; and implicit, procedural knowledge and explicit, declarative knowledge” (National Academy of Engineering and National Research Council, 2009, p. 37). The engineering design process is “gener- ally iterative; thus each new version of the design is tested and then modi- fied based on what has been learned up to that point” (National Academy of Engineering and National Research Council, 2009, p. 38). Engineering fields teach how to identify a need and design an efficient, functional, durable, sustainable, useful process or product that will meet that need. Notably, the attributes of communication, teamwork, and ethical decision making (as well as the even broader attributes of critical think- ing, applying knowledge in real-world settings, and lifelong learning) are increasingly considered core to the engineering disciplines, along with a greater acknowledgment of the responsibility of engineering to respond to human needs (e.g., The Engineering Grand Challenges,2 National Academy of Engineering, 2008). This sea change dates roughly to the NAE’s Engineer of 2020: Visions of Engineering in the New Century report (2004), which boldly articulated attributes of a twenty-first-century engineer, and the Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology (ABET) “Engineer- ing Criteria 2000,” whose criteria significantly broadened the expectations for an engineering education. In response, large numbers of engineering programs have embedded teamwork experiences, communication, and eth- ics education into core engineering courses. In many instances, these new engineering programs have adopted an integrative model to achieve these learning outcomes. Medicine Medicine is the science or practice involved in “the maintenance of health as well as in the prevention, diagnosis, improvement, or treatment of physical and mental illness,” and it includes the “knowledge, skills, and practices based on the theories, beliefs, and experiences indigenous to different cultures” (World Health Organization, n.d.). Medical fields aim to teach modern medical professionals five core competencies (Institute of Medicine, 2003, p. 45): 1.  o provide patient-centered care (identify, respect, and care about pa- T tients’ values, preferences, and needs; listen to, communicate with, 2  For more information on the Engineering Grand Challenges, see http://www.engineer- ingchallenges.org/ (accessed July 16, 2017). PREPUBLICATION COPY—Uncorrected Proofs

WHAT IS INTEGRATION? 63 inform, and educate patients; share decision making and management with the patient; and advocate) 2.  o work in interdisciplinary teams to cooperate, collaborate, commu- T nicate, and integrate care 3.  o employ evidence-based practices by knowing where and how to T find the best possible sources of evidence, formulating clear clinical questions, search for the relevant answers, and determine when and how to integrate these new findings into practice (evidence can include that which can be quantified, such as data from randomized controlled trials, laboratory experiments, clinical trials, epidemiological research, and outcomes research; evidence based on qualitative research; and evidence derived from the practice knowledge of experts, including inductive reasoning) 4.  apply quality improvement by understanding and measuring quality To of care in terms of structure, process, and outcomes; assessing current practices and comparing them to relevant better practices; designing and testing interventions; identifying errors and hazards in care; im- proving one’s own performance 5.  o utilize informatics, such as using electronic data, communicating T electronically, and understanding security protections Medical fields teach how to analyze, conduct research on mechanics of the human body, examine relationships between bodies and environments, and make connections between disease and wellness. These definitions highlight the unique aspects of each discipline and illustrate how the different disciplines consider and make use of different forms of evidence. Yet these definitions also demonstrate that the disci- plines share the root purpose of creating knowledge for the betterment of humanity. MULTIDISCIPLINARY, INTERDISCIPLINARY, AND TRANSDISCIPLINARY INTEGRATION Integration can take multiple forms and can range from a relatively superficial intersection of disciplines to a deep integration of disciplinary knowledge. Often this range is characterized by the terms “multidisci- plinary,” “interdisciplinary,” and “transdisciplinary” (Begg and Vaughan, 2011). Multidisciplinary methods, typically considered the least integrative of the three, have been defined in several ways, yet converge on the idea that multidisciplinarity involves the process by which investigators from more than one discipline work from their disciplinary-specific bases to solve a common problem, either at the same time (Begg and Vaughan, 2011) or by sequentially applying ideas from multiple disciplines to the focal problem PREPUBLICATION COPY—Uncorrected Proofs

64 BRANCHES FROM THE SAME TREE (Hall et al., 2012). Multidisciplinarity, framed in this way, has been criti- cized as a temporary and often weak means of solving problems because of the superficial nature of that integration (Borrego and Newswander, 2010). Through interdisciplinary approaches, in contrast, scholars work jointly from their disciplinary perspectives to address a common problem (Begg and Vaughan, 2011; Begg et al., 2015). The use of interdisciplinary methods requires team members to integrate their disciplinary perspectives—includ- ing concepts, theories, and methods—in order to solve the complex prob- lem at hand (Hall et al., 2012). Although interdisciplinary approaches are more integrated than multi- disciplinary approaches, transdisciplinary research strategies require “not only the integration of discipline-specific approaches, but also the extension of these approaches to generate fundamentally new conceptual frameworks, hypotheses, theories, models, and methodological applications that tran- scend their disciplinary origins, with the aim of accelerating innovation and advances in scientific knowledge” (Hall et al., 2012, p. 416). INTEGRATION IN THE CURRICULUM As we have discovered in our review of integrative practices (and as will be apparent in Chapters 6 and 7), integration between STEMM fields, the humanities, and the arts can take many forms. Integration can be relatively brief in duration (e.g., a single assignment or unit within a course) or longer (e.g., a complete integrative course or a series of courses or related educa- tional experiences). A wide variety of courses, programs, and other expe- riences can adopt an integrative approach, including first-year seminars, dual majors, minors, interdisciplinary courses and curricula, living-learning communities, and capstone projects. It can take place within a disciplinary or interdisciplinary major or within general education courses. It can reflect the world outside academia freed of academia’s disciplinary silos. Integra- tion can also be superficial and artificial when only one discipline is present for the learning design or delivery (Riley, 2015). Box 3-1 offers an example of a superficial integrative educational experience. One definition of integration is that it merges contents and/or pedago- gies traditionally occurring in one discipline with those in other disciplines in an effort to facilitate student learning. By this definition, integration can be as simple as using haikus or songs to convey scientific theories in class (Crowther, 2012; Pollack and Korol, 2013) or as complicated as develop- ing full courses incorporating art, design, and engineering (Fantauzzacoffin et al., 2012; Gurnon et al., 2013). For example, exposure to the arts and humanities could demonstrate to students in STEMM fields the societal, economic, and political implications of scientific discovery and technologi- cal development (Grasso and Martinelli, 2010). PREPUBLICATION COPY—Uncorrected Proofs

