Sign in or 
Share this
Jan 24 2008
Jan. 24, 11:40 pm
Interdisciplinarity and the Liberal Arts
Present:
C. Hemmens
S. Shadle
B. Henry
N. Miller
S. Woods
D. Wilkins
L. Brady
L. Rogien
L. Lubamersky
M. Buchanan
Discussion led by Brady and Wilkins.
Brady: welcome,.
Wilkins, welcome. We're here because interdisciplinary is what we do (Environmental Studies)
We'be been in it for years, it's a model for how to do and how not to do it. It's a degree program based on courses in other contributing disciplines. Has seminars, internships, a senior project, all taught by faculty from other depts. Has no dtp. home, per se, although Chris Hill is coordinator, in Anthropology dept.. We meet to be sure it is running smoothly. We have classes from anthro, history, geosciences, poli-sci, public policy, economics, business, philosophy. Students can explore options in different disciplines
At same time, has issues that we recognize haven't been overcome, including:
Lacking: connections, alignment, (no classes coordinated, just offered for other majors, not for ES -- no coordination, connections with ES per se); also, a lack of depth -- get overview, some courses sequenced, but not all, so a lack of depth of coverage -- more breadth than depth; a lack of official faculty
We do have: most courses are taught by tenure/track faculty -- no adjuncts teaching major courses.
Problems identified: Core classes end up silo-ed Get very large sections, not much discussion, very static/didactic learning. Lack of engagement between students and faculty.
Biggest: students don't see relevance, connections between all the fields
Brady: Question for all: this (environmental studies) is meant to be a liberal arts degree, so what do you see purpose of interdisciplinarity being in the liberal arts?
Lubamersky: need to build interdisc. into new structures; incl. buildings literally -- family studies in my case doesn't involve other faculty members, I never see the psych people, due to distance -- not just for lack of interest, but for lack of structures
Wilkins: we don't get credit for it, for working in interdisc.; we have to go out of our way to find that kind of interdisc.
Rogien: answer to original question: need to avoid absolute specialization; need to see outside our disciplinary box; my brother in law works at U of Oklahoma med school -- they recruit non premed majors into medicine; they are as strong as pure science majors, but have other team working skills, bedside manner; also, here in sec ed, we need to train our teachers to work with a myriad of constituents, not just in their fields/silos. (I don't like the word silo)
Shadle: we want to produce students who will be citizens and lifelong learners. Interdis give you breadth, tentacles go out in other directions -- not packaged in way that is usual; interdis can give students comfort knowing there are always more questions -- we all know that majors don't contain all there is, but the structure sends that message
Wilkins: yeah, like everything one needs to know in a field/topic will come out in 15 weeks (laughing)
Brady: goal is to overcome model of education that has been developed; (offers handouts) -- if students believe that there are hard and fast answers in 15 weeks, then we need to make sure they realize there is more Washington Center at Evergreen College: give three different types of learning communities; BSU is not there yet. What are some solutions?
Shadle: we do have students who take linked courses, but don't have collaborative faculty; the content in other words, is not linked. Kimber Shaw has some ideas for moving us closer to these models with more intentionality in them.
Lubamersky: BSU has problems with retention, with sense of community; CAL for instance has introduces "pods" or learning communities; would like to see BSU move in direction. When students feel loved, feel you can survive; faculty also need this community. Would like to see more interdis programs.
Brady notes that other state universities are doing this. Porltand State, Iowa State (learning communities, that is).
Miller: how could we solve the problem David noted about classes that are not devoted to the program?
Wilkins: set up pods; have an integrative seminar, or cohort leader? different levels of intentionality -- acc. to schedule, acc. to interest; intentionality where faculty have to be on board as well, where they bring in topics that make the link between English and History or Geog for instance; can bring each other in.
Wilkins: full time coordinator, training for faculty; Hill for instance gets nominal stipend; we get an overload stipend for senior project; two facuty share 3 credit stipend. None of this is enough for the work that is done. Why do faculty hate core courses? (If they do) They don't get credit for core classes, they want to support research, and upper div and grad do that. They like the dovetail effect. Core is service class only. Does not feed research. Incentive needed for core classes. Engage them at a lower level. Would result in retention, help identify students interested; we're the faculty who have been identified as having special skills and aptitudes -- may not have that with an adjunct. Sometimes do, but not always. Intentional incentive to get fculty back into core classroom.
