collaborative inquiry into deep and integrative learning ...intellectual engagement 3 deep learning...
Post on 31-Aug-2020
3 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
Collaborative Inquiry into Deep and Integrative Learning
Intellectual Engagement QEP proposal by Katie King and Mary Knight-McKenna
Proposal Description
As our mission statement makes clear, Elon University strives to prepare our graduates to tackle
challenges faced by their local and global communities. Working collaboratively with others to
find solutions to complex problems requires the application of a deeply interconnected
knowledge base acquired through the integration of learning across a broad spectrum of contexts
(Schneider, 2008). Already renowned for engaged learning, Elon is now poised to build upon
this success by exploring and promoting intellectual engagement on our campus. In contrast to
conventional pedagogies, which often lead to superficial, disconnected learning, engaged
learning pedagogies can support the deep and integrative learning necessary for our students to
contribute to the solutions of complex problems facing the world.
Through collaborative inquiry, faculty, staff and students will study intellectual engagement in
and out of the classroom. The findings will be used to support students in developing deep
disciplinary and interdisciplinary understandings and applying their knowledge and skills in
integrated ways as leaders of the twenty-first century.
This project will have a fittingly deep and broad influence on student learning: students who
participate directly in the QEP project will deepen their understanding of learning, both generally
and in disciplinary and co-curricular contexts. They will gain insights into the need to
intentionally integrate knowledge, skills and ways of knowing acquired from multiple sources
and experience. Students‟ intellectual engagement will increase as they take greater
responsibility for their own learning and that of their peers. The exploration of deep and
integrative learning on our campus will stimulate the development of innovative curricular and
pedagogical strategies, which will have a long lasting impact on student learning for years to
come.
In the first year (AY 2012-2013) students, faculty and staff will be invited to participate in
Intellectual Engagement Seminars, courses developed around deep and integrative learning. The
two-hour courses will be credit-bearing for students, and count toward normal work load or be
accompanied by a stipend for faculty and staff. These courses will be offered throughout the
2012-2013 and 2013-2014 academic years.
In each subsequent year, teams of students, faculty and/or staff will be invited to apply for
Intellectual Engagement Grants to support inquiry projects focused on a) deep learning within
the disciplines; b) deep learning within co-curricular programs, e.g., experiential education,
SGA, Multicultural Center; or c) integrative learning across the curriculum. These projects may
be one, two, three, or even four years in length, depending on the research design of the inquiry
team. The work of the inquiry teams will be supported by regular meetings with the QEP director
and the Assessment Coordinator. Inquiry teams working in related areas or using similar
methodologies will meet regularly and develop common rubrics for the assessment of deep and
integrative learning (see Appendices A & B for models).
Intellectual Engagement 2
Formal and informal discussions will be convened so students, faculty and staff who are not
members of inquiry teams can reflect, and build on the new understandings being developed.
Beginning in departments and programs, these conversations will widen in concentric circles
until the entire University is thinking intentionally about deep and integrative learning and how it
can be facilitated with new curricular initiatives and pedagogical innovations. The work will also
be disseminated widely, through a web-presence, scholarly presentations and publications, and a
book summarizing the project, further supporting Elon University‟s reputation for intellectual
engagement.
The table below summarizes the goals, strategies and projected student learning outcomes of the
project.
Proposal Goals and Strategies
Goal 1: Initiate campus conversations about deep and integrative learning
Strategy: Develop and offer 2-credit hour Intellectual Engagement Seminars focusing
on deep and integrative learning, drawing on cognitive science research, research in higher
education, and discipline-specific research. Faculty, staff and students will be encouraged to
participate and compensated for their participation.
Learning outcomes - Participating students will:
Gain knowledge about the teaching/learning process
Think critically about their own learning and that of their peers
Apply knowledge from the seminar to their own learning within and across disciplines and co-
curricular programs
Develop an increased sense of responsibility for their own learning and that of their peers
Goal 2: Investigate deep and integrative learning in the disciplines, co-curricular programs and across
the curriculum
Strategy: Fund and support collaborative inquiry projects proposed by teams of students, faculty
and staff.
