From Surprise Parties to Mapmaking: Undergraduate Journeys toward Interdisciplinary Understanding

From Surprise Parties to Mapmaking: Undergraduate Journeystoward Interdisciplinary Understanding

Carolyn Haynes, Jeannie Brown Leonard

The Journal of Higher Education, Volume 81, Number 5, September/October2010, pp. 645-666 (Article)

Published by The Ohio State University PressDOI: 10.1353/jhe.2010.0000

For additional information about this article

Access provided by Tulane University (19 Sep 2013 09:34 GMT)

http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/jhe/summary/v081/81.5.haynes.html

http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/jhe/summary/v081/81.5.haynes.html

The Journal of Higher Education, Vol. 81, No. 5 (September/October 2010)Copyright © 2010 by The Ohio State University

Carolyn HaynesJeannie Brown Leonard

The authors are grateful to Kathleen E. Durham for her admirable assistance withtranscriptions.

Carolyn Haynes is a professor at Miami University and Jeannie Brown Leonard is aprofessor at George Mason University.

The Journal of Higher Education, Vol. xx, No. x (xxx/xxx 2009)Copyright © 2009 by The Ohio State University

As educators in academic programs featuring inter-disciplinary learning, we can attest that helping undergraduate studentsin an interdisciplinary studies major engage in interdisciplinary learn-ing—that is, draw from two or more disciplines to advance understand-ing of a problem, question, or phenomenon (Boix Mansilla, 2005; Klein& Newell, 1998)—is no mean feat. Consequently, we have witnessedour students struggle to complete interdisciplinary activities. Yet, wehave also marveled at the quality of their interdisciplinary work, particu-larly that created by seniors. This observation prompted us to wonderwhen and how students in interdisciplinary studies programs develop aslearners. To explore this question, we interviewed ten students enrolledin an interdisciplinary studies major each semester of their undergradu-ate experience and examined interview data for patterns in relation tostudent development theory, specifically Marcia Baxter Magolda’s re-search on college students’ intellectual and personal development.

Evidence of Interdisciplinary Learning

The past decade has witnessed a surge in interdisciplinary activity inhigher education (Edwards, 1996; Klein, 1999; Nowacek, 2005). A re-cent study, for example, found that 71.96 percent of baccalaureate lib-

From Surprise Parties to Mapmaking:Undergraduate Journeys towardInterdisciplinary Understanding

646 The Journal of Higher Education

eral arts institutions offer interdisciplinary studies majors (Rhoten, BoixMansilla, Chun, & Klein, 2007); and over 40 percent of faculty reporthaving taught an interdisciplinary course (Lindholm, Astin, Sax, &Korn, 2002). Organizations, such as the Carnegie Foundation and theAssociation of American Colleges & Universities, have emphasized that“fostering students’ abilities to integrate learning—across courses, overtime, and between campus and community life—is one of the most im-portant goals and challenges of higher education” (Johnson-Carey,2005, p. 3).

In response to this growth are calls for empirical evidence of interdis-ciplinary learning and frustration over the lack thereof (Boix Mansilla &Dawes Duraising, 2007; Lattuca, Voigt, & Fath, 2004; Nowacek, 2005);one scholar even dubbed assessment as “the ‘black hole’ of interdiscipli-nary education” (Boix Mansilla, 2005, p.18). However, we discovered asmall but growing body of assessment studies on interdisciplinary learn-ing. In addition to offering suggestions for interdisciplinary learningoutcomes (Field, Lee, & Field, 1994; Klein, 2002; Lattuca et al., 2004;Newell, 1998, 2002), researchers have found that students in interdisci-plinary courses or programs benefit in terms of critical thinking (Astin,1992; Buchbinder, Alt, Eskow, Forbes, Hester, & Struck, 2005;Nowacek, 2005; Vess, 2001), meta-cognitive reflection (Wolfe &Haynes, 2003); problem-solving and analysis (Buchbinder et al., 2005),self-direction (Barnett & Brown, 1981; Buchbinder et al., 2005), as wellas synthetic and other higher order thinking skills (Brown Leonard,2007; Boix Mansilla, Miller, & Gardner, 2000; Lattuca et al., 2004). Yet,perhaps because of the complex nature of interdisciplinary teaching (Ed-wards, 1996; Franks, Dale, Hindmarsh, Fellows, Buckridge, & Cybin-ski, 2007; Page Fernandez, 2006; Seabury, 1999) and the diversity offaculty perceptions on interdisciplinary learning (Lattuca, 2001), studieshave found that students’ experiences and demonstrations of learningmay not always match faculty intentions (Applebee, Burroughs, & Cruz,2000; Roth, 2000).