WHAT IS INTEGRATION? 65 BOX 3-1 Is It Integrated? Music in the Liberal Arts was an introductory course for undergraduates offered at a small liberal arts college to fulfill distribution requirements in the humanities. The goal of the course was to help students understand music from a variety of disciplinary perspectives. The organizer recruited faculty from many departments across the campus to explore with students in the course how their fields connected with music. For example, a psychology professor spoke about the emotional aspects of music and how music might influence mood and behav- ior. An anthropologist helped students understand music as a cultural phenom- enon. A historian summarized how music changed over time, how it was shaped by events of the time, and how it influenced some of those events. A physicist explained the physics of sound waves, pitch, tone and tone quality, and amplitude. A biologist described the anatomy and physiology of the ear and hearing as well as the components of the human voice. On the surface, this course appeared to epitomize an interdisciplinary ap- proach to teaching and provide ample opportunity for the integration of concepts related to music. However, emerging research about human learning would sug- gest that this course’s attempt to connect the disciplines was not, in fact, inter- disciplinary, and that its effort to integrate conceptual knowledge was not likely to succeed. Although students were given opportunities to learn about music from experts in many fields, the faculty were never asked to discuss their presenta- tions with one another or to attend each other’s presentations. Thus it was highly unlikely that lecturers would deliberately or strategically tie together or explicitly reference the connections between the topics they discussed and those dis- cussed by other professors. The course may have been multidisciplinary, but it was far from interdisciplinary. Much more could have been done to help students make conceptual con- nections. For example, faculty colleagues from physics and biology could have worked together to pose related and connected problems for students to consider. To take a specific instance, the physics of sound explains that the longer a string is on an instrument, the lower its frequency will be. However, a bass singing voice is able to replicate the range of frequencies produced by cellos and many of the notes produced by a bass, even though human vocal cords are far shorter in length than any violin string. How can this seeming contradiction be reconciled? What are the biological adaptations that have taken place to enable this capacity in the human voice? What about in other species of animals? Such an approach could help students understand important physical and biological concepts and principles and also the connections among the disciplines of biology, physics, and engineering in the production of music. PREPUBLICATION COPY—Uncorrected Proofs

66 BRANCHES FROM THE SAME TREE Chapter 6 examines the evidence for positive outcomes from integrative learning experiences in three categories: 1. Through a single course (in-course integration), whether by offer- ing students opportunities to observe a topic from multiple disci- plinary perspectives, by creating a multidisciplinary teaching team, or by focusing on a theme that can be considered through various disciplinary lenses. In-course integration occurs when concepts and pedagogies from the arts and humanities are integrated into already established STEM courses, or vice versa, or when new interdisciplinary, multidisciplinary, or transdisciplinary courses are developed as part of a larger curriculum. 2. Through a combination of courses (within-curriculum integration), whether thematically linked general education courses, integrated elective courses, an integration of general education and majors, interdisciplinary majors or programs, or integrative seminars. Within-curriculum integration focuses either on adding non-dis- cipline-related courses to a major curriculum or on developing an interdisciplinary, multidisciplinary, or transdisciplinary major with both arts and humanities and STEMM content. 3. Through extracurricular or co-curricular experiences, such as Maker Spaces and STEAM (science, technology, engineering, arts, and mathematics) clubs. These three approaches share many similarities, and they overlap at times, but they tend to be structured differently and occur in different contexts. In the following sections we offer examples of courses and programs that fit within each of these categories. In Chapter 6, we discuss the known impact on students of many of these example courses and programs. In-Course Integration In-course integration occurs when concepts and pedagogies from the arts and humanities are integrated into already established STEMM courses, or vice versa, or when new interdisciplinary courses are developed as part of a larger, unintegrated curriculum. Box 3-2 describes examples of various forms of in-course integration. Examples include the Projects and Practices in Integrated Art and Engineering course taught at the Georgia Institute of Technology (Fantauzzacoffin et al., 2012), the use of digital video production to describe the fundamental process of neurotransmission in an introduction to neuroscience course at Emmanuel College (Jarvinen and Jarvinen, 2012), the Designing for Open Innovation course at The University of Oklahoma (Ifenthaler et al., 2015), and the Digital Sound PREPUBLICATION COPY—Uncorrected Proofs