Learning outcomes - Participating students will:
Enhance their understanding of disciplinary content Enhance their understanding of disciplinary ways of knowing and practicing View issues and problems from multiple viewpoints Develop an increased sense of responsibility for their own learning and that of their peers Enhance their understanding of the need to intentionally integrate knowledge and ways of
knowing in order to contribute to solutions of complex, real world problems Develop an understanding of research methodologies and the research process
Goal 3: Use the results of our inquiry in curriculum planning and to develop innovative pedagogical
strategies
Strategy: Create a sustainable system for sharing inquiry methods, results, and implications.
Strategy: Create a sustainable system for using implications of inquiry work in curricular and co-curricular planning.
Strategy: Create a sustainable system for supporting the development of innovative pedagogies for
Intellectual Engagement 3
deep learning and integrative problem solving.
Learning Outcomes – Students who participate in educational activities that are modified or
developed as a result of the inquiry work will:
Deepen their disciplinary knowledge
Experience guided practice reflecting on and integrating their learning acquired across multiple experiences
Goal 4: Become a national model for intellectual engagement
Strategy: Disseminate the work through scholarly presentations and publications, including a book
on the Elon Intellectual Engagement Project.
Before describing the project in greater detail we will discuss the nature of deep and integrative
learning and their relationship to intellectual engagement.
Deep learning
Examination of approaches to learning reveals a continuum between deep and surface treatment
of course content. In surface learning, knowledge is treated as discrete bits of information that
can be acquired, often through memorization, without making connections to prior knowledge.
Learners view learning as a process of reproducing what has been transmitted to them and
replicating simple procedures. This leads to „fragile,‟ or „inert‟ knowledge, which is likely to
collect dust in the attic of the mind, unconnected to learners‟ lives in meaningful ways. Research
has demonstrated that students may get through high school, do well on standardized tests, and
even complete college using surface level understandings and mimicry rather than developing
true understanding (Shanahan & Meyer, 2006). However, learners who adopt a surface approach
to learning are intellectually disengaged from the world around them, unable to connect what
they learned in history or sociology to current events; unable to connect concepts in science to
the natural world around them (Perkins, 2006). For example, a recent Elon graduate revealed that
she thought the sun revolved around the earth.
In contrast, deep learning requires that the learner make sense of new knowledge, searching for
underlying principles, and making connections to prior understandings. So for example, a student
in a geography class might study a map, working to understand relationships between the
economic impacts of natural disasters and human population density. This knowledge will likely
be available for application in new situations (Hay, 2007) and generate future learning. Our
geography student might later consider how more effective natural disaster warning systems
could mitigate the economic impacts in highly populated areas such as along the South China
Sea. Moving toward expertise in a discipline requires the acquisition of a deep, richly
interconnected conceptual knowledge base that can be proactively applied in new contexts and
used productively in seeking solutions to new problems (Chi, 2006). Deep intellectual
engagement is crucial for the development of expertise, even if not always necessary for
academic success (Shanahan & Meyer, 2006).
A similar distinction can be made among approaches to teaching, which can be viewed on a
continuum between teacher-focused and learner-focused (Entwistle, Skinner, Entwistle, & Orr,
Intellectual Engagement 4
2000). Teacher-focused perspectives emphasize transmitting information, which students may
assimilate in unaltered chunks of knowledge; while leaner-focused perspectives emphasize
building on what students already know to ensure conceptual understanding and meaningful
interpretation of information, encouraging active participation and student regulation of learning
(Biggs & Tang, 2007).
Integrative Learning
Learning can be integrative on many levels. The description above of an interconnected
knowledge base highlights the role of disciplinary knowledge in real world problem solving.
Interdisciplinary learning is integrative in that it brings together content and ways of knowing
from two or more disciplines (Lardner & Malnarich, 2009). In its most powerful form,
integrative learning involves pulling together knowledge and strategies gained in a variety of
contexts in order to make sense of a new experience, reason about a complex issue, or work
collaboratively to solve a problem (Schneider, 2008). Experiences such as undergraduate
research, internships, and service learning in the community or abroad provide opportunities for
students to grapple with authentic problems and complex societal issues. General studies
seminars pose problems about the ethics of organ transplants, socioeconomic inequities in
education, and censorship and the First Amendment that encourage students to integrate
knowledge, skills, and ways of knowing from across disciplines.