Research, then, supports that interdisciplinary learning requires andpromotes cognitive complexity, but we wondered how and when this de-velopment takes place, and what—if any—patterns students in interdis-ciplinary programs typically follow. A deeper understanding of how stu-dents develop over time could help faculty in interdisciplinary programsalign intentions and practices with students’ experiences and outcomes.

College Student Development Theory

In her 19-year longitudinal study of college students of all majors,Baxter Magolda (2004) discovered that students develop epistemologi-


cally, interpersonally, and intrapersonally throughout their time at col-lege, following fairly predictable patterns. The epistemological or cog-nitive component relates to individuals’ assumptions about the nature,limits, and certainty of knowledge, while the intrapersonal and interper-sonal focus on the assumptions about the self and the relation of the selfto others. Baxter Magolda contends that “how we know or decide whatto believe, how we view ourselves, and how we construct relationshipswith others” are deeply intertwined (2001, p. xix). As students progressthrough college and adulthood, they typically follow at least three stagesof development: (1) “external formulas” in which they view knowledgeas certain, rely on authorities (professors, parents) as sources of knowl-edge, follow an externally defined value system and identity, and act inrelationships to acquire approval; (2) “crossroads” in which they demon-strate an evolving awareness of multiple perspectives and uncertainty,begin to view their own identity and values as distinct from others, andunderstand some of the limitations of dependent relationships; and (3)“self-authorship” in which individuals accept knowledge as contextual,possess an internal belief system and sense of self, and show the ca-pacity to engage in interdependent and authentic relationships (2001,pp. 37–70).

As interdisciplinary practitioners, we were curious about whether andhow students in interdisciplinary programs move through the threephases of external formulas, crossroads, and self-authorship. What par-ticular cognitive and personal traits do students exhibit in each develop-mental phase, and what lessons might faculty learn from their patterns ofdevelopment? Our constructivist-developmental stance informed the re-search design and analysis. We expected that through our conversations,participants would actively make meaning of their experiences and, to-gether, we would co-construct an understanding of the development ofinterdisciplinary learning.

Method

Sample

Data were collected from students enrolled in a self-designed interdis-ciplinary undergraduate program at a mid-size public institution. Thisprogram features a core of interdisciplinary seminars (62 credit hours)that fulfill requirements for the major and the university’s general edu-cation program and that are taught by full-time faculty, virtually all withtenure in the program and long-term experience teaching interdiscipli-nary courses. Courses address themes that span the natural sciences tofine arts, such as human nature, leaving home, the material culture of

Interdisciplinary Understanding in Undergraduates 3


cally, interpersonally, and intrapersonally throughout their time at col-lege, following fairly predictable patterns. The epistemological or cog-nitive component relates to individuals’ assumptions about the nature,limits, and certainty of knowledge, while the intrapersonal and interper-sonal focus on the assumptions about the self and the relation of the selfto others. Baxter Magolda contends that “how we know or decide whatto believe, how we view ourselves, and how we construct relationshipswith others” are deeply intertwined (2001, p. xix). As students progressthrough college and adulthood, they typically follow at least three stagesof development: (1) “external formulas” in which they view knowledgeas certain, rely on authorities (professors, parents) as sources of knowl-edge, follow an externally defined value system and identity, and act inrelationships to acquire approval; (2) “crossroads” in which they demon-strate an evolving awareness of multiple perspectives and uncertainty,begin to view their own identity and values as distinct from others, andunderstand some of the limitations of dependent relationships; and (3)“self-authorship” in which individuals accept knowledge as contextual,possess an internal belief system and sense of self, and show the ca-pacity to engage in interdependent and authentic relationships (2001,pp. 37–70).