WHAT IS INTEGRATION? 67 BOX 3-2 In-Course Integration in Practice Imagine a professor teaching an introductory biology course for nonmajors, a course designed to help students become better-informed citizens with the knowledge to question and make educated decisions about scientific advances and policy. Because she wants to demonstrate to students that they are not alone in living in a time of change and uncertainty, she wants to introduce history, a humanities discipline, to her science course. To deepen her students’ perspec- tive on scientific change, she brings in a historian to help students understand the field of biology as it has developed over time. Perhaps the historian assigns a reading about the origins of epidemiology and John Snow’s discovery in 1855 that cholera was transmitted through contaminated drinking water. This approach is a multidisciplinary version of STEMM–humanities integration. It incorporates a different disciplinary perspective (history) into its investigation but without leaving the boundaries of either discipline. Multidisciplinarity is additive, offering an ad- ditional set of content and insights that may be absent in the original discipline (Choi and Pak, 2006, p. 351). Perhaps her history colleague will come to class on the day of the discussion or develop and help assess a student assignment in response to that discussion. In this way, the historian introduces not simply historical content but also the epis- temology or analytical method of history. By contributing a historian’s experience designing assignments, evaluating student work, and facilitating discussions, the history professor contributes historical content and the pedagogy of historical inquiry. The biologist might reciprocate in a history class, where the impact of scientific discovery on the course of human history could benefit from a scientist’s expertise. For example, the biology professor might choose a reading and offer a mini-lecture on the specific scientific arguments made by Charles Darwin in On the Origin of Species to add nuance and specificity to the history professor’s class session on nineteenth-century social and religious controversies. Now imagine that the biology professor wants to offer a more ambitious integration. An interdisciplinary approach is more than additive; it synthesizes two separate disciplines to establish a new level of discourse and integration of knowledge (Klein, 1990). The field of epidemiology developed as a result of interdisciplinary integration, as John Snow learned the methods of social science and interviewed people in the London neighborhood affected by cholera and then plotted his findings on a map. Likewise, the biology professor might seek a partner from history or gender studies and take an interdisciplinary approach, transferring methods from one discipline to another. Or suppose the biology and history professors wanted to develop a unit on public health. This unit might belong to a single course co-taught by the two faculty, be co-taught within two separate courses, or be part of an assignment contained in two thematically similar courses taught at the same time in order to combine some classes. If the faculty members work jointly from their specific disciplinary perspectives to teach a subject in an integrative way, addressing (for example) biological concepts and the implications of certain scientific policies or practices for women’s lives, they are taking an interdisciplinary approach, continued PREPUBLICATION COPY—Uncorrected Proofs

68 BRANCHES FROM THE SAME TREE BOX 3-2  Continued one that “analyzes, synthesizes and harmonizes links between disciplines into a coordinated and coherent whole” (Choi and Pak. 2006). The two professors would model their own disciplinary training to make sense of the topic, and their students would learn the methods of two different disciplines as they explore the topic of public health. Functionally, this interdisciplinary offering might include as- signments, discussions, and lectures that require a blended synthesis of content, techniques, and perspectives from different disciplines. The merging of biology and gender studies might lead to new questions, new perspectives, and an opening up of the field of “public health” to consider, for instance, the impact of domestic violence on the health of children (Fisher. 2011). Finally, the biologist and gender studies professor might experiment with a transdisciplinary approach to integration. If multidisciplinarity is additive and interdisciplinarity is interactive, then transdisciplinarity is holistic in that the disci- plines are subordinated to the overall system that includes the subject of inquiry; the disciplines might even disappear altogether, with students unsure where their professors are institutionally located. In transdisciplinary practice, the primary goal is not to convey the knowledge of any given discipline but rather to understand the world as it exists beyond the classroom, using whatever disciplinary tools are available and developing new knowledge, skills, and perspectives in the interplay among disciplines. For example, the two faculty might offer a course in public health where stu- dents explore the problem of obesity. Here, the biologist might lead the students to understand the differences between innate biological mechanisms that promote obesity and the influence of external factors, while the gender studies professor might help the class explore the gender-specific disparities in obesity. After gain- ing familiarity with the many dimensions of this topic, the students are asked to and Music online course developed by scholars at Wake Forest University (Shen et al., 2015). Integration of the arts and humanities into STEMM courses, and the integration of STEMM into humanities and arts courses, can take many forms. Further, the goals and outcomes of integrative courses are diverse. Following here we offer a description of some existing efforts to integrate the arts, humanities, and STEMM fields, and vice versa, within the context of a single course and describe some of the goals of such efforts. The integration of the arts and humanities into STEMM courses may inspire improved understanding of STEMM concepts, greater contex- tualization of STEMM subjects, new STEMM hypotheses and research questions, and enhanced innovation in STEMM. It may also support the development of twenty first–century skills in students, such as critical PREPUBLICATION COPY—Uncorrected Proofs

WHAT IS INTEGRATION? 69 develop a problem statement. For example, they may discover that physicians’ attitudes about obesity in women affect the likelihood of weight loss in female patients. They then set out to solve this problem using existing disciplinary tools as well as whatever new understanding they develop at the intersection of multiple disciplines and a complex social and biological problem. They might even enlist a dancer to bring in culturally relevant dances to a community of women, helping them develop habits of exercise through an art form. This is transdisciplinary in- tegration. In transdisciplinary thought, disciplinary experts come together, working collaboratively to understand the problem and consider different approaches to solving it. In focusing on the problem to be solved rather than on their disciplinary norms, a transdisciplinary team is able to explore the limits and blind spots of their different disciplinary epistemologies, with each discipline undergoing modification to take on insights from the other fields. In this way, they create new knowledge, tools, and perspectives that differ from the foundation and approach offered by any one discipline. All three approaches integrate STEMM and humanities disciplines, but they do so to different degrees and for different durations. These examples move from a single assignment, offering an easy way for faculty to experiment with integrative pedagogy, to more complex forms of integration. The later examples necessarily take more time to develop but are potentially more rewarding for students, faculty, and the institution itself. Consider the transdisciplinary case: as new knowledge is produced in the spaces between disciplines, it can give rise to new areas of study. Many established fields arose from these transdisciplinary interactions, including women’s and gender studies, cultural studies, area studies, public and global health, robotics, and human–computer interaction, to name a few. Other fields are now emerging through the same process, including disability studies, product and game design, artificial intelligence, and art-technology programs such as entertainment technology (Graff, 2015). thinking, communication skills, teamwork, and lifelong learning attitudes (see Chapter 6 for an expanded discussion). For example, the synthesis of mathematics and music has given rise to many courses, often using one of the topics to recruit students who may be reluctant to take a course on the other (e.g., a student who is comfortable learning about music but may be anxious about taking a mathematics course, or vice versa). Also, combin- ing science, mathematics, and social justice can help both STEMM students and those from other disciplines appreciate the societal relevance of scien- tific and mathematical concepts and develop a critical eye for the use and misuse of evidence in public discourse (Chamany, 2006; Skubikowski et al., 2010; Suzuki, 2015; Watts and Guessous, 2006). As another example, the practice of origami has provided a nexus for artistic and mathematical energies, as evidenced by interdisciplinary symposia on many campuses, by PREPUBLICATION COPY—Uncorrected Proofs