Rogien: Honors College uses cohort model, have special classes that all honors attend. Has structure, director; also have cohort models in Education.
Brady: I didn't even know this was going on (not Honors of course). Students remind us that this is lacking. They realize something is missing.
Shadle: two categories of ideas; (1) Interdis programs (2) How to create more finite experiences for average student? Seems like part of what we need to do is figure out how do we create structures that reduce barriers. We could talk to each other about what is happening in our linked classes. Requires that we take time that we are not currently taking. We don't have the time. Might recommend broadly that if we want our students to have an interdis experience, have to be opportunities for buyout. Much like what happens in our classrooms - we see the connections, but studnets don't see it; will take work to make that happen.
Lubamersky: much literature out there to support this.
Shadle/Wilkins: needs to be a rewards structure, incentive. Not all will do it for the "right" reasons.
Lubamersky: important for faculty to be involved in shaping the course of the university; need to make a commitment to giving more energy and resources.
Wilkins: no community. Interdis has no cohort, no discussion, no links, they take classes, but are not in same community (grad); same with undergraduate students in interdis. Community is not there.
Lubamersky: There were some programs when we first got here; interdis humanities, don't know why it ceased to exist.
Rogien: part of this is just a political era that BSU is going through. Doesn't say Teaching University of Disticntion, it's Research. Yes you have to teach, but no sense that we're here to teach first. Uni level, it says teaching is the most critical role at the university.
Lubamersky: but interdis helps my own research. People who are interested in it, can link it to their teaching.
Rogien: told he should not do a lot of research; he was told to teach. Then the rug was pulled out. Not pretty in the college for a long time. It's an issue that we need to deal with.
Miller: research and teaching are linked; typical liberal arts faculty, though, are in disciplines in which the type of research that is done is not currently obviously valued. Making sure that their research is supported will have its benefits in the classroom.
Shadle: to build a culture that values research and builds research, and we need to avoid sacrificing teaching to research. Not a bad thing to get a teaching award. Need to keep teaching valued. Only have 24 hours in a day. Part of solution has to be when we are teaching we are doing a fantastic job and part of what you will be doing is linking with other faculty etc., that it's not enough to get your teaching assigment, do it, leave, and call it done. Need the part of what we do that is teaching to be rich and enriching.
Lubamersky: encourage deans reward new courses etc.
Brady: no reward for reaching out to other fields. No culture of communication.
Rogien: everyone wants to talk to teachers, abroad. Here it is reversed. This is a problem. Teaching gets you pats on the back. Research gets you money. There must be a value added attack.
Lubamersky/Wilkins: the value added can be in fundraising later on. Capital campaign could work better with good base of people who feel like we do.
Rogien: why don't we invite students to these? This is a learning community!
Brady: agreed. Students want to know what's going on. They could come.
Rogien: so how do we do this?
Brady: one nursing prof said "why don't we have liberal arts in our program?"
Brady: Housing has taken a big step in this. Global Village: intnl and local students taking shared courses. Tap into that (Miller thinks); Freshman Year Focus has three courses that all students will be taking together.
Shadle: would it be possible for student involved interdis conversation to take place? Can we create something like that with pairs or groups of faculty meet with students to discuss work; maybe something that needs to emerge from L4L are things to allow faculty to be connected, students to be connected --
Lubamersky: there was a gay marriage initiative at one election we had this one multidisciplinary meeting where faculty gave a variety of views from their perspective. Regular engaged discussions.
Wilkins: next week we have focus on the nation.
Rogien: regular roundtables. We need this.
Miller: could this be something that follows from, grows from L4L? Continuing commitment, funded? With stipends? Have a structure that will support/endorse/implement it?
Interdisciplinarity and the Liberal Arts
Present:
C. Hemmens
S. Shadle
B. Henry
N. Miller
S. Woods
D. Wilkins
L. Brady
L. Rogien
L. Lubamersky
M. Buchanan
Discussion led by Brady and Wilkins.
