Origins and Mind:
An Integrated Academic Experience for New Students
Roy 0. Elveton, Department of Philosophy
Kathleen M. Galotti, Department of Psychology
Lloyd K. Komatsu, Department of Psychology
Matthew S. Rand, Department of Biology
Susan R. Singer, Department of Biology
Carleton College
'We thank Caitlin Kasmar and Rebecca Reimer for their assistance with coding of responses. Order of authors is alphabetical.
Abstract
We describe an integrated program offered in the fall of 1999 to 45 first-year students. The three courses, comprising a normal term's enrollment at our institution, included introductions to biology, philosophy, and psychology. The instructors for the courses met and coordinated their syllabi and assignments for the entire 10-week term, emphasizing a theme common to all three courses, "Origins and Mind." Among the topics common to all three courses were: evolution, sociobiology, adaptation, brain behavior relationships, sensation and perception, innateness, language and communication, and development. Reaction from students is presented and discussed, and compared with reaction from other first-year students enrolled in another section of introductory biology. Results suggest very specific reasons for student enthusiasm.
[114 words]
Origins and Mind: An Integrated Academic Experience for New Students Most colleges and universities specify distribution requirements in their undergraduate curricula. Frequently, such requirements are posited without an explicit rationale that can be readily communicated to students. If such requirements have been in place for a substantial period of time, they often times serve, not as a focal point for curricular discussions, but as simply a part of institutional history. Finally, and for liberal arts institutions in particular, the substantive role such requirements should play in forming an integrating, if not foundational, framework for today's liberally educated mind, is frequently overpowered by the fragmented academic schedules students enroll in.
Our program was an experiment in providing a small group of liberal arts faculty with an opportunity to reflect upon, develop and embody one view of the significance of college-wide requirements in the form of a linking of three courses from three distinct disciplinary divisions. We believed that such an effort would be able to overcome the frequently random course selection practiced by many first-year students and add the value of mutually enhancing disciplinary perspectives that can deepen a first-year student's encounter with an established field of academic inquiry.
We sought to accomplish these goals by building specific curricular links between the humanities, natural sciences and social sciences so that students could see commonalties in questions posed as well as differences in the methods of approach. Faculty from three departments (biology, philosophy, psychology) coordinated their teaching of introductory courses within these fields so as to highlight common themes.
We enrolled the same group of 45 students, who chose this program as an option during
the summer before their arrival. Because a "normal" course load for Carleton students is
three courses during each of three terms, our program comprised their entire academic
program for their first term of college
Our goals in developing this a academic experience included the following:
· To foster a deeper understanding of the connections among diverse disciplines for
students and faculty
· To offer direct exposure to the integration of disciplines through weekly laboratory/discussion sessions attended by all faculty and students
· To offer opportunities for more in-depth and integrative discussions with fellow students outside of class because of the common classroom experience
· To provide participating faculty with the time and space to engage in substantive interdisciplinary discussions about common questions
· To make clearer to students the rationale for our college distribution requirements To provide writing experiences in diverse disciplines that emphasize the development of both writing and critical thinking skills
· To model the integration of laboratory exercises into traditional lecture courses
· To integrate existing courses through faculty discussion and coordination of syllabi rather than develop entirely new courses. Course modifications, if made at all, would be consistent with established departmental goals for introductory courses.
The Specific -Courses
The three courses linked in our "triad" program existed prior to the program. All were taught using texts and assignments "normally" part of the course, with the exception of the biology course, discussed below. The coordination among the three courses occurred in the planning and the rearrangement of topics on the three syllabi, to maximize the temporal contiguity of related themes. A second mechanism for coordination came in the weekly "common time," also described below.
Brief descriptions of the three courses are as follows:
Biology 124: Introductory Biology 2: Diversity, Form, and FunctionAn introduction to the conceptual principles of biology, with emphasis on both the diversity of life and on the ways that organisms have solved the problems common to all living things. Topics include an overview of the major taxonomic groups of organisms, mechanisms and history of evolutionary change, reproduction and life cycles, development of individual organisms, the acquisition and the utilization of both energy and nutrition, and the ecological interactions among species.
Philosophy 110: Evolution and Mind Research in artificial intelligence, biology, psychology, and philosophy has recently combined in an attempt to draw out the implications of the theory of evolution for our understanding of ourselves as cognitive, emotional, and biological entities. This course will focus on examples of both recent and earlier efforts to explain the mind within an
evolutionary framework. Topics to be treated include: the evolution and design of the mind, the evolution of language, the significance of emotions, and the nature of culture. Readings will be chosen from texts by Darwin, Nietzsche, and Freud and writings of such contemporary authors as the philosopher Daniel Dennett and the linguist Steven Pinker.
