Advertisement

Facilitating the Development of Effective Interdisciplinary Curricular Materials

  • Anne E. EggerEmail author
  • Monica Z. Bruckner
  • Stuart J. Birnbaum
  • Lisa A. Gilbert
Chapter
Part of the AESS Interdisciplinary Environmental Studies and Sciences Series book series (AESS)

Abstract

Development of strong interdisciplinary curricular materials requires bringing together teams of instructors with diverse disciplinary expertise around complex and compelling topics. Many faculty lack the experience and support needed to effectively develop curricula as part of a team. To address these needs and to meet its own goal of engaging students in learning about Earth in the context of societal issues, the InTeGrate project designed a process that (1) constructed diverse and interdisciplinary materials development teams; (2) structured the materials development around a detailed rubric that included grand challenges and interdisciplinary problem-solving; (3) supported materials development teams through a semiflexible, scaffolded development timeline with several checkpoints; and (4) developed an extensive website to support both development teams and adopting instructors. Through this process, 32 interdisciplinary teams of 113 unique authors from around the country and many institution types produced 26 modules and 6 courses that are published on the InTeGrate website. The materials address a wide range of Earth-related grand challenges and contain explicitly interdisciplinary components. Authors and project leadership used the website heavily to support the development process. The rubric, timeline, and web-based tools that facilitated team-based curriculum development encode research-based practices in curriculum design and teaching and learning, and all components can be adapted for use by other projects.