Brady: welcome,.
Wilkins, welcome. We're here because interdisciplinary is what we do (Environmental Studies)
We'be been in it for years, it's a model for how to do and how not to do it. It's a degree program based on courses in other contributing disciplines. Has seminars, internships, a senior project, all taught by faculty from other depts. Has no dtp. home, per se, although Chris Hill is coordinator, in Anthropology dept.. We meet to be sure it is running smoothly. We have classes from anthro, history, geosciences, poli-sci, public policy, economics, business, philosophy. Students can explore options in different disciplines
At same time, has issues that we recognize haven't been overcome, including:
Lacking: connections, alignment, (no classes coordinated, just offered for other majors, not for ES -- no coordination, connections with ES per se); also, a lack of depth -- get overview, some courses sequenced, but not all, so a lack of depth of coverage -- more breadth than depth; a lack of official faculty
We do have: most courses are taught by tenure/track faculty -- no adjuncts teaching major courses.
Problems identified: Core classes end up silo-ed Get very large sections, not much discussion, very static/didactic learning. Lack of engagement between students and faculty.
Biggest: students don't see relevance, connections between all the fields
Brady: Question for all: this (environmental studies) is meant to be a liberal arts degree, so what do you see purpose of interdisciplinarity being in the liberal arts?
Lubamersky: need to build interdisc. into new structures; incl. buildings literally -- family studies in my case doesn't involve other faculty members, I never see the psych people, due to distance -- not just for lack of interest, but for lack of structures
Wilkins: we don't get credit for it, for working in interdisc.; we have to go out of our way to find that kind of interdisc.
Rogien: answer to original question: need to avoid absolute specialization; need to see outside our disciplinary box; my brother in law works at U of Oklahoma med school -- they recruit non premed majors into medicine; they are as strong as pure science majors, but have other team working skills, bedside manner; also, here in sec ed, we need to train our teachers to work with a myriad of constituents, not just in their fields/silos. (I don't like the word silo)
Shadle: we want to produce students who will be citizens and lifelong learners. Interdis give you breadth, tentacles go out in other directions -- not packaged in way that is usual; interdis can give students comfort knowing there are always more questions -- we all know that majors don't contain all there is, but the structure sends that message
Wilkins: yeah, like everything one needs to know in a field/topic will come out in 15 weeks (laughing)
Brady: goal is to overcome model of education that has been developed; (offers handouts) -- if students believe that there are hard and fast answers in 15 weeks, then we need to make sure they realize there is more Washington Center at Evergreen College: give three different types of learning communities; BSU is not there yet. What are some solutions?
Shadle: we do have students who take linked courses, but don't have collaborative faculty; the content in other words, is not linked. Kimber Shaw has some ideas for moving us closer to these models with more intentionality in them.
Lubamersky: BSU has problems with retention, with sense of community; CAL for instance has introduces "pods" or learning communities; would like to see BSU move in direction. When students feel loved, feel you can survive; faculty also need this community. Would like to see more interdis programs.
Brady notes that other state universities are doing this. Porltand State, Iowa State (learning communities, that is).
Miller: how could we solve the problem David noted about classes that are not devoted to the program?
Wilkins: set up pods; have an integrative seminar, or cohort leader? different levels of intentionality -- acc. to schedule, acc. to interest; intentionality where faculty have to be on board as well, where they bring in topics that make the link between English and History or Geog for instance; can bring each other in.
Wilkins: full time coordinator, training for faculty; Hill for instance gets nominal stipend; we get an overload stipend for senior project; two facuty share 3 credit stipend. None of this is enough for the work that is done. Why do faculty hate core courses? (If they do) They don't get credit for core classes, they want to support research, and upper div and grad do that. They like the dovetail effect. Core is service class only. Does not feed research. Incentive needed for core classes. Engage them at a lower level. Would result in retention, help identify students interested; we're the faculty who have been identified as having special skills and aptitudes -- may not have that with an adjunct. Sometimes do, but not always. Intentional incentive to get fculty back into core classroom.