Integrative learning is generally not a major focus in higher education (Lardner & Malnarich,
2009). Without specific attention to integrative learning, students may well experience their time
in college as an assortment of disconnected courses and experiences, as described in
Academically Adrift (Arum & Roksa, 2011). By purposely focusing on deep and integrative
learning, our students will be prepared to be community leaders, lifelong learners, and to be
successful in the workplace, where “employers seek new hires with breadth as well as depth, and
a demonstrated capacity for applying their knowledge to new challenges and contexts”
(Schneider, 2011, p. 1).
Intellectual Engagement Seminars
Students, faculty and staff will be encouraged to participate in one of eight Seminars on
Intellectual Engagement offered in the 2012-2013 academic year or one of four offered in the
2013-2014 academic year. Topics will include the nature of learning in academic disciplines and
experiential education, motivation, self-regulation, cognitive and psychosocial development. The
material will be derived from research in educational psychology, teaching and learning in higher
education, and college student development. Special emphasis will be placed on how we can
know what people are learning, students‟ intellectual engagement and how students become
lifelong learners. The course will be coordinated by the QEP director but co-taught by all
participants, including students, as each participant will explore learning in the context of their
own major or program and make unique contributions to the course.
Students will earn academic credit for their participation (either within their majors or as general
elective credit); faculty will be able to either count the course toward their course load or receive
a stipend, and staff will receive a stipend for their participation. If approximately six faculty
Intellectual Engagement 5
members, four staff members and eight students participate in each of the eight sections of the
seminar, a total of 48 faculty, 32 staff members, and 64 students will be directly engaged in the
study of intellectual engagement in the first year of the project.
Intellectual Engagement Grants
Beginning in the spring of 2013, faculty, students, and staff members will be encouraged to
apply for funding as collaborative inquiry teams to explore learning in one of three specific
areas: a) deep learning within the disciplines; b) deep learning in co-curricular programs, or c)
integrative learning across the curriculum. These grants can support inquiry for one, two, three,
or four years, depending on the research designed by the inquiry team. The QEP director and
assessment coordinator will assist prospective teams in designing their projects, helping them
develop specific inquiry questions and methods and to obtain approval from the Institutional
Review Board. While we anticipate that participants in the Intellectual Engagements Seminars
will develop projects, additional students, faculty, and staff members will also be encouraged to
join inquiry teams, where they can be mentored, if needed; just as new undergraduate researchers
are often mentored in research by more experienced students.
Collaborative inquiry into teaching and learning builds new knowledge as team members share
their knowledge base with one another. Each member of the inquiry team will bring a unique
perspective, which, when made explicit, will problematize educational practice and tacit
assumptions, leading to new understandings of shared experience. Close study of teaching and
learning experiences will reveal strengths and limitations of assumptions and practices, leading
to the development and further study of alternative pedagogies. It will also broadly influence the
cultural climate of the academic institution; as practitioners share their insights with their
colleagues, the adoption of an inquiry stance and conversations about the relationships between
specific practices and their relationships to learning outcomes will become part of the cultural
climate of the academic institution.
The inclusion of students as co-inquirers is therefore crucial to the process. A profound paradigm
shift can occur when faculty and students work together, viewing teaching/learning experiences
through multiple lenses (Barr & Tagg, 1995; Drummond & Owens, 2010). Faculty will acquire a
new understanding of the knowledge, expectations, and motivations students bring to educational
settings, while students will acquire a new understanding of the reasons behind pedagogical
strategies and the complexity of the educational process (Hutchings, 2005). They will also
experience an increased sense of agency and responsibility with regard to their roles as students
(Cook-Sather & Alter, 2011). This effect is likely to go beyond undergraduate education, as
students who embrace an inquiry stance in college have been demonstrated to be more likely to
become knowledge builders focused on addressing complex problems in their professional lives
(Cochran-Smith, 2003).
Inquiry Methods
We will encourage longitudinal research with a focus on specific cohorts of students as they
move through majors or programs, in order to examine the impact of curricular and co-curricular
experiences on student learning and intellectual engagement. This approach has been described
Intellectual Engagement 6
as especially fruitful by the coordinators of the University of Washington‟s longitudinal study of
304 undergraduates, UW SOUL:
The study taught us more about the student experience than we had learned in two
decades of doing assessment. Further, campus interest in the study has allowed us to
bring student voices into conversations with faculty and administrators making decisions
about courses and majors (Beyer & Gillmore, 2007, p. 44).
