The impulse to connect is a universal human desire
and a critical component of intellectual and emotional
maturity, and probably always has been. The challenges
of the contemporary world, however, have brought a new
urgency to the issue of connection and integration.
An early cartoon in the always-insightful Dilbert
series captures well one of the defining features
of our time. In the cartoon, a character uses a teacup
on its side to represent the human brain. An enormous
fire hose sprays water in the direction of the cup to
illustrate the information overload that characterizes
so much of modern life. As one might expect, nothing
stays inside the cup, while water sprays everywhere
on the page. Today's college student needs more than
ever a developed capacity to make sense of this flood
of information flowing into his or her consciousness
every day. That capacity depends fundamentally on how
well she or he can see connections and integrate disparate
facts, theories, and contexts to make sense of our complex
world. For these reasons, in its new campaign, Liberal
Education and America's Promise: Excellence for Everyone
as a Nation Goes to College, the Association of American
Colleges and Universities (AAC&U) is highlighting
integrative ability as a key outcome of a quality undergraduate
education today.
It is clear that integrative learning is essential
to prepare students to deal effectively both with complex
issues in their working lives and the challenges facing
the broader society today and in the future. As the
articles in this issue make clear, after years of compartmentalizing
knowledge, leaders across the educational spectrum are
renewing efforts to connect fragmented learning. In
fact, it could be argued that in most arenas outside
the academy--from the workplace to scientific discovery
to medicine to world and national affairs--multilayered,
unscripted problems routinely require an integrative
approach.
For these reasons, AAC&U suggested in its 2002
report, Greater Expectations: A New Vision for Learning
as a Nation Goes to College, that schools, colleges,
and universities should enable students to become "integrative
thinkers who can see connections in seemingly disparate
information and draw on a wide range of knowledge to
make decisions." These thinkers must learn to "adapt
the skills learned in one situation to problems encountered
in another: in a classroom, the workplace, their communities,
or their personal lives" (21).
The Greater Expectations report, of course,
was not the first to call for this kind of learning.
Integration has become an ongoing topic of discussion
among federal and state policy makers, campus and K-12
leaders, business leaders, and members of professional
societies. The U.S. Department of Education's
Goals 2000 project endorsed "interdisciplinary
frameworks" and thematic teaching of "big
ideas" (1998). The 1991 report Science for All
Americans (Rutherford and Ahlgren) is critical of teaching
scientific principles in isolation and calls for thematic
approaches and for approaches that teach students to
apply academic concepts to real-world contexts. The
American Association for the Advancement of Science
also supports integrative learning and the application
of scientific concepts to real-world situations through
Project 2061.
Integration of knowledge and multidisciplinary perspectives
are among the top priorities endorsed by the professions
as well. In its report Criteria for Accrediting Engineering
Programs, the Accreditation Board for Engineering and
Technology argues for advancing integrative learning,
including the capacity to work in multidisciplinary
teams, as a target goal for future engineering professionals.
The International Association for Management Education
predicts interdisciplinary activity will reach a new
level of sophistication as more problem-oriented courses
and multidisciplinary units are developed in undergraduate
and graduate business programs.
Leaders in the K-12 standards movements also
advocate integrative learning. The National Council
of Teachers of Mathematics includes "connections"
as one of its standards, suggesting that "instructional
programs . . . should enable all students to . . . understand
how mathematical ideas interconnect and build on one
another to produce a coherent whole; [and] recognize
and apply mathematics" in contexts outside of
the field (2002, 64-65). These sorts of standards
are echoed in other subject areas.
The business community, too, is calling for integrative
capacities in employees. As early as 1991, the U.S.
Department of Labor SCANS Report (Secretary's
Commission on Achieving Necessary Skills) argued that
"workers are expected to identify, and integrate
information from diverse sources" and that they
"should understand their own work in context of
work of those around them . . . [and] understand how
parts of systems are connected" (22). The Business-Higher
Education Forum's report Spanning the Chasm argues
that "requiring interdisciplinary courses and
projects will benefit students by helping them integrate
skills and by presenting them with a broader range of
perspectives" (1999, 8).
Finally, the calls for integrative learning are supported
by cognitive research. The National Academy of Science
report How People Learn: Brain, Mind, Experience, and
School suggests that
[in] traditional curricula . . . though an individual
objective might be reasonable, it is not seen as part
of a larger network. Yet it is the network, the connections
among objectives, that is important. . . . to understand
an overall picture that will ensure the development
of integrated knowledge. (Bransford, Brown, and Cocking,
eds. 2000, 139)
Given the interest from many sectors and the exciting
developments in integrative and interdisciplinary scholarship
that are transforming so many fields of study, support
for integrative learning appears to be quite strong.
The challenge remains, however, to turn promising integrative
learning innovations into coherent programs of study
with progressively more rigorous expectations for all
today's undergraduate students.
References
Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology,
Inc. 2000. Criteria for accrediting engineering
programs. Baltimore: Accreditation Board for Engineering
and Technology, Inc.
Association of American Colleges and Universities.
2002. Greater expectations: A new vision for learning
as a nation goes to college. Washington, DC: Association
of American Colleges and Universities.
Bransford, J. D., A. L. Brown, and R. R. Cocking, eds.
2000. How people learn: Brain, mind, experience,
and school. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Business-Higher Education Forum. 1999. Spanning
the chasm: A blueprint for action. Washington,
DC: American Council of Education/National Alliance
of Business.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. 2002.
Principles and standards of school mathematics.
Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
standards.nctm.org/document/chapter3/conn.htm.
Rutherford, F. J., and A. Ahlgren. 1991. Science
for all Americans. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Secretary's Commission on Achieving Necessary
Skills. 1991. What work requires of schools: A SCANS
report for America 2000. Washington, DC: U.S. Department
of Labor.
U.S. Department of Education. 1998. Goals 2000:
Reform education to improve student achievement.
1998. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
www.ed.gov/PDFDocs/gzkfinal.pdf.
|