Psychology 110: Principles of Psychology This course surveys major topics in psychology. We consider the different approaches different psychologists take to describe and explain human (and animal) behavior. We will consider a very broad range of topics, including how animals learn to perform different behaviors; how people's personalities might be formed and affected; how the nervous system is structured, and what impact that structure might have on conditions such as schizophrenia; how people acquire, remember, and process information; descriptions, causes, and treatments of various forms of psychopathology; how infants and children develop; how people behave in groups and think about their social environment.
Some Intended/Planned LinksFaculty noticed early in our planning several redundancies in coverage among the three courses. For example, both the biology and the psychology courses reviewed the structure and function of the neuron and the brain, and discussed topics in sensation and perception, albeit from different perspectives. Both courses presented information about
neurological underpinnings of behavior and psychological experience, e.g., depression and schizophrenia. Both courses also presented information on evolution and sociobiology as explanations of the origins of behavior. Both courses included units on the nature of development.
The biology and philosophy classes also overlapped in content in several places. The definition of Darwinian evolution and the explanation of biological characteristics as functional, evolutionary adaptations was an obvious common concern. The biological importance of "innateness" and possibility of innate knowledge was another. A third common topic was the question of animal intelligence Both courses also covered the topic of vision, albeit from the differing perspectives of the evolutionary significance of vision and a computational theory of vision.
The philosophy and psychology classes also shared many common topics. The cognitive topics of the psychology class (including perception, attention, memory, language, thinking) complemented the philosophical treatment of the modularity of mind theory. The synthesis of evolutionary and computational accounts of the mind in the philosophy course prepared students for later discussions in psychology regarding nature and nurture explanations of development.
All three courses addressed in some way and at some time the following questions:
· How does the brain work?
· What types of simple neural mechanisms explain behavior?
· How does brain anatomy reflect functional organization?
· What is the mind?
· is an understanding of how the brain works necessary and/or sufficient to explain the mind?
· What is the origin of the mind?
· Is there an evolution of the mind?
· What are the social and ethical consequences of an evolutionary view of the origin of mind and society?
Faculty also worked hard to coordinate the written assignments due. Though it took a fair amount of meeting and negotiation prior to the start of the term, we made sure that no class had a written assignment due or exam scheduled on the same day. We hoped in that way to encourage students to focus their energies on each assignment, and to relieve some of the stress first-year students typically report about course assignments all piling up.
The Common Meeting TimeOnce a week, all triad participants (students and faculty) came together for a 90- minute class period. We used this time in different ways each week. Sometimes, the period was designated as a laboratory period, where students worked in pairs or small groups. For example, students spent one week training a "virtual rat" named Sniffy to press a virtual "bar," in a virtual operant chamber. Another week, students investigated different sensory systems, including vision, hearing, olfaction, and others.
Other weeks involved the viewing of films relevant to one or more of the courses, followed by discussion among the entire group. One film took up the topic of antisocial personality disorder and psychiatric diagnoses; another, the effects of extreme social deprivation on the acquisition of language skills.
On other weeks, faculty assigned brief articles for discussion to students. During the common time, we divided the 45 students into smaller groups of nine, each led by one faculty member. Half the period was spent discussing prepared questions in the small group, followed by reassembly of the entire group for additional exchange.
Integration of Lecture and Laboratory in Introductory BiologyTypical introductory biology classes at Carleton are taught as three 70-minute lecture periods and one 4-hour laboratory period per week. In part as an educational experiment, and in part to address the pragmatic need to carve the common meeting time from the students' schedule without exceeding the amount of time first-year students typically spend in classes, the biology faculty organized their course differently from the standard introductory biology class. Students and faculty met for two 3-hour blocks of time in which there was movement from the lecture hall to the laboratory and sometimes, back again. This resulted in a greater fusion of lecture and lab material, more focussed lectures that led into laboratory exercises more directly, and greater flexibility for an instructor to pace a day's instruction.