70 BRANCHES FROM THE SAME TREE the popularity of computer programmer-turned-origami artist Robert Lang as a guest speaker, and by the Guggenheim Award presented to MIT’s Erik and Martin Demaine (Hull, 2006; Lang, 2012). Finally, some of the courses reviewed in Chapter 6 are associated with student outcomes that align with the twenty first–century skills, including critical thinking, teamwork, com- munication skills, and lifelong learning attitudes that employers are calling for and that will serve students in life and citizenship. The integration of STEMM content and pedagogies into the courses of students pursuing a major or career in the arts and humanities can also take place in many different ways and for many different reasons. Among the courses we review in this report are those that strive to integrate STEMM with the goal of promoting greater scientific and technological literacy among humanities and arts majors, those that aim to harness STEMM tools to promote advances in artistic and humanistic scholarship and practice, and those that take STEMM, and the influence of STEMM on society, humanity, and nature, as the focus of humanistic and artistic inquiry. Advocates for technological literacy among arts and humanities majors have created a variety of integrated courses, and a wide range of these have been surveyed and evaluated (Ebert-May et al., 2010; Krupczak, 2004; Krupczak and Ollis, 2006). In a 2007 workshop cohosted by the National Science Foundation and the National Academy of Engineering, John Krupczak and colleagues defined four main categories of efforts to fos- ter “technological citizenship: survey courses, courses focused on a particu- lar topic, design courses that involve students in technology creation, and technology in context” courses in which technology is critically connected to other disciplines. Longitudinal studies of technological literacy efforts have yielded a relatively robust set of technological literacy outcomes and methods for their assessment (NAE and NAS, 2006, 2012). See Chapter 6 for a review of the student outcomes associated with science and technol- ogy literacy courses. Much as humanities and arts content often serve to contextualize STEMM content, some humanists have turned their lenses on technology, making STEMM the context for application of humanistic and artistic methodologies. The interdisciplinary discussions fostered by the Society for Literature, Science, and the Arts in its journal Configurations served as a forum for such scholars as Katherine Hayles and Donna Haraway to discuss what it means to be human in a “posthuman” world (Gerrans and Hayles, 1999) or an increasingly technophilic world (Haraway, 1994). In Chapter 4, we describe undergraduate courses that use STEMM subjects as topics for humanistic and artistic inquiry. Also, some humanists and artists see integration with STEMM fields as necessary for addressing the challenges of our century. Through the Human- ities Connections grant program, the National Endowment for the Humani- PREPUBLICATION COPY—Uncorrected Proofs

WHAT IS INTEGRATION? 71 ties (NEH) has funded curricular development that integrates humanistic study with other disciplines, either in general education or in major fields of study, to advance this goal. Former NEH chairman William D. Adams explained the goals of the Humanities Connections program: The most important challenges and opportunities of the 21st century re- quire the habits of mind and forms of knowledge fostered by study of the humanities. The NEH Humanities Connections grant program will help prepare students in all academic fields for their roles as engaged citizens and productive professionals in a rapidly changing and interdependent world.3 The NEH particularly encourages projects that foster collaboration between humanities faculty and their counterparts in social and natural sciences and in preprofessional programs in business, engineering, health sciences, law, and computer science. The inaugural grant competition funded 18 programs in medical humanities, environmental humanities, urban humanities, creative and ethical entrepreneurship, ecoliteracy, digital humanities, humanities and engineering, and other integrative topics. Further, some humanists claim that STEMM pedagogies can strengthen learning in humanities courses. For example, Cavanaugh (2010) argues that humanists should use approaches borrowed from the cognitive sci- ences, such as problem-based learning, wikis, service learning, and other software tools, to boost the outcomes associated with the humanities. Such approaches can result in outcomes that include comfort with ambiguity, problem-solving abilities, more astute questioning, and drawing relation- ships through the use of metaphors, similes, and demonstrations. Although humanities and art scholars always have used technical tools in their research and pedagogy, more and more scholars and students are engaging with the sophisticated technical tools grouped under umbrella terms such as “digital humanities” and “big data.” Examples include geo- graphic information system (GIS) mapping (Bodenhamer et al., 2010), the use of databases for research, and rapid prototyping or 3D printers. Box 3-3 describes the use of engineering design as one such integrative tool. Within-Curriculum Integration Within-curriculum integration focuses either on adding non-discipline- related courses to a major curriculum or developing an inter- or trans- disciplinary major with both arts and humanities and STEMM courses. Examples of strong programs include Sixth College at the University of 3  Formore information on the National Endowment for Humanities’ Connections Grant Program, see https://www.neh.gov/news/press-release/2016-04-29. PREPUBLICATION COPY—Uncorrected Proofs