Keywords

Curriculum development Rubric Interdisciplinary teams InTeGrate Active learning 

References

  1. AGI (2016) Geoscience for America’s critical needs. Analytical Graphics, Inc., AlexandriaGoogle Scholar
  2. Ball DL, Cohen DK (1996) Reform by the book: what is: or might be: the role of curriculum materials in teacher learning and instructional reform? Educ Res 25(9):6–14Google Scholar
  3. Barab SA, Landa A (1997) Designing effective interdisciplinary anchors. Educ Leadersh 54(6):52–55Google Scholar
  4. Björk B-C, Solomon D (2013) The publishing delay in scholarly peer-reviewed journals. J Informet 7(4):914–923CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Boix Mansilla V, Duraisingh ED (2007) Targeted assessment of students’ interdisciplinary work: an empirically grounded framework proposed. Rev High Educ 78(2):215–237.  https://doi.org/10.1353/jhe.2007.0008CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Boix Mansilla V, Miller WC, Gardner H (2000) On disciplinary lenses and interdisciplinary work. In: Wineburg S, Grossman P (eds) Interdisciplinary curriculum: challenges of implementation. Teachers College Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  7. Cullen R, Harris M, Hill RR (2012) The learner-centered curriculum: design and implementation. Jossey-Bass, San FranciscoGoogle Scholar
  8. Frodeman R (2017) The Future of interdisciplinarity: an introduction to the 2nd edition. In: Frodeman R (ed) The Oxford handbook of interdisciplinarity. Oxford University Press, Oxford.  https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198733522.013.1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Gosselin DC, Manduca CA, Bralower TJ (this volume) Preparing students to address grand challenges and wicked problems: the InTeGrate approach. In: Gosselin DC, Egger AE, Taber JJ (eds) Interdisciplinary teaching about earth and the environment for a sustainable future. AESS interdisciplinary environmental studies and sciences series. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  10. Hall P, Weaver L (2001) Interdisciplinary education and teamwork: a long and winding road. Med Educ 35(9):867–875.  https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2923.2001.00919.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Henderson C, Dancy MH (2007) Barriers to the use of research-based instructional strategies: the influence of both individual and situational characteristics. Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res 3(2):020102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. InTeGrate (2012a) Assessment and Project Evaluation. https://serc.carleton.edu/integrate/about/assessment.html. Accessed 16 Jan 2018
  13. InTeGrate (2012b) Information for Materials Developers. https://serc.carleton.edu/sp/index.html. Accessed 30 Dec 2017
  14. InTeGrate (2012c) Working as an InTeGrate team. https://serc.carleton.edu/integrate/info_team_members/currdev/team_tips.html. Accessed 27 Dec 2017
  15. InTeGrate (2012d) Your Module/Course Development Timeline. https://serc.carleton.edu/integrate/info_team_members/currdev/timeline.html. Accessed 27 Dec 2017
  16. InTeGrate (2013) Working with the InTeGrate rubric. https://serc.carleton.edu/integrate/info_team_members/currdev/rubric.html. Accessed 27 Dec 2017
  17. InTeGrate (2014) Using InTeGrate modules and courses. https://serc.carleton.edu/integrate/teaching_materials/using/index.html. Accessed 12 Jan 2018
  18. InTeGrate (2017) InTeGrate Teaching Materials. https://serc.carleton.edu/integrate/teaching_materials/index.html. Accessed 28 Dec 2017
  19. Iverson ER, Steer D, Gilbert LA, Kastens KA, O’Connell K, Manduca CA (this volume) Measuring literacy, attitudes, and capacities to solve societal problems. In: Gosselin DC, Egger AE, Taber JJ (eds) Interdisciplinary teaching about earth and the environment for a sustainable future. AESS interdisciplinary environmental studies and sciences series. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  20. Jacobs JA (2017) The need for disciplines in the modern research university. In: Frodeman R (ed) The Oxford handbook of interdisciplinarity. Oxford University Press, Oxford.  https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198733522.013.4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kastens KA, Baldassari C, DeLisi J (2014) InTeGrate Mid-Project Evaluation ReportGoogle Scholar
  22. Kastens KA, Krumhansl R (2017) Identifying curriculum design patterns as a strategy for focusing geoscience education research: a proof of concept based on teaching and learning with geoscience data. J Geosci Educ 65(4):373–392.  https://doi.org/10.5408/16-217.1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kastens KA, Manduca CA (2017) Using systems thinking in the design, implementation, and evaluation of complex educational innovations, with examples from the integrate project. J Geosci Educ 65(3):219–230.  https://doi.org/10.5408/16-225.1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Klein JT (2005) Integrative learning and interdisciplinary studies. Peer Rev 7(3/4):8–10Google Scholar
  25. Klein JT, Newell WH (1996) Advancing interdisciplinary studies. In: Gaff J, Ratcliff J (eds) Handbook of the undergraduate curriculum. Jossey-Bass, San FranciscoGoogle Scholar
  26. Knight DB, Lattuca LR, Kimball EW, Reason RD (2013) Understanding interdisciplinarity: curricular and organizational features of undergraduate interdisciplinary programs. Innov High Educ 38(2):143–158.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10755-012-9232-1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Lyall C, Meagher L, Bandola J, Kettle A (2015) Interdisciplinary provision in higher education: current and future challenges. UK Higher Education Academy, EdinburghGoogle Scholar
