Reflection on Spring and Fall 2000 Course Outcomes

The various enhancements of the spring and fall 2000 significantly improved student awareness of disciplinary methodology, perspectives, and materials on exams and the self-portrait project in both semesters. Student performance on the redesigned first exam reflected more and clearer awareness of musical components as well as artistic interpretations of color, line, and shape. The links below represent two particularly clear interdisciplinary essays on color in the arts:

student 14 essay one Fall 2000 | student 13 essay one Fall 2000

These two students both scored in the very low range on the JPI scales in preference for analytical and complex contexts, tolerance for diverse opinions and customs, and breadth of interest. They both scored very high on the organization scale (see the JPI scores for student 13 and student 14). Although their JPI scores on the analytical scale would indicate that these students were "uncomplicated, unreflective, inflexible, unobservant, narrow, insular, and uninvestigative," both of these students analyzed multiple cultures as well as disciplinary perspectives in their discussion of the concept of color. Both were very studious students, as their high scores on organization would indicate.

Many other students wrote as well on color in the visual arts and also incorporated musical ideas, but in some cases their understanding of musical concepts and terminology was confused, as in the essays from student 5 spring 2000 and student 2 spring 2000; alternatively, often the understanding of the musical component was not necessarily as confused as it was limited. In these cases, the discussion was very cursory, as in student 17's essay from the spring 2000.

Some students students mentioned special difficulty in the course survey at the end of the term with the musical components of the elements of art unit (see, for example, the responses to question 9 of students 7 and 5 from fall 2000; see also student 5's response to question 15); the students who did especially well on this unit in both semesters were invariably those who had some previous background in music. In fact, the two students whose essays are exemplary had studied piano for several years before coming to college; several other students who reported little or no difficulty with the elements of art unit also had previous musical background (see student 13's response to question 10 and students 18 and 3, responses to question 15 from the fall 2000 semester). These problems highlight the difficulties discussed in the design section of this portfolio; the course best functions as a second-year course which builds upon the first-year introductory arts courses.

Several students performed well on the second group of essays on the first exam in both semesters:

student 22 | student 2 | student 13 | student 14

Student 22 really made an effort to wrestle with the question of "what is art?" through an examination of the function of mosques and pyramids. Not only did the student muster a great deal of evidence about each structure to explain their various functions, but the student also tackled the aesthetic of functionalism as a satisfactory view of art and also discussed the role of the artist and the skill with which the artist completed the project. Similarly, student 2 explained several functions of the pyramids and also attempted to wrestle with the question of whether they were meant to be art in antiquity.

The overall mean grades on the first midterm increased from a 75.75 in fall 1999 to a 78 in spring 2000 to an 85.85 in fall 2000. Although the questions reflected a greater degree of interdisciplinarity (particularly those in group I) and students were asked to apply concepts to new situations, student performance increased as a result of the various modifcations to course units.

The introduction of discussion board posting assignments was at least partly responsible for improved performance on exams. Students were required to discuss, analyze, or apply ideas to diverse contexts prior to each exam. The responses of students on the end-of-the-course surveys to the WEBCT postings were almost unanimously positive in the spring 2000; in the fall 2000, students again agreed that the postings helped them to learn, but did often remark on the amount of work and time required to complete it and inconvenience of having to access the Internet to complete assignments. During the fall 2000, the campus suffered from the explosion of Napster users, which often shut down the network for hours at a time. Toward the end of the term the problem was resolved, but nevertheless, the remarks of the fall 2000 students naturally reflected these problems. In both cases, however, the students seemed to agree that the discussions prompted them to think about material they would otherwise not have thought about and to apply it to new contexts.

Among the more successful assignments were the discussion of Greek Aesthetics (fall 2000), where students had to wrestle with the fundamental assumptions of functionalism; "Pooh's Lesson on Art," where students had to apply abstract principles of Taoism to landscape art (spring 2000); and "Analyze This: A Meeting between Freud, Jung, and Rilke," where students applied psychological theories to the literature of Rilke (spring 2000).