72 BRANCHES FROM THE SAME TREE BOX 3-3 Engineering Design as an Integrative Tool The engineering design process, which synthesizes humanistic, social, cre- ative, and analytical skills, is one avenue for meaningful integration of a range of disciplinary methods and values in courses. Frameworks for the engineering design process use varying nomenclature to describe the same essential ele- ments: need finding (or empathy), problem definition and framing, creative idea generation, prototyping, and testing and analysis. The process is iterative, and communication with multiple stakeholders is critical throughout the process. While this is an engineering methodology, it shares with the arts an emphasis on creativ- ity, and with the humanities and social sciences a comfort with the ambiguity of nonunique, context-specific solutions. The overlap between prototyping and making means that makerspaces and design studios are often housed in engineering spaces, but these activities, like design itself, are not limited to engineering students. In fact, making is also a studio art and an act of creation—what is “designed” might be a story, a textile, or a 3D-printed widget. In critical making, students apply analytical faculties from the humanities and social sciences to this creative endeavor (Somerson, 2013). Crawford has persuasively contended that such handwork is also “soul craft,” enriching students’ humanity and personhood as well as their professional devel- opment (Crawford, 2009). The importance of effective communication and collaboration with fellow designers integrates additional elements in the design process. Interpersonal dynamics and written and oral communication are critical to effective and suc- cessful design. Through project-based collaboration, students develop both skills and confidence in the value of their own expertise (Kelley and Kelley, 2013). The best examples of such collaborations are ones in which all members bring distinct skills and disciplinary perspectives to bear on shared goals rather than ones in which humanities and arts students simply support an essentially technical design challenge. California, San Diego (Ghanbari, 2015), the Connections program for first-year engineering students at the Colorado School of Mines (Olds and Miller, 2004), and the integrated program for first- and second-year stu- dents implemented by the College of Engineering at Texas A&M University (Everett et al., 2000; Malavé and Watson, 2000). The engineering design process (described in Box 3-3), can also provide an organizing principle for within-curriculum integration. For example, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology’s Terrascope is a first-year program that supplements introductory courses with problem-based experiences and cross-disciplinary teams (Lipson et al., 2007). The iFoundry program at the University of Illinois began as an infusion of philosophical and other PREPUBLICATION COPY—Uncorrected Proofs

WHAT IS INTEGRATION? 73 perspectives into engineering education and is now a multifaceted “cross- disciplinary curriculum incubator” for project-based learning, entrepre- neurship and innovation experiences, and methods for enhancing students’ intrinsic motivation. An initiative at Smith College has involved faculty, students, and staff from all disciplines in a design thinking community to reimagine the liberal arts. This project embraces “radical collaboration to encourage the unconventional mixing of ideas, thereby creating a culture where ideas (and the technologies that help us realize these ideas) belong simultaneously to no one and everyone” (Mikic, 2014). Many universities with strong STEMM and liberal arts programs have a long history of offering programs in science, technology, and society (STS), also sometimes called “science studies.” Generally, these programs apply the methods and values of humanities and social science inquiry to the natu- ral sciences and engineering. They teach students to understand and critique science and technology in their historical, political, and cultural contexts and to appreciate the social forces that surround and shape advances in sci- entific knowledge and technology (Akcay and Akcay, 2015; Han and Jeong, 2014). In these programs, students must understand the nature of scientific and technical inquiry and innovation as well as develop the critical think- ing skills associated with political science, history, sociology, anthropology, and ethics. Each program tends to occupy a particular niche, both in the broader field of STS and at its own institution. For example, the program at the University of Virginia is housed within the engineering school and offers courses such as engineering ethics to engineering undergraduates. Others, for example, programs at Lehigh University and Virginia Tech, are housed in colleges of arts and sciences and were founded with the vision of attracting both engineering and liberal arts students. The growth of STS has helped demonstrate the many ways in which science depends on technologi- cal advances, as well as the dependence of both science and technology on economic, social, political, and cultural factors. Another curricular program that integrates humanistic and STEMM fields centers on the profound ethical questions resulting from rapid sci- entific and technological advances in medicine. Bioethics is now a well-­ established integrative discipline in which students develop the tools and context for moral discernment in life sciences, medicine, and biotechnol- ogy, infusing their analyses with content and perspectives from law, policy, and philosophy (Leppa and Terry, 2004; Lewin et al., 2004; Vaughn, 2012). More broadly, ethics is a standard (and often required) compo- nent of research programs in the sciences (NAS, NAE, and IOM, 2009). Premed and engineering curricula, because they are more oriented toward professional tracks, also provide opportunities to integrate philosophical, sociological, and humanistic modes of inquiry and content as part of ethics instruction. PREPUBLICATION COPY—Uncorrected Proofs

74 BRANCHES FROM THE SAME TREE The Grand Challenges issued by the National Academy of Engineering in 2008 are motivating engineering educators and practicing engineers to consider problems that are inherently sociotechnical and are intertwined with geopolitical, economic, philosophical, and cultural factors. Institutions that develop Grand Challenges project experiences recruit students from many majors. In working together to define design problems and to identify context-specific issues and possible solutions, students from all backgrounds gain appreciation for the methods, values, and history of other disciplines. When designed to explicitly include nonengineering students, the aim is for students to develop a mutual literacy in each other’s disciplines and collaborate in this shared space (National Academy of Engineering, 2012). Worcester Polytechnic Institute’s (WPI) Great Problems Seminars address a wide range of vexing global sociotechnical problems, including the Grand Challenges (Savilonis et al., 2010). Since 2007, this team-taught problem-based learning course has engaged first-year students in “interdis- ciplinary, not multidisciplinary” discussions and design projects related to global concerns. Faculty teams are multidisciplinary, pairing, for example, a chemist with an economist. WPI has used both internal and external assess- ments to refine course outcomes, structure, and delivery. Faculty members have also developed a handbook to enable additional WPI faculty to join the Great Problems teaching team and to disseminate effective strategies. Preliminary assessment data suggest that students in this program showed evidence of teamwork, empathy, and integrative learning (DiBiasio, et al., 2017). It is important to note that within-curriculum integration can take many different forms. One way that within-curriculum integration often occurs is through general education programs (see Box 3-4). A common form of general education in colleges and universities is the “cafeteria approach,” where students take a selection of different courses outside their major and are thereby considered to be generally educated. Schools in the University of California system employ a more organized approach, where students take classes according to prescribed thematic clusters. The University of California–Merced, in particular, has launched an innovative first-year undergraduate course called “Core 1: The World at Home.” Core 1 introduces students to the range of scholarly inquiry at the university, all in the span of a one-semester, writing-intensive, integrated curriculum that encourages them to make their own connections among the disciplines while practicing both qualitative and quantitative analysis. The course entails a series of 15 weekly 1-hour lectures (given by different faculty from across the disciplines) whose subjects students process in 2.5 hours of small-group discussion sections (the instructors of which assign and grade all course work) and a coordinated, cumulative sequence of written assign- ments (Hothem, 2013). PREPUBLICATION COPY—Uncorrected Proofs