The learning sciences offer many ways of gaining access to students‟ understanding of complex,
often abstract information, including think-aloud protocols (which encourage verbalization of
thought processes while reading or problem solving), link-aloud protocols (which encourage
verbalization of the way a learner makes connections among sources or disciplines when
writing), and concept mapping (which encourage the representation of understanding in a visual,
non-linear form). Interviews and focus groups have been used effectively (Entwistle & Entwistle,
2003; Beyer, Gillmore, & Fischer, 2007), as have student and faculty reflective diaries and
descriptions of critical incidents (Davies, 2006). Appendix C shows samples of concepts maps
and interview responses from students and faculty in psychology. Concept maps are particularly
useful for documenting the way students‟ understanding of disciplinary concepts changes over
time (Hay, 2007). They can be used by students and faculty alike as foundations for building
deeper and more conceptually powerful understandings.
Recent research in higher education on threshold concepts captures both the deep and integrative
aspects of learning that can result from intellectual engagement. As students enter new
disciplines or experiential educational contexts, they may struggle with concepts that seem
foreign or even counter-intuitive. Threshold concepts often connect previously disconnected
facts and ideas into an integrated system which embody ways of knowing tacitly shared by
members of professional communities. Researchers Meyer and Land write that a threshold
concept serves as a portal, “opening up a new and previously inaccessible way of thinking about
something” (2006, p. 3). Crossing thresholds can be transformative as learners gain new
conceptual lenses through which to view the world and the self. Examples of these might be the
concept of service learning as social justice action rather than as charity, the concept of „price‟ as
a function of supply and demand in economics, the interactive nature of relationship between
biological and environmental influences in psychology, and the notion of art as problem solving.
Not all inquiry requires the collection of additional data: a great deal of insight can be achieved
through looking at student work as data, providing evidence for understanding and suggesting
strategies for building expertise. Instructors who are interested in investigating deep and
integrative learning within their own classes may want to involve all their students in the process.
For example, a professor of engineering might have her students solve problems in teams on
small, portable white boards and then invite the teams to „step back‟ and study the multiple
visual representations, comparing the efficacy of different strategies for solving the same
problem.
We anticipate that approximately 25 inquiry teams will be funded. Grants will support stipends,
equipment, supplies, contributions to departmental student worker budgets, consultation,
transcription and other special treatment of data, and travel to professional conferences.
Intellectual Engagement 7
Dissemination
The project will influence the entire campus community directly and indirectly. We anticipate
that the findings of the inquiry teams will be discussed within departments and programs and that
general themes and implications will be discussed in larger forums on campus. Cross-
disciplinary engagement is most important with regard to integrative learning; if we want our
students to make connections between courses and disciplines and programs then we must lead
the way, negotiating the divides between the arts, humanities, social sciences and life sciences
and engaging in authentic conversations about what we do and how it can be used productively
in the world in which we live (Huber & Hutchings, 2004).
Programs and departments can use the results of inquiry teams‟ research to review and possibly
revise their curricula. For example, if the faculty in the music department discovered that very
few of their majors were graduating with an advanced understanding of music theory, they may
restructure the curriculum to emphasize and coordinate deep learning in music theory across the
four years of the major. Simultaneously, they may also make changes to their music education
program in response to findings from an experiential education inquiry team. The entire campus
might create new guidelines with regard to group projects with the aim of providing students
with structured guidelines and specific feedback on collaborative work across the curriculum.
A national model of intellectual engagement
The final goal of the project is to have Elon become a national model for intellectual
engagement. This will be accomplished by disseminating work related to the project through a
strong web presence, presentations at national conferences and a book on the Elon Intellectual
Engagement Project.
Measures of Success
This initiative will produce locally developed measures of learning within and across the
disciplines. As a part of the process, deep learning and integrative learning rubrics will be
developed (see Appendices A & B for models). Inquiry teams might also use capstone projects
and other assessments of our graduating seniors‟ learning and development to explore students‟
deep and integrative learning. Data already collected by the institution should also reflect student
learning gains. Many departments track their students‟ scores on Major Field Tests (ETS). It
would be valuable to explore the extent to which the range of disciplinary subfields and specific
content included in these tests map onto students‟ actual curricular experiences (Stoloff &
Feeney, 2002). The table below lists the specific NSSE items that should reflect student learning
gains. It would be valuable to explore the extent to which student self-reported gains on the
NSSE might be triangulated with other measures of deep and integrative learning (Carini, Kuh,
& Klein, 2006). These findings could be compared in subsequent years, with the expectation that
student performance should rise as the institutional focus on deep and integrative learning
intensifies.
