collaborative inquiry into deep and integrative learning ...intellectual engagement 3 deep learning...

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


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,


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


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


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.


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.


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


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.


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.

http://www.carnegiefoundation.org/perspectives/building-pedagogical-intelligence,%20%20April%2019

http://www.carnegiefoundation.org/perspectives/building-pedagogical-intelligence,%20%20April%2019


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


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.


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

collaborative inquiry into deep and integrative learning ...intellectual engagement 3 deep learning...

Documents