During the fall and spring 2000, students also completed several gallery exhibit and performance attendance writing assignments. In the spring 2000, the Interdisciplinary Studies Program sponsored the university's annual Liberal Arts Symposium on the theme of "Rites of Passage." The featured event of the day-long symposium was a performance by the Magic Circle Opera Company of the opera "A Childhood Miracle" and of "Women of Spirit." Students in my class attended these events, and wrote commentaries on various artistic aspects of the performances. Although some of the commentaries on "A Childhood Miracle" were rather simplistic in their efforts to apply the aesthetic of idealism to the opera, several commentaries on the "Women of Spirit" performance applied the aesthetic of functionalism and also integrated a rudimentary analysis of rhythm to various pieces. These commentaries illustrate the extent to which students were able to apply class concept to musical experiences for which they had no background.

On the other hand, students in the fall 2000 were considerably more adept at commenting on the Riverwalk Exhibit. In several cases, they were able to apply our study of lines, shapes, and texture to the photograhs, as well as to apply various aesthetic schools of art appreciation. Both assignments, however, forced students to apply concepts to unfamilar contexts.

Spring 2000 Event Critique Assignment

sample student responses: student 13  | student 15  | student 19  | student 24  | student 36  | student 8 | student 8 second submission

 

Several students in the fall 2000 attended the Riverwalk Photographic exhibit held on campus, and in several cases, did an admirable job of applying concepts learned in the elements of art and other units to the photographs on exhibit.

Fall 2000 Event Critique Assignment

sample student responses: student 14  | student 31 | student 8

The self-portrait projects were considerably improved not only by the revision of the assignment to include a formal written essay integrating various disciplinary notions of the self, but also through the introduction of more diverse disciplinary resources to the unit itself. The following projects represent exemplary use and integration of multiple disciplinary resources in the written component as well as creative application of ideas in the actual portrait (if not the best craftsmanship in all cases!).

Spring 2000:

student 20  | student 17  | student 19  | student 3  | student 5  | student 24  | student 29  | student 13  |
 student 26

Fall 2000:

student 10 | student 14 | student 13 | student 31 | student 29 | student 22 | student 19 | student 2 student 7 | student 24

These students, with one exception, scored in the very high range on the JPI empathy scale; all of them scored in the low to extremely low range on the analytical scale (see spring and fall 2000 subgroups.). Their scores in cooperativeness were often very high; their scores on the emotional scale were extremely high. These students tended to be sensitive to the feelings and thoughts of others, adaptable to and easily influenced by group situations. This unit incorporated a module on the self as emotion, cross-cultural ideas of the self, including the Hindu idea of unity with all reality, and psychological views of the self, including Freudian psychology, which very much relates to the structure of one's inner thoughts and feelings. These topics would naturally appeal to those who score high on the JPI emotional scale.

Their ability to integrate several diverse disciplinary resources in their written work, however, and to apply those ideas in a non-representational self-portrait seems to represent work that their low scores on the JPI in breadth of interest, innovation, and complexity would indicate unlikely. The MER mean of the spring 2000 self-portrait subgroup of students also indicates that active learning was an important component of this project; their domain 3 scores were in the first position, which indicates preferences for types of learning in which there is a rapport with the teacher and a transition to types of learning which involve hands-on applications. Their domain 2 scores, which reflect the role of the learner, indicate preference for types of learning where the material is of interest to them. Their domain 4 scores also indicate preference for types of learning where the student is allowed to talk through the topic as opposed to rote memorization and simply paying attention in class.