As interdisciplinary practitioners, we were curious about whether andhow students in interdisciplinary programs move through the threephases of external formulas, crossroads, and self-authorship. What par-ticular cognitive and personal traits do students exhibit in each develop-mental phase, and what lessons might faculty learn from their patterns ofdevelopment? Our constructivist-developmental stance informed the re-search design and analysis. We expected that through our conversations,participants would actively make meaning of their experiences and, to-gether, we would co-construct an understanding of the development ofinterdisciplinary learning.

Method

Sample

Data were collected from students enrolled in a self-designed interdis-ciplinary undergraduate program at a mid-size public institution. Thisprogram features a core of interdisciplinary seminars (62 credit hours)that fulfill requirements for the major and the university’s general edu-cation program and that are taught by full-time faculty, virtually all withtenure in the program and long-term experience teaching interdiscipli-nary courses. Courses address themes that span the natural sciences tofine arts, such as human nature, leaving home, the material culture of



toys, and gendered representations in theatre; first-year courses areteam-taught by faculty from different disciplinary backgrounds, whileupper-divisions courses are solo-taught. Students are required to live inthe same residence hall for their first two years. First-year courses intro-duce students to interdisciplinary learning by inviting them to generatetheir own questions on thorny, cross-disciplinary questions (e.g., themeaning of “home” or the causes and consequences of poverty), explorecourse topics from multiple disciplinary lenses, and begin engaging inbasic interdisciplinary inquiries. All core courses are writing intensiveand regularly prompt students to connect course materials to their ownexperiences and beliefs. In the sophomore year, students craft a plan forand begin undertaking their own major which draws from course offer-ings (amounting to 32 credits) throughout the university. Admission tothe university is selective, and the approximately 200 students in inter-disciplinary studies have one of the highest academic profiles (as mea-sured by high school grade point average and standardized test scores)as compared to other majors at the university. When data collectionbegan in fall 2002, approximately 13 percent of interdisciplinary studiesstudents were from underrepresented racial and ethnic groups; 60 per-cent were women.

We used purposeful sampling (Patton, 2002) to identify students toparticipate in the study. We asked faculty who teach in the program tonominate first-year students with diverse academic interests who, intheir judgment, would be willing to reflect on their experiences thought-fully. We wanted to involve students with a range of academic intereststo improve the chance that participants would be taking a wide variety ofupper-level disciplinary courses by junior year to ensure that our find-ings applied to a diversity of students. Nominated students received ane-mail message from the investigators inviting them to participate in alongitudinal study on interdisciplinary learning. Participation was vol-untary, and students were not offered incentives to encourage participa-tion. At the beginning of the study, the researchers were affiliated withthis program as an administrator and faculty member.

As such, we had intimate knowledge of the institutional and programcontext under investigation; however, we did not have the students inclass and emphasized that participation was optional. As Jones (2002)reminds us, our insider knowledge could lead to methodological prob-lems related to prolonged engagement, convenience sampling, and roleconflict. We are satisfied that we engaged sufficiently with our researchsetting as our interviews spanned four years. We followed an intentionalsampling procedure and accepted all student volunteers. We also tookcare to separate our roles as administrators from our roles as researchers


by reinforcing the voluntary nature of the study and the option to dis-continue participation. After one year of data collection, one authorchanged institutions and the other became an administrator in anotherprogram and did not participate in interdisciplinary program activities,thereby effectively removing any role conflict.