WHAT IS INTEGRATION? 75 BOX 3-4 Integrated General Education Program at the University of Virginia The University of Virginia has three different programs in general education: the Traditional Curriculum, the New Curriculum, and the Forum Curriculum. The traditional Curriculum follows the common distribution requirements and would be most useful for transfer students, while the New Curriculum is closely related to a liberal arts program and requires courses in three areas: engagements, literacies, and disciplines. The New Curriculum also requires freshmen to take four seven- week engagement courses. The third option at the University of Virginia is the Forum Curriculum, which has similarities in integration to the general education programs at LaGuardia Community College and Guttmann Community College (both City University of New York); Portland State University; and selected California State University campuses). The Forum Curriculum takes an integrated approach and offers students general education under seven different themes. The current themes that have been offered are creative processes and practices; epidemics; hu- man influence on the environment; mobility and community; visions of the good; food, society, and sustainability; and space, knowledge, and power. Each theme has two faculty members who provide oversight, a required freshmen seminar, a capstone course, and clusters of courses that generally include requirements in the humanities, social sciences, and natural sciences that are related to the particular general education theme. This theme-based curriculum allows students to become deeply engaged in areas that may be outside the major and provides integration across multiple disciplines with courses related to the theme. More- over, the requirement of the freshmen seminar and a capstone course within the theme gives additional structure toward an integrated learning experience focused on a theme that is outside students’ majors. WPI’s 47-year-old curriculum offers another example of integration in the context of general education. This curriculum, known as the WPI Plan,4 brings vertical integration through general education requirements to every undergraduate. Since 1970, every WPI undergraduate has completed three general education projects in addition to the (optional, but popular) six- credit Great Problems Seminar described earlier. Two of these three required projects are deeply integrative. Under the WPI Plan, all undergraduates complete an 18-credit Humanities and Arts Project allowing them to pur- sue a creative or scholarly project of their choice through the lens of the humanities or arts. During the junior year, students complete a nine-credit 4  For more information on the WPI Plan, see https://www.wpi.edu/project-based-learning/ wpi-plan. PREPUBLICATION COPY—Uncorrected Proofs

76 BRANCHES FROM THE SAME TREE Interactive Qualifying Project, an open-ended interdisciplinary team project addressing some topic at the intersection of technology and human need. In the senior year, they complete a nine-credit Major Qualifying Project, the equivalent of a senior thesis or research project. As these projects take place at every year of the undergraduate course of study, students interweave integrated, purposive projects with coursework in their major. See Chapter 6 for additional examples of integrative general education programs. In addition to integrative general education, global education can offer opportunities for building integrative competencies. For example, the Uni- versity of Rhode Island’s successful International Engineering Program (IEP), in which engineering students double major in a foreign language and an engineering discipline (coupled with a study-abroad experience), has grown steadily and expanded to several language tracks. The IEP has pro- duced other, less-anticipated benefits: “Women have enrolled in engineering in increasing numbers . . . and the academic quality of Rhode Island’s engi- neering students has improved” (Fischer, 2012). Although such programs are built to couple STEMM with language ability, their appeal to students suggests that integrative projects that focus on the Grand Challenges in a global context may strengthen not only all students’ global citizenship but also the perceived, real-world relevance of the contributions of both STEMM fields and the arts and humanities. Blue et al. (2013), Nieusma (2011), and others have documented the challenges and rewards of such global projects for a wide range of students. Integration can also take place in the context of learning communi- ties. One explicitly arts and STEM integrative learning community is the University of Michigan’s Living Arts program,5 themed around the creative process and funded by the provost’s office and academic units that self- identify as “maker” units. These include the School of Music, Theatre and Dance; Stamps School of Art and Design; Taubman College of Architecture and Urban Planning; and the College of Engineering. They have a required first-semester four-credit curricular course, Introduction to Creative Pro- cess, co-taught by one instructor from each of the four academic units, plus a writing instructor. Students receive academic credit fulfilling the univer- sity’s first-year writing requirement, as well as experience hands-on making through the lens of creative process exploration within all four disciplines. At the graduate level, the University of Michigan also has one of the only engineered interdisciplinary graduate residences, the Munger Graduate Residences. It actively recruits students from all 19 academic units on campus, and places them in living suites based on interests, not disciplines. Their website states, “Experience true multi-disciplinary collaboration. The 5  For more information on the University of Michigan’s Living Arts program, see https:// livingarts.engin.umich.edu/about/. PREPUBLICATION COPY—Uncorrected Proofs