  28. Manduca CA, Mogk DW, Tewksbury B, Macdonald RH, Fox SP, Iverson ER, Kirk K, McDaris J, Ormand C, Bruckner M (2010) On the cutting edge: teaching help for geoscience faculty. Science 327(5969):1095–1096.  https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1183028CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. McConnell DA, Chapman L, Czajka CD, Jones JP, Ryker KD, Wiggen J (2017) Instructional utility and learning efficacy of common active learning strategies. J Geosci Educ 65(4):604–625.  https://doi.org/10.5408/17-249.1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Meeth RL (1978) Interdisciplinary studies: a matter of definition. Change Mag High Learn 10(7):10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Morse WC, Nielsen-Pincus M, Force JE, Wulfhorst J (2007) Bridges and barriers to developing and conducting interdisciplinary graduate-student team research. Ecol Soc 12(2):8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. National Research Council (2001a) Basic research opportunities in earth science. The National Academies Press, Washington, DC.  https://doi.org/10.17226/9981CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. National Research Council (2001b) Grand challenges in environmental sciences. The National Academies Press, Washington, DC.  https://doi.org/10.17226/9975CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. National Research Council (2011) Promising practices in undergraduate science, technology, engineering, and mathematics education: summary of two workshops. The National Academies Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  35. National Research Council (2012a) Discipline-based education research: understanding and improving learning in undergraduate science and engineering. The National Academies Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  36. National Research Council (2012b) A framework for k-12 science education: practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. The National Academies Press, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  37. National Research Council (2015) Reaching students: what research says about effective instruction in undergraduate science and engineering. The National Academies Press, Washington, DC.  https://doi.org/10.17226/18687CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Newell WH (1994) Designing interdisciplinary courses. New Dir Teach Learn 1994(58):35–51.  https://doi.org/10.1002/tl.37219945804CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. NGSS Lead States (2013) Next generation science standards: for states, by states, vol 1. The National Academies Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  40. Nikitina S (2006) Three strategies for interdisciplinary teaching: contextualizing, conceptualizing, and problem-centring. J Curric Stud 38(3):251–271CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. O’Connell K, Bruckner MZ, Manduca CA, Gosselin DC (2016) Supporting interdisciplinary teaching about the Earth with the InTeGrate website. J Environ Stud Sci 6(2):354–359.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s13412-015-0317-xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Pennington D, Bammer G, Danielson A, Gosselin D, Gouvea J, Habron G, Hawthorne D, Parnell R, Thompson K, Vincent S, Wei C (2016) The EMBeRS project: employing model-based reasoning in socio-environmental synthesis. J Environ Stud Sci 6(2):278–286.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s13412-015-0335-8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Pintrich PR (2002) The role of metacognitive knowledge in learning, teaching, and assessing. Theory Pract 41(4):219–225.  https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip4104_3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. SERC (2002) On the Cutting Edge: Strong undergraduate geoscience teaching. https://serc.carleton.edu/NAGTWorkshops/index.html. Accessed 4 Jan 2018
  45. SERC (2015) Pedagogy in Action: Connecting Theory to Classroom Practice. https://serc.carleton.edu/sp/index.html. Accessed 30 Dec 2017
  46. SERC (2016) Serckit: SERC Content Management System. https://serc.carleton.edu/serc/cms/index.html. Accessed 4 Jan 2018
  47. SERC (2017) Serckit includes a complete suite of tools for supporting education reform. https://serc.carleton.edu/serc/about/serckit.html. Accessed 12 Jan 2018
  48. Spelt EH, Biemans HA, Tobi H, Luning P, Mulder M (2009) Teaching and learning in interdisciplinary higher education: a systematic review. Educ Psychol Rev 21(4):365–378.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-009-9113-zCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Steer D, Iverson ER, Egger AE, Kastens KA, Manduca CA, McConnell DA (this volume) InTeGrate materials development: A framework and process for developing curricular materials that address grand challenges facing society. In: Gosselin DC, Egger AE, Taber JJ (eds) Interdisciplinary teaching about earth and the environment for a sustainable future. AESS interdisciplinary environmental studies and sciences series. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  50. Sunal DW, Hodges J, Sunal CS, Whitaker KW, Freeman LM, Edwards L, Johnston RA, Odell M (2001) Teaching science in higher education: faculty professional development and barriers to change. Sch Sci Math 101(5):246–257.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1949-8594.2001.tb18027.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Vanasupa L, McCormick KE, Stefanco CJ, Herter RJ, McDonald M (2012) Challenges in transdisciplinary, integrated projects: reflections on the case of faculty members’ failure to collaborate. Innov High Educ 37(3):171–184.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10755-011-9199-3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Wenger E (1998) Communities of practice: learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Wiggins G, McTighe J (2005) Understanding by design. Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, AlexandriaGoogle Scholar
  54. Zoback ML (2001) Grand challenges in earth and environmental sciences: science, stewardship, and service for the 21st century. GSA Today 11(12):41–47Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Anne E. Egger
    • 1
    Email author
  • Monica Z. Bruckner
    • 2
  • Stuart J. Birnbaum
    • 3
  • Lisa A. Gilbert
    • 4
  1. 1.Geological Sciences and Science EducationCentral Washington UniversityEllensburgUSA
  2. 2.Science Education Resource Center, Carleton CollegeNorthfieldUSA
  3. 3.University of Texas at San AntonioSan AntonioUSA
  4. 4.Geosciences & Marine Science at Williams-Mystic, Williams CollegeMysticUSA

Personalised recommendations