This fusion of lecture and laboratory also allowed the instructors to introduce and experiment with different forms of student assessment. Instead of the typical use of quizzes, exams, and lab reports, students in the triad turned in some work every class period- sometimes the traditional forms of student work just mentioned, and other times shorter, more focussed works: drawings of what was observed under a microscope; graphic representations of collected data, or short answers to specific questions. This in
turn allowed instructors to monitor and respond to student understanding and misunderstandings of the concepts presented. In addition, having students in lab twice per week instead of only once, made the lab a more integral part of the learning experience and not something extra or autonomous. It helped us emphasize the process of science as being a core part of biology.
EvaluationIn the eighth week of our 10-week term, we created and distributed an assessment of the triad to all students enrolled, receiving a 100% response rate. The instrument we used contained 12 statements , presented in Table 1. Students were asked to indicate their degree of agreement or disagreement with each by using a seven-point Likert scale ('1' = strongly disagree; '2' = somewhat disagree, '3' = slightly disagree, '4' = neither agree nor disagree, '5' = slightly agree, '6' = somewhat agree, 7 = strongly agree). We wanted to have some basis of comparison for the responses, and so recruited another sample of students, enrolled in another introductory biology course co-taught by one of the triad instructors. The survey was distributed to all the students in that course, but to ensure comparability, we used only the responses from the first-year students.
Mean responses for each of the objective items, by group, are presented in Table 1. Higher numbers represent stronger agreement with the statements. Independent groups t - tests were run to assess statistical differences between responses; results are summarized in the third column of the table.
First-year students in both groups reported their classes to be equivalently difficult (see items 2 and 3), and to be putting in an approximately equal number of hours on homework. Students in both groups also did not differ reliably in their sense
(generally positive) of making solid progress on college distribution requirements, and in their feeling (generally neutral) that their writing skills were improving.
Triad students did report a greater sense of feeling that their classes complemented one another, and that the written assignments were well coordinated. Triad students also reported less fluctuation in their overall workload from week to week. These results suggest that our intentions of coordinating both the content and calendars of our courses was effective and well-received by students.
More surprising, and more gratifying to us, were the other statistically significant group differences. Triad students reported a greater sense of understanding the purpose of a liberal arts education, and a sense that their first term of classes represented a broad view of intellectual inquiry. We believe that this result can be at least partially accounted for by the triad's affording them an opportunity to pursue three methodologically distinct fields of inquiry in a manner that allowed them not only to directly compare different perspectives, but also to see how the results of psychology and biology can serve to challenge or complement favored theories of the philosopher.
The triad courses, although well-integrated, did not attempt to create a seamless interdisciplinary vision of human cognition. Our students were intrigued to discover that Descartes' controversial claim that language separates animal "minds" from human
minds might receive some confirmation from present psychology of language. But they also learned that Descartes' insistence upon the irreducible nature of consciousness and the failure of present philosophical accounts of the mind to offer an explanation of consciousness indicated that an important question in philosophy and psychology remains quite unsolved. It is perhaps only in the light of a competing theory or perspective that the shadows - the unilluminated issues - cast by a favored hypothesis can become visible. We believe that the intellectual breadth characteristic of a liberally educated mind is partly distinguished by this type of effort to gain the measure of a discipline or theory.
Triad students were also more able to see why science courses are considered liberal arts. They were able to trace the implications of scientific theories for classical and contemporary views of the mind and were also able to relate the methodologies of the sciences to broader issues, such as the role of scientific explanation in offering, or failing to offer, answers to central "human" issues (friendship, the nature of altruism, the significance of sexuality)
More broadly, the triad students felt their ability to grasp theoretical issues had improved more than did the non-triad students. We believe that two features of the triad program may have encouraged this type of response. First, our weekly common meetings selected issues for discussion that would allow for a comparison of differing approaches to questions such as "free will," addiction, the meaning of language and the nature of human sociality. Triad students were also occasionally asked to respond to an issue from all three perspectives (biology, philosophy, psychology) and were then provided with an opportunity to step back from their "impersonations" to discuss the individual merits of the positions they had constructed. They were regularly challenged to make
methodological and substantive comparisons on theoretical grounds. In many of these discussions, triad faculty were able to unobtrusively serve as moderators, allowing the weight of discussion to fall upon the students themselves.
We believe that psychology and biology courses provided a framework of empirical inquiry within which the "philosophical" issues of gender and scientific objectivity could be discussed. Concluding sessions of the philosophy component incorporated a critical discussion of feminist issues and positions distinguishing between the "lived" body and the body viewed as an item for objective, scientific inquiry. Within the context of such discussions, triad students discovered that the sciences have something relevant to say to humanists and to the issues they raise. And humanists who do not side-step the sciences may have credible observations to make regarding shortcomings of present scientific inquiry.