WHAT IS INTEGRATION? 77 world increasingly presents challenges that cut across multiple disciplines and skillsets. At the Munger Graduate Residences, a diverse mix of gradu- ate and professional students from various fields live, study and interact together, building a culture of collaboration.”6 Learning communities are common at community colleges, as they are considered a high-impact practice (Keup, 2013; Tinto, 2003). Of the examples of integrative programs this committee considered at community colleges, the vast majority took place in the context of a learning com- munity. See Box 3-5 for one example of a successful integrative program at Guttmann Community College. Other notable programs are in place at LaGuardia Community College,7 Maricopa Community College,8 and Seattle Central Community College.9 Given that they generally have limited resources and a relatively short time with students, community colleges have had to be particularly innovative in producing integrated approaches to general education—for example, combining training in mathematics, writing, historical analysis, and natural sciences in single courses. Accord- ing to administrators at these institutions, one of the most difficult chal- lenges they face is policy makers’ misconceptions that liberal education and vocational training are unrelated and that the former offers no added value to the latter. Co-curricular and Extra-curricular Integration Co-curricular and extra-curricular integrative opportunities include internships, faculty-run labs and makerspaces, and interdisciplinary research programs. Some of the most popular programs include the Maharam STEAM Fellows at the Rhode Island School of Design (Rhode Island School of Design, 2016), the Launch Lab at Youngstown State University (Wallace et al., 2010), the Institute of Design at Stanford University (Borrego et al., 2009), and the “Dance Your PhD” competition hosted by Science magazine (Bohannon, 2016; Shen et al., 2015). The movement associated with the acronym STEAM provides many examples of co-curricular integrative initiatives. Official STEAM student clubs have expanded to many campuses, including Brown, MIT, and Harvard, as students focus on “uniting the Arts with STEM” to “ignite 6  For more information on the University of Michigan Munger Graduate Residencies, see http://mungerresidences.org. 7  For more information on Learning Communities at LaGuardia Community College, see https://www.laguardia.edu/ctl/Learning_Communities.aspx. 8  For more information on Learning Communities at Maricopa Community Colleges, see https://hr.maricopa.edu/professional-development/learning-communities. 9  For more information on Learning Communities at Seattle Central College, see https:// seattlecentral.edu/programs/college-transfer/learning-options/learning-communities. PREPUBLICATION COPY—Uncorrected Proofs

78 BRANCHES FROM THE SAME TREE BOX 3-5 Integration at a Community College The Stella and Charles Guttmann Community College of the City University of New York uses an integrated, interdisciplinary approach to increase student retention, understanding, and interest. Founded as the New Community Col- lege (NCC), it has an educational framework that includes mandatory full-time enrollment for first-year students, student participation in a common first-year experience, a limited choice of majors and electives, a required capstone course, student services such as mentoring and advising, comprehensive and continu- ous assessment, a well-coordinated and student-centered admissions process, a mandatory summer bridge program, co- and extracurricular activities, the forma- tion of a learning community, and a focus on research in writing-intensive courses. All programs are built around the idea of using New York City to enable students to develop connections between their work and their environment. One of the most important elements of the program at NCC is student buy- in. The integrated instructional model is explained to prospective students, and all agree to take part in NCC’s experimental interdisciplinary curriculum. Once students enroll, they are assigned to a cohort during the summer bridge program and remain in this group until they choose a major. NCC offers a curriculum that does not require separate disciplinary courses so that students can build develop- mental skills, which many of them need, while still learning college-level material. Integration of multiple subjects promotes application of knowledge beyond mere memorization and retention. The first year at NCC is structured around an integrated course known as the City Seminar. Learning goals center around a single issue per semester that is relevant to students’ lives and experiences, such as sustainability or immigra- tion. The first semester is built around four components: critical issue, quantitative reasoning, reading and writing, and group work space. In critical issue, students communications between disparate fields in academia, business, and thought” (STEAM, 2016, para. 1). STEAM efforts have gained legisla- tive support through House Resolution 319, introduced in 2012 and still under committee consideration, which “expresses the sense of the House of Representatives that adding art and design into federal programs that tar- get Science, Technology, Engineering and Math (STEM) fields, encourages innovation and economic growth in the United States.”10 Notable STEAM efforts include instruction in hand drawing (at the University Illinois) and narrative and role playing (at the University of Delaware). 10  H.Res.319—Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that adding art and design into federal programs that target the science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) fields encourages innovation and economic growth in the United States. 112th Con- gress (2011–2012). PREPUBLICATION COPY—Uncorrected Proofs

WHAT IS INTEGRATION? 79 learn to develop their critical thinking skills and to examine issues from multiple perspectives. In quantitative reasoning, they learn to analyze numerical aspects of real-life situations. In reading and writing, they build a deeper understand- ing of content through intertextual connections and reflective writing. In group workspace, they gain an understanding of their learning processes and have the opportunity to develop skills through project-based and experiential activities. Each component is taught by a different instructor, and these four faculty mem- bers make up the instructional team for a cohort. In the second semester of City Seminar, the reading and writing component is replaced by English Composition I. Student and faculty collaboration is vital to NCC’s success. Faculty work together to create “signature assignments” that seamlessly integrate all major components of the program, with 11 defined learning outcomes that cover a wide range of skills and disciplines. The curriculum focuses on “skill spines,” faculty- defined topics that should be covered in every offering of the City Seminar. Once the theme of each seminar has been decided, faculty identify texts and resources that can be used to address each component. This material is compiled in a City Seminar I Instructional Binder provided to all faculty teaching the course. The City Seminar is still evolving to meet student and teacher needs, but initial results are promising. Two years after entering, 27.0 percent of the students in NCC’s inaugural class graduated with their associate’s degree, compared with a City University of New York–wide 2-year graduation rate of 4.1 percent. More broadly, the program has revealed how effective communication among faculty and students of diverse backgrounds and interests allows for a broader appre- ciation of multiple points of view and the ability to engage in open discussions. Though not all students can adhere to the college’s requirements, such as attend- ing full time, the program has demonstrated positive results, and other schools have adopted similar models. SOURCE: Saint-Louis et al., 2015. Integrative, experiential learning experiences offer students an oppor- tunity to appreciate both their own and others’ contributions to a shared outcome. Such projects may be commercially or socially entrepreneurial, community based, concerned with social justice, or focused on a combina- tion of valued goals, thereby developing each team member’s skills and perspectives in service of a larger goal. They may employ various peda- gogical tools, such as problem-based learning, design thinking, or other collaborative processes. A platform for experiential learning experiences can often be found in campus-based centers for innovation, creativity, and/or entrepreneurship. In nonprofit and public-sector projects, social innovation can be as relevant as innovative commercial ventures (Gulbrandsen and Aanstad, 2015). These kinds of experiences can strengthen both STEMM and arts and humani- PREPUBLICATION COPY—Uncorrected Proofs