Here again, these results suggest that projects which integrate a wide array of disciplinary ways of knowing in an active learning setting have the greatest impact on student learning. Wide interdisciplinarity has the advantage of appealing to a wide array of skills and strengths. In wide interdisciplinary contexts, it is more likely that a student will be able to find a comfort zone with some disciplinary resources in which he or she can engage other resources which conflict with their level of cognitive development or their personality traits. In this case, materials that naturally appealed to emotional high-scorers provided a comfort zone wherein they were more willing to engage materials which required more breadth of interest and also more complexity than they ordinarily preferred; the active learning setting, which fit in so well with these students' cognitive and personality profiles, enabled them to synthesize materials which might otherwise have proven difficult for them.

In fact, when asked what they most enjoyed about the class in the fall 2000 course survey, several students specifically mentioned the self-portrait unit. As with the fall 1999 survey results, virtually all the students who responded to the spring 2000 and fall 2000 surveys said that what they liked best about this course (question 5 in the fall) was the hands-on, interactive style of learning.

The comments below are from the fall 2000 term:

Student 9 the projects especially the self-portrait

Student 8 The Yoruba bead rings.

Student 7 The self-portrait project, we got to learn more about ourselves and others.

Student 5 The self-portrait project.

Student 3 The different subjects covered are interesting to me on their own. The various projects (hands-on) were fun and enjoyable.

Student 22 The self-portrait

Student 20 the little art projects we had to do. Yoruba beads, preferential shapes & self portrait

Student 18 the fact that we got to do hands on things although I am not very artistic.

Student 14 hands-on activities; unites on color, line & shape, and the self; I also enjoyed the Tao of Pooh.

Student 13 I liked the interactive projects- Yoruba, Zen Garden & the self-portrait.

These students tended to score in the high to very high range on the emotional and empathy scales of the JPI; several of these students also scored in the high to very high range on the sociability and cooperativeness scales (compare to class means). Most of these students gave similar responses when asked on question 12 which teaching techniques they liked best: 10 of the 12 students specified active, hands-on learning as their favorite among an array of teaching techniques I used in the course; see the responses of students 9,8, 7, 3, 23, 22, 21, 20, 18, 14 to question 12)

When asked to describe the course in question 1 of the fall 2000 survey, 7 of the 12 students who responded said the course was "fun."

Student 8 It is a fun course that looks into everyday things. You find out a lot about yourself by doing this class.

Student 3 Fun and interesting are simple descriptive words that come to mind-a class that has something for everyone and keeps your attention.

Student 23 I would describe it as a fun, visually stimulating, but at the same time a little difficult.

Student 21 A fun way to get to know yourself and how other cultures self art.

Student 18 fun, helps you understand art better, well-organized, learning experience.

Student 13 a very fun course, especially the interactive parts. It is not a class that you are bored in-it requires your attention.

Of the students in this group who completed the JPI, most scored in the high to very high range on the emotional scale, and medium to high on the opportunistic, anxiety and social astuteness scales. These two sets of responses, again, indicate that these students tended to react the most to the aspects of the course that were directly related to their personality traits and learning preferences.

Some students mentioned in response to question 1 that the course was more challenging than most:

Student 23 I would describe it as a fun, visually stimulating, but at the same time a little difficult.

Student 22 Very challenging. Being computer literate will really help in this class

Student 14 This was a tough class. It took a lot of time & effort, but I did learn a lot. And if you do the assignments, it's not that hard to pull out an A or a B.

Therefore, whatever the students meant by "fun," they did not necessarily mean "easy." The responses of most students to question 2, in fact, clarified those of question 1. Students tended say that the interactive nature of the course was its most definitive feature:

Student 9 Interdisciplinary would be class participation, more than lecture.

Student 7 That it deals with class participation.

Student 20 A class that isn't really like normal core classes. It deals a lot with participation.

Student 5 (question 1) also remarked on the active learning aspects of the class: "I would say that it is very different. It's a class where you have to apply what you have learned in class."

One student mentioned breadth of perspective as the defining feature of an interdisciplinary course:

Student 13 question 2 An interdisciplinary course helps you broaden your horizon. You don't learn the basic English or Science or math. You learn about things that aren't normal-different cultures.