Lastly, triad students reported themselves more likely to recommend the set of courses they had enrolled in to a friend than did non-triad students. We take this as a very encouraging affirmation of our experiment, that although we pushed these students quite hard, they appreciated and enjoyed the challenge.
We also posed two open-ended questions on the survey. The second item, "Please comment (if you wish) on any related topic you would like regarding this terms' classes did not elicit many general patterns of responses (many students offered no comments, and those who did often commented about a specific course or assignment within a course). Responses to this question will not be discussed further.
Responses to the first open-ended item ("Please state the most important goal you have for your Carleton College education") elicited a richer set of responses. These were
re
coded independently by three coders, the second author and two undergraduate assistants. Each response was scored for the presence or absence of 12 different themes, shown in Table 2. Any given response could contain all, some, one, or none of the themes described. Interrater reliabilities (calculated with coefficient alpha) were above .73 for all but two themes (technological skills, fulfill specific requirements), which had a low base rate of occurrence and were therefore dropped from consideration. For the remaining 10 themes, interrater reliabilities ranged from .91 to .73, with a median of .84.
As with the responses to Likert items, the proportions of essays showing each theme were analyzed by means of independent-groups t -tests . No group differences were statistically significant. The mean proportion of students in each group whose essays contained a given theme are presented in Table 2.
The lack of significant differences between the two groups in their stated educational goals suggests to us that the group of triad students did not differ substantially from the comparison group of students. This in turn suggests that the rated differences in ability to grasp theoretical issues, understanding of the purpose of a liberal arts education, and sense of having received exposure to a broad range of intellectual inquiry reflect the result of different educational experiences in the first term.
We believe that several aspects of our program led to the overall positive reception by students. First, we believe that the syllabus coordination was very important in reducing student stress and allowing students to "pace themselves" throughout the term. Especially because the students were entering first-year students, this coordination
may have provided some "scaffolding" of their time management skills.
Secondly, we believe that the weekly common meeting times helped students to see and experience the interdisciplinary connections very vividly. Having biologists, psychologists and philosophers discussing and debating issues provided dynamic role models for students. Moreover, it fostered a sense of intellectual community for students and for us, and often became the academic highlight of the week.
We also believe that the group size of 45 students was an ideal one. This number achieved a delicate balance between being small enough so that all students could get to know one another, and come to be known within the group. However, the number was large enough to establish different relationships and to find individuals with similar interests and talents.
In our "post-term" discussions, many of us remarked on how well our individual courses had gone. Even though course coverage was the same as regular versions of the course, the students' seemed to perform somewhat better on exams and on papers. We believe that the experience of intellectual camaraderie established in the program contributed greatly to this improved performance.
The institutional overhead required to provide this opportunity for first-year students appears to be minimal. We believe that optimally, an institution would develop three triadic programs, one to be offered each year in a three-year sequence. This would help alleviate the departmental scheduling challenges involved in coordinating the involvement of three to six faculty in three divisionally distinct departments. We also believe that the enrollment of 40-50 first-year students is the optimal number. First-year students may be more open to this educationally novel opportunity than would upperclass students.
Institutional support for the encouragement and preparation of triads is desirable. Although extensive course modification need not be anticipated, it does take a fair amount of planning and discussion for three distinct syllabi to be thoughtfully coordinated. Preparation of laboratories and discussion topics for the weekly common meetings would profit greatly by institutionally supported summer workshops or course releases for faculty planning a new triad.
We believe that one of the most important outcomes of the triad experiment was significant evidence that first-year students profited intellectually from a presentation of a truly interdisciplinary theme through the vehicle of three linked but independent courses. We believe that the triad students were perhaps better able to comprehend the value of the type of academic "breadth" aspired to by the liberal arts curriculum than their peers just to the extent that their academic experience allowed them to gain insight into both important disciplinary differences and overlapping concerns.
Colleges and universities have a responsibility, not only to articulate their educational goals, but to actively implement them within the context of their curriculum. A high degree of departmental autonomy, a university feature of higher education, has brought about many of the existing strengths of liberal arts and university curricula. Yet, as the growth of interdisciplinary programs attests, interdisciplinary themes in the curriculum do more than reflect an integration of issues and disciplines on the part of individual faculty. Frequently, interdisciplinary programs offer significant opportunities for translating an institution's educational goals from a catalog statement into a concrete, memorable, and challenging shared intellectual experience for students and their instructors.