80 BRANCHES FROM THE SAME TREE ties students’ abilities to value the merits of their own disciplinary training while learning more about the contributions of others (Brown and Kuratko, 2015). STUDIES OF INTEGRATIVE EXPERIENCES DO NOT ALWAYS INVOLVE INTEGRATION OF THE HUMANITIES, ARTS, AND STEMM Although this study uses the term “integration” to refer specifically to the integration of the humanities and arts with STEMM fields, higher edu- cation scholars consider integrative educational experiences more broadly. Specifically, some scholars view “integration” as a learning outcome unto itself (i.e., “integrative learning”) and characterize it as a process or mecha- nism that helps students integrate or bring together ideas as an embedded element of a curricular or co-curricular program or initiative. Importantly, this may occur in the context of the integration of the humanities and arts with STEMM fields, or it may occur in other educational contexts. Indeed, scholars who work with the National Survey of Student Engagement have established that the integrative experience may involve any college process or mechanism that students identify as helping them integrate or bring together ideas and may not be something that is bound to any given cur- ricular or co-curricular context (Laird et al., 2005). Though we focus exclu- sively on the integration of the humanities, arts, and STEMM subjects in this report, we offer this description of the larger context in which scholars have considered integration to acknowledge that the type of integration this study is dealing with falls within a larger body of research in higher education. WHAT IS INTEGRATIVE LEARNING? In the higher education research literature, the term “integration” can refer both to the design of a learning experience (e.g., a course that integrates medicine and the arts) and to a student’s cognitive experience that unifies different disciplinary approaches (e.g., an assignment that asks students to integrate engineering design principles into an ethical decision- making scenario). We offer here two published definitions of integrative learning that provide some insight into the anticipated student outcomes of an integrative learning experience: one from higher education researcher James Barber, and a second from the widely used and often lauded Associa- tion of American Colleges and Universities (AAC&U) rubric for integrative learning. PREPUBLICATION COPY—Uncorrected Proofs

WHAT IS INTEGRATION? 81 Barber (2012, p. 593) defines integrative learning as the demonstrated ability to connect, apply, and/or synthesize information coherently from disparate contexts and perspectives, and make use of these new insights in multiple contexts. This includes the ability to connect the domain of ideas and philosophies to the everyday experience, from one field of study or discipline to another, from the past to the present, between campus and community life, from one part to the whole, from the abstract to the concrete, among multiple identity roles—and vice versa. Extending this idea, the AAC&U has developed an assessment rubric designed to help educators ascertain when integration is occurring in their students’ work (AAC&U, 2010). From the association’s perspective, stu- dents are demonstrating integration as a learning outcome when they are able to • connect relevant experiences and academic knowledge; • see and make connections across disciplines and perspectives; • adapt and apply skills, abilities, theories, or methodologies gained in one situation to new situations; • communicate in language that demonstrates cross-disciplinary flu- ency; and • demonstrate a developing sense of self as a learner, building on prior experiences to respond to new and challenging contexts. These capabilities point toward a distinctive form of learning (Barber, 2012). The definitions from Barber and AAC&U demonstrate a growing commitment to understand not only experiences that are integrated but also how those experiences might contribute distinctively to student learning. Perhaps exposing students to integrated learning experiences will not only promote existing learning and career outcomes but also spur a distinctive form of learning not captured by or part of other learning dimensions (e.g., cognitive development, critical thinking, pluralism, etc.). For an excellent discussion of this issue, see Barber (2012) and Youngerman (2017). But whether the integration of the humanities, arts, and STEMM disciplines leads to integrative learning remains an open question. As Chapter 5 dem- onstrates, the available research does not speak directly to this question. The committee would urge future research to consider this question as, hypothetically, certain approaches to the integration of the humanities, arts, and STEMM should promote integrative learning. Assessment of integrative learning is important for understanding the student experience in a course or program that integrates the humanities, arts, and STEMM disciplines. Unless students are deliberately making con- PREPUBLICATION COPY—Uncorrected Proofs

82 BRANCHES FROM THE SAME TREE nections across disciplinary domains, integration may not be taking place despite the programmatic design choices of educators. Although integrative programs and initiatives have been studied for their relationship to learning outcomes (see Chapter 6), very few scholars have examined what students are integrating or how participation in these programs and initiatives helps students with the integrative process (i.e., how these students are bringing together information). Rather, scholars assume that integration is occur- ring as a result of students’ participation in these programs and initiatives and suggest that associations between participation and learning outcomes are based on the assumed integration occurring. The next chapter further explores the challenges of assessing learning outcomes in higher education, in general, and the challenges of assessing the impact of programs and courses that integrate the humanities, arts, and STEMM, specifically. PREPUBLICATION COPY—Uncorrected Proofs

Next: 4 The Challenges of Assessing the Impact of Integration in Higher Education on Students »
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!