Intellectual Engagement 8
Specific NSSE items reflecting learning outcomes
(the NSSE website includes links to SPSS syntax for a combined deep & integrative learning scale)
Deep learning
2. How much has your coursework emphasized:
a. Memorizing facts, ideas, or methods from your courses and readings so you can repeat them in
pretty much the same way [score should decrease]
b. Analyzing the basic elements of an idea, experience, or theory such as examining a particular
case or situation in depth and considering its components
c. Synthesizing and organizing ideas, information, or experiences into new, more complex
interpretations and relationships.
d. Making judgments about the value of information, arguments, or methods, such as examining
how others gathered and interpreted data and assessing the soundness of their conclusions
e. Applying theories or concepts to practical problems or in new situations
Integrative learning
1. How often have you:
d. worked on a paper or project that required integrating ideas or information from various sources
i. put together ideas or concepts from different courses when completing assignments or during
class discussions
t. discussed ideas from your readings or classes with others outside of class
Resources Required
Director – a faculty member full time in year 1 and year 5 and half time in years 2, 3, & 4.
Assessment Coordinator - a staff member who works half-time on this project
Faculty compensation for course participation
Staff stipends for course participation
SURE scholarships each summer for ~ 10 students
Program assistant: will be full time for the entire project
Grants program: Grants will include stipends for students, faculty and staff members, any outside
consultation, costs of equipment, transcription or other special treatment of data, supplies,
contributions to departmental student worker budgets.
External consultants
Internal use of technology staff and web design staff members
Meetings
Travel to professional conferences
Intellectual Engagement 9
Literature Support
Arum, R., & Roksa, J. (2011). Academically adrift: Limited learning on college campuses. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press
Association of American Colleges & Universities. (2010). Integrative learning VALUE rubric. In T.
L. Rhodes (Ed.), Assessing outcomes and improving achievement: Tips and tools for using
rubrics, Washington, D.C.: Association of American Colleges and Universities.
Barr, R. B., & Tagg, J. (1995). From teaching to learning: A new paradigm for undergraduate
teacher education. Change, 27, 13-25.
Beyer, C. H., & Gillmore, G. M. (2007 May/June). Longitudinal assessment of student learning:
Simplistic measures aren‟t enough. Change, 43-47.
Beyer, C. H., Gillmore, G. M., & Fisher, A. T. (2007). Inside the undergraduate experience: The
University of Washington’s study of undergraduate learning. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.
Biggs, J. B., & Tang, C. (2007). Teaching for quality learning at university. Open University
Press/Mc Graw-Hill Education
Carini, R. M., Kuh, G. D., & Klein, S. P. (2006). Student engagement and student learning: Testing
the linkages. Research in Higher Education, 47, 1-32.
Chi, M.T.H. (2006). Two approaches to the study of experts' characteristics. In K.A. Ericsson, N.
Charness, P. Feltovich, & R. Hoffman (Eds.), Cambridge Handbook of Expertise and Expert
Performance. (pp. 121-30). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Cochran-Smith, M. (2003). Learning and unlearning: The education of teacher educators. Teachers
and Teacher Education, 19, 5–28.
Cook-Sather, A., & Alter, Z. (2011). What is and what can be: How a liminal position can change
learning and teaching in higher education. Anthropology and Education Quarterly, 42, 37-53.
Davies, P. (2006). Threshold concepts: How can we recognise them? In J. H. F. Meyer & R. Land
(Eds.), Overcoming Barriers to Student Understanding: Threshold Concepts and
Troublesome Knowledge (pp. 70-84). London: Routledge.
Drummond, T., & Owens, K. S. (2010). Capturing students‟ learning. In C. Werder, & M. M. Otis
(Eds.), Sustaining Student Voices in the Scholarship of Teaching & Learning (pp. 210-232).
Sterling, VA: Stylus Publishing.