Student 13 scored in the very low range on the JPI breadth of interest scale, and high on the traditional values scale. As with the fall 1999 survey responses, this student's description of the specifically interdisciplinary contexts of the course seem to focus on those aspects of the course which were in direct contrast to their personality traits.

Four of seven students in the spring 2000 and only three of twelve students in fall 2000 mentioned integration of various disciplinary ideas as the defining feature of interdisciplinary courses:

Student 3 question 2 I would explain it as a course that incorporates a little of all of the disciplines (English, art, psychology, history, etc.)

Student 23 question 2 I would say that is a mixing of different disciplines, blending them into one.

Student 14 question 2 It integrates several different subjects, usually an area in the arts, into one and helps the student to relate the subjects.

These results are very similar to those in the fall 1999. As in the fall 1999 semester, few students gave a clear-cut definition of interdisciplinarity. While I made revisions to the course in light of the fall 199 surveys, I also noted that the nature of various student responses seemed to be strongly correlated with their personality types and learning preferences. These surveys, I think, demonstrate the same basic point. In the fall 1999 semester, several students were able to list diverse disciplinary perspectives within several modules of the course. Similarly in the spring and fall 2000 semesters, there were students who listed clear examples of diverse disciplinary perspectives. In the spring, four of eight students listed several disciplines; in the fall 2000, only two of twelve students gave clear answers on the surveys:

student 3 The Napoleon unit had lots of history to accompany it the Freud and Jung chapters of course used psychology art was covered in almost all sections.

student 18 The Shi Huang dynast. You used art, literature, history and so it gave me a better understanding of the dynasty itself.

These two students scored in the high to very high on the JPI scale for social astuteness, cooperativeness, opportunistic cluster, and risk taking. Their mean score on the analytical cluster was also higher than that of the class as a whole. These scores suggest that these students were adapt at figuring out how to function in whatever environment they were in; in this case, they had learned one of the necessary foundations for interdisciplinary work.

In the fall 2000, students actually completed the surveys after the class had ended and mailed them in, which might account for the failure of several students to respond to all questions and for their relatively brief answers. Moreover, their use of multiple disciplinary perspectives to address broad questions on class exams and the self-portrait assignments in the spring and fall 2000 was clearly superior to that of students in the fall 1999 semester. Given the clear indicators of understanding of multiple disciplinary materials on course work, especially the self-portrait projects, the lack of clear-cut definitions of interdisciplinarity in questions 1 and 2 and the lack of more responses to question 13 in the fall 2000 does not necessarily point to the failure of the course to teach diverse disciplinary methodologies and perspectives and the ability to synthesize them. Rather, it confirms the results of the fall 1999 surveys -- students tend to respond to questions on informal surveys in a very informal manner, and their answers are strongly correlated with their personality traits. Further, they tended to remark on what they found most or least exciting about the class rather than providing me with textbook definitions of interdisciplinarity.

The interesting thing about these three semesters of survey results is that pedagogy clearly makes a stronger impression on the students than the interdisciplinary context of the course. Whereas Astin's 1991 survey reported that pedagogy had a greater impact on students than content in almost every area but interdisciplinarity, my surveys tend to suggest that pedagogy is equally responsible for some of the cognitive benefits linked to interdisciplinary courses. According to my surveys, pedagogy is the most significant stimulus to student learning. Students universally respond positively to active learning projects, where they must apply the ideas of the course to other contexts.

Further, in most cases, fall 2000 students distinguished their interdisciplinary experience from their experiences in traditional courses through reference to active learning in and out of the classroom and to a variety of teaching methods:

Student 9 question 3. not lecture, I learn much better by doing "hands on" activities.

question 4. Yes, using webct, and different projects is very different from "normal" projects

Student 7 Yes, it was more hands on and educational. I could apply stuff from this class to my life.

Student 5 question 3: This course is very wonderful because you have to learn about yourself to pass the class. In all of my other classes, you have to learn what they tell you to learn.