Rogien: Honors College uses cohort model, have special classes that all honors attend. Has structure, director; also have cohort models in Education.
Brady: I didn't even know this was going on (not Honors of course). Students remind us that this is lacking. They realize something is missing.
Shadle: two categories of ideas; (1) Interdis programs (2) How to create more finite experiences for average student? Seems like part of what we need to do is figure out how do we create structures that reduce barriers. We could talk to each other about what is happening in our linked classes. Requires that we take time that we are not currently taking. We don't have the time. Might recommend broadly that if we want our students to have an interdis experience, have to be opportunities for buyout. Much like what happens in our classrooms - we see the connections, but studnets don't see it; will take work to make that happen.
Lubamersky: much literature out there to support this.
Shadle/Wilkins: needs to be a rewards structure, incentive. Not all will do it for the "right" reasons.
Lubamersky: important for faculty to be involved in shaping the course of the university; need to make a commitment to giving more energy and resources.
Wilkins: no community. Interdis has no cohort, no discussion, no links, they take classes, but are not in same community (grad); same with undergraduate students in interdis. Community is not there.
Lubamersky: There were some programs when we first got here; interdis humanities, don't know why it ceased to exist.
Rogien: part of this is just a political era that BSU is going through. Doesn't say Teaching University of Disticntion, it's Research. Yes you have to teach, but no sense that we're here to teach first. Uni level, it says teaching is the most critical role at the university.
Lubamersky: but interdis helps my own research. People who are interested in it, can link it to their teaching.
Rogien: told he should not do a lot of research; he was told to teach. Then the rug was pulled out. Not pretty in the college for a long time. It's an issue that we need to deal with.
Miller: research and teaching are linked; typical liberal arts faculty, though, are in disciplines in which the type of research that is done is not currently obviously valued. Making sure that their research is supported will have its benefits in the classroom.
Shadle: to build a culture that values research and builds research, and we need to avoid sacrificing teaching to research. Not a bad thing to get a teaching award. Need to keep teaching valued. Only have 24 hours in a day. Part of solution has to be when we are teaching we are doing a fantastic job and part of what you will be doing is linking with other faculty etc., that it's not enough to get your teaching assigment, do it, leave, and call it done. Need the part of what we do that is teaching to be rich and enriching.
Lubamersky: encourage deans reward new courses etc.
Brady: no reward for reaching out to other fields. No culture of communication.
Rogien: everyone wants to talk to teachers, abroad. Here it is reversed. This is a problem. Teaching gets you pats on the back. Research gets you money. There must be a value added attack.
Lubamersky/Wilkins: the value added can be in fundraising later on. Capital campaign could work better with good base of people who feel like we do.
Rogien: why don't we invite students to these? This is a learning community!
Brady: agreed. Students want to know what's going on. They could come.
Rogien: so how do we do this?
Brady: one nursing prof said "why don't we have liberal arts in our program?"
Brady: Housing has taken a big step in this. Global Village: intnl and local students taking shared courses. Tap into that (Miller thinks); Freshman Year Focus has three courses that all students will be taking together.
Shadle: would it be possible for student involved interdis conversation to take place? Can we create something like that with pairs or groups of faculty meet with students to discuss work; maybe something that needs to emerge from L4L are things to allow faculty to be connected, students to be connected --
Lubamersky: there was a gay marriage initiative at one election we had this one multidisciplinary meeting where faculty gave a variety of views from their perspective. Regular engaged discussions.
Wilkins: next week we have focus on the nation.
Rogien: regular roundtables. We need this.
Miller: could this be something that follows from, grows from L4L? Continuing commitment, funded? With stipends? Have a structure that will support/endorse/implement it?
nmiller |
Latest page update: made by nmiller
, Jan 28 2008, 11:10 AM EST
(about this update
About This Update
Edited by nmiller
2 words added view changes - complete history) |
|
Keyword tags:
None
More Info: links to this page
|
There are no threads for this page.
Be the first to start a new thread.
|
L4L Jan 24 07.doc (Word Document - 42k)
posted by nmiller Jan 28 2008, 11:08 AM EST
January 24 Forum Notes
|