Entwistle, N. (2009). Teaching for understanding at university: Deep approaches and distinctive
ways of thinking. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Intellectual Engagement 10
Entwistle, N., & Entwistle, D. (2003). Preparing for examinationsn: the interplay of memorizing and
understanding, and the development of knowledge objects. Higher Education Research &
Development, 22, 19-41.
Entwistle, N., Skinner, D., Entwistle, D., & Orr, S. (2000). Conceptions and beliefs about "good
teaching": An integration of contrasting research areas. Higher Education Research &
Development, 19, 5-
Hay, D.B. (2007). Using concept mapping to measure deep, surface and non-learning outcomes.
Studies in Higher Education, 32, 39-57.
Huber, M. T., & Hutchings, P. (2004). Integrative learning: Mapping the terrain. Washington, DC:
Association of American Colleges and Universities.
Hutchings, P. (2005, January). Building pedagogical intelligence. Carnegie Perspectives. Retrieved
from http://www.carnegiefoundation.org/perspectives/building-pedagogical-intelligence,
April 19, 2009.
Lardner, E., & Malnarich, G. (2009, September/October). When faculty assess integrative learning:
Faculty inquiry to improve learning community practice. Change, 29-35.
Meyer, J. H. F., & Land, R. (2006), Threshold concepts and troublesome knowledge. In J. H. F.
Meyer and R. Land (Eds.), Overcoming barriers to student understanding: Threshold
concepts and troublesome knowledge (pp. 3-18). New York: Routledge Falmer.
Perkins, D. (2006). Constructivism and troublesome knowledge. In J. H. F. Meyer & R. Land Eds.)
Overcoming Barriers to Student Understanding: Threshold Concepts and Troublesome
Knowledge, (pp. 33-47). London: Routledge.
Ramsden, P. (2003). Learning to teach in higher education (2nd
ed.), New York: Routledge Falmer.
Schneider, C. G., (2008 Fall). From the president. Peer Review, 3.
Schneider, C. G. (2011, May 1). „Degrees for what jobs?‟ Wrong question, wrong answers.
Chronicle of Higher Education
Shanahan, M., & Meyer, J.H.F. (2006). The troublesome nature of a threshold concept in economics.
In J. H. F. Meyer and R. Land (Eds.) Overcoming Barriers to student understanding:
threshold concepts and troublesome knowledge, New York: Routledge Falmer.
Sims, E. (2006). Deep learning-1: A new shape for schooling? London: Specialist Schools and
Academies Trust.
Stoloff, M. L., & Feeney, K. J. (2002). The Major Field Test as an assessment tool for an
undergraduate psychology program. Teaching of Psychology, 29, 92-98.
Intellectual Engagement 11
Appendix A: Sample Rubric for Surface to Deep Learning
(based on Biggs & Tang, 2007; Entwistle, 2009; Ramsden, 2003; & Sims, 2006).
1 Surface Learning 2 Emergent Deep Learning
3 Capable Deep Learning
4. Accomplished Deep Learning
Accepts new facts and ideas uncritically and stores them as isolated, unconnected items
Examines new ideas and considers how they might relate to previous learning
Examines new facts and ideas and connects them to previous learning
Examines new facts and ideas critically, making numerous links between them and previous learning
Merely memorizes information for the next test; relies on rote learning
Develops a few webs of relationships among areas within a discipline
Develops several webs of relationships among different areas within a discipline
Develops extensive webs of relationships among different areas within a discipline
Lays down new knowledge haphazardly
Grasps a few underlying principles of a discipline
Grasps several underlying principles of a discipline
Grasps most underlying principles of a discipline
Is motivated externally, principally by fear of failing
Has limited intrinsic motivation for learning a discipline
Has moderate intrinsic motivation, demonstrates curiosity, and works to learn more about the discipline
Has strong intrinsic motivation, demonstrates intense curiosity, and works to master the discipline
Receives information passively
Occasionally interacts actively when presented with new information
Generally interacts actively when presented with new information
Consistently interacts actively and purposefully when presented with new information
Expresses a cynical view of education; has high anxiety
Occasionally has a positive view of education; has some measure of confidence in ability to succeed
Generally has a positive view of education; has confidence in ability to succeed
Consistently maintains a positive view of education; has strong confidence in ability to succeed and understand
Intellectual Engagement 12
Appendix B: Sample Rubric for Integrative Learning
(Association of American Colleges & Universities, 2010)
Evaluators are encouraged to assign a zero to any work sample or collection of work that
does not meet benchmark (cell one) level performance.