4. Yes, I have finally taken what I have learned in class into the real world.

Student 3 question 3 Other classes don't incorporate the different methods of teaching as this one did (projects, WEBCT, movies, slides, music, etc) which is sad because these keep my attention and make it interesting. The exams found in this class were similar to other classes.

4. It differs greatly because different resources were used (WEBCT, projects) and I wasn't subjected to a boring, monotonous lecture every day like other classes.

Student 23 question 3: It's more abstract than most classes and it allows more expression

Student 22 question 3: A lot more fun! I felt that I could apply my own experiences more.

4. Yes, it differs. I like the visual projects that helped to increase my understanding.

Student 21 Nothing compares… other are not as interactive (they are more just plain lecturing).

Student 20 It is definitely not as boring! A lot more fun & interactive

Student 14 Yes, it does. I loved the way you used slides & the computer so that we could see actual pictures of the places we were studying. It's nice to know that the teacher is very informed on the subject she is teaching. I also liked the hands on activities.

Whereas students in the fall 1999 were rather pessimistic about being allowed to apply the habits of mind they learned in this class to other contexts, students in the fall 2000 semester tended to be more optimistic about using certain skills they learned in this course in other areas of the curriculum:

Student 9 the creative aspect will help in future projects

Student 7 Yes that anything I put my mind to I can accomplish. I am not artist, but I was in this class

Student 3 Students such as myself are often times asked to teach or present sections to the class (for other classes). I have learned different ways of presenting material that deviates from boring, monotonous lectures!

Student 23 Using lots of sources to come up with ideas and applying

Student 22 The study of poetry will help me in case I decide to major in English.

Student 21 How to express myself in numerous ways/forms.

Student 20 Yeah! My self portrait & other projects helped me be more creative.

Student 8 how to analyze things better and think a little more

These students tended to score very high on the emotional cluster of the JPI and also on the sociability and/or social confidence, empathy, organization, and and cooperativeness scales. They tended to mention creativity and self-expression as those things the course would most help to use in another context.

Many students also remarked that they learned things that would help them in life. Many of their remarks grew out of their experience in the self-portrait project:

Student 8 The self-portrait project allowed me to see the aspects of inside of me.

Student 9 Yes, my self-discovery that I found in my self-portrait, will stay with me forever.

Student 22 I now understand my inner-self more clearly

Student 21 How to strive to reach goals and build new goals.

Student 20 I actually learned more about myself, which will help me in all aspects of life

Student 14 I learned a lot about myself. I will also appreciate the visual arts much more now that I know all the things about color, line & shape.

Of the students above who took the JPI, all scored in the high range on the emotional cluster of the JPI, as well as in empathy, cooperativeness, and sociability. The aspect of the course that most struck them was the assignment that had the content most related to emotions.

The revisions to the course were successful from a number of viewpoints; first, the student work mentioned above demonstrated considerably more analytical and integrative skills; second, the overall averages for the class increased from a 78.1 in fall 1999 to a 81.59 in spring 2000 to an 81.74 in fall 2000. Interestingly, the mean scores on the JPI analytical cluster decreased from a 41 in fall 1999 to a 28 in spring 2000 to a 39 in fall 2000. Scores on the JPI tolerance scale also decreased from fall 1999 to fall 2000, while mean scores on the innovation and breadth of interest scales descreased in spring 2000 but increased in fall 2000 (see links above). Similarly, the MER mean scores for fall 1999 were higher in four domains and the same in two others over those of the spring 2000 (fall 2000 data is unavailable at this time). Given this data, it would seem that the course is achieving a significant measure of success in developing analytical and integrative abilities in students, even when the JPI and MER data would suggest that less success should be expected.

To explore the data from standardized instruments and my course surveys this semester, click on any of the following links:

Jackson Personality Inventory for spring 2000 and fall 2000

Measure of Epistemological Reflection for spring 2000 and fall 2000

Course survey for spring 2000 and student responses

Course survey for fall 2000 and student responses