Capstone
4
Milestones
3 2
Benchmark
1
Connections to experience Connects relevant experience and academic knowledge
Meaningfully synthesizes connections among experiences outside of the formal classroom (including life experiences and academic experiences such as internships and travel abroad) to deepen understanding of fields of study and to broaden own points of view.
Effectively selects and develops examples of life experiences, drawn from a variety of contexts (e.g. family life, artistic participation, civic involvement, work experience), to illuminate concepts/theories/frameworks of fields of study.
Compares life experiences and academic knowledge to infer differences, as well as similarities, and acknowledge perspectives other than own.
Identifies connections between life experiences and those academic texts and ideas perceived as similar and related to own interests.
Connections to discipline Sees (makes) connections across disciplines, perspectives
Independently creates wholes out of multiple parts (synthesizes) or draws conclusions by combining examples, facts, or theories from more than one field of study or perspective.
Independently connects examples, facts, or theories from more than one field of study or perspective.
When prompted, connects examples, facts, or theories from more than one field of study or perspective.
When prompted, presents examples, facts, or theories from more than one field of study or perspective.
Transfer Adapts and applies skills, abilities, theories, or methodologies gained in one situation to new situations
When prompted, presents examples, facts, or theories from more than one field of study or perspective.
Adapts and applies skills, abilities, theories, or methodologies gained in one situation to new situations to solve problems or explore issues.
Uses skills, abilities, theories, or methodologies gained in one situation in a new situation to contribute to understanding of problems or issues.
Uses, in a basic way, skills, abilities, theories, or methodologies gained in one situation in a new situation.
Integrated
Communication
Fulfills assignments by choosing a format, language or graph (or other visual representation) in ways that enhance meaning, making clear the interdependence of language and meaning, thought and expression.
Fulfills assignments by choosing a format, language or graph (or other visual representation) to explicitly connect content and form, demonstrating awareness of purpose and audience.
Fulfills assignments by choosing a format, language or graph (or other visual representation) that connects in a basic way what is being communicated (content) with how it is said (form).
Fulfills assignments (i.e. to produce an essay, a poster, a video, a powerpoint presentation, etc.) in an appropriate form.
Reflection and Self Assessment Demonstrates a developing sense of self as a learner, building on prior experiences to respond to new and challenging contexts (may be evident in self assessment, reflective, or creative work)
Envisions a future self (and possibly makes plans that build on past experiences) that have occurred across multiple and diverse contexts.
Evaluates changes in own learning over time, recognizing complex contextual factors (e.g., works with ambiguity and risk, deals with frustration, considers ethical frameworks).
Articulates strengths and challenges (within specific performances or events) to increase effectiveness in different contexts (through increased self awareness).
Describes own performances with general descriptors of success and failure.
Integrative learning is an understanding and a disposition that a student builds across the curriculum and co-curriculum, from making simple connections among ideas and experiences to synthesizing and transferring learning to new, complex situations within and beyond the campus.
Intellectual Engagement 13
Deep and Connected Learning Diagram illustrating the interaction between genetics and
environment and how it changes over the lifespan by a
faculty member in Psychology
Disconnected Learning
Diagram and verbal explanation from a student who had
taken 5 psychology courses, including Lifespan
Development:
Intelligence comes from a part of your genes, naturally
some people are smarter than others, obviously, but the
way that they grow up and their environment and the way
that they are taught to learn and study and grow as a
person-- they can improve their intelligence from their
environment as well.
Surface Learning
Diagram and verbal explanation from a student who
had taken Genetics and Introduction to Psychology: I’m
not sure how they play a role in intelligence, but
genetics is just different allele frequencies and how they
get passed on from parent to offspring. I guess if
intelligence is a trait that’s carried on in a chromosome
then it’s going to be passed on to the next generation. If
it is hereditable, I mean.
This is an example of how inquiry teams could study student understanding of
disciplinary concepts using concept maps and interviews.
Maturation increases the complexity of
the interactions between
Appendix C: Representation of the role of biological and environmental
influences in the development of intelligence
top related