Initially, students were asked to commit to two interviews a year (oneeach semester) for three years. In the third year, participants were askedwhether they would continue with the study for a fourth year, and all ac-tive participants agreed. Ten students (seven women and three men) vol-unteered. All participants were traditional age (at least 18 years old intheir first year). Two students identified as Asian or Asian American;eight students identified as White. Two students identified as gay or les-bian, and two were the first in their family to attend college. By the thirdyear, seven students remained in the study. The students who discontin-ued were White women who either left the major or the university. Eachinvestigator interviewed five students. The small sample size is consis-tent with qualitative studies seeking to understand the depth of studentexperience. These participants are not intended to be representative ofall students in interdisciplinary studies programs or all students in theprogram under investigation. Because students who did not participatein interdisciplinary opportunities were not investigated, our study cannotoffer definitive comparisons of the development of students in interdis-ciplinary and disciplinary programs.

Data Collection

Initial interviews were conducted in fall 2002 near the end of the stu-dents’ first semester of college. In several cases, students were not inter-viewed about their fall semester experiences until the early weeks ofspring semester. Subsequent interviews were conducted after mid-se-mester of the term under discussion. Interviews were semi-structuredusing a protocol that prompted participants to reflect on their learningexperiences (Kvale, 1996). Questions were designed to explore the students’ learning in general and included questions about their under-standing of interdisciplinarity: “Tell me about your experiences in yourinterdisciplinary courses this semester”; “How would you define inter-disciplinarity?”; and “How have relationships advanced your learning?”Prompts were designed to promote student reflection about their devel-opment and were framed with Baxter Magolda’s theory in mind. Asnovice researchers, we consulted with Baxter Magolda on the interviewprotocol for advice on whether our prompts were likely to producethoughtful discussions from students about their learning and madesome changes based on her recommendations (personal communication,



by reinforcing the voluntary nature of the study and the option to dis-continue participation. After one year of data collection, one authorchanged institutions and the other became an administrator in anotherprogram and did not participate in interdisciplinary program activities,thereby effectively removing any role conflict.

Initially, students were asked to commit to two interviews a year (oneeach semester) for three years. In the third year, participants were askedwhether they would continue with the study for a fourth year, and all ac-tive participants agreed. Ten students (seven women and three men) vol-unteered. All participants were traditional age (at least 18 years old intheir first year). Two students identified as Asian or Asian American;eight students identified as White. Two students identified as gay or les-bian, and two were the first in their family to attend college. By the thirdyear, seven students remained in the study. The students who discontin-ued were White women who either left the major or the university. Eachinvestigator interviewed five students. The small sample size is consis-tent with qualitative studies seeking to understand the depth of studentexperience. These participants are not intended to be representative ofall students in interdisciplinary studies programs or all students in theprogram under investigation. Because students who did not participatein interdisciplinary opportunities were not investigated, our study cannotoffer definitive comparisons of the development of students in interdis-ciplinary and disciplinary programs.

Data Collection

Initial interviews were conducted in fall 2002 near the end of the stu-dents’ first semester of college. In several cases, students were not inter-viewed about their fall semester experiences until the early weeks ofspring semester. Subsequent interviews were conducted after mid-se-mester of the term under discussion. Interviews were semi-structuredusing a protocol that prompted participants to reflect on their learningexperiences (Kvale, 1996). Questions were designed to explore the students’ learning in general and included questions about their under-standing of interdisciplinarity: “Tell me about your experiences in yourinterdisciplinary courses this semester”; “How would you define inter-disciplinarity?”; and “How have relationships advanced your learning?”Prompts were designed to promote student reflection about their devel-opment and were framed with Baxter Magolda’s theory in mind. Asnovice researchers, we consulted with Baxter Magolda on the interviewprotocol for advice on whether our prompts were likely to producethoughtful discussions from students about their learning and madesome changes based on her recommendations (personal communication,



August, 2002). Interviewers asked follow-up questions as needed. Eachinterview was 60–90 minutes in length and took place in a location con-venient to the students. All interviews were audio tape-recorded andtranscribed for analysis. Students chose their own pseudonyms to pro-tect confidentiality. Data were analyzed for patterns and themes. We ex-amined these patterns across participants within a given semester andwithin students over time.

This study would be strengthened by a more intentional methodologi-cal approach. Although proficient in qualitative methods such as inter-viewing, we relied on laborious whole transcript analysis rather thanline-by-line coding. After reading each transcript for accuracy and clar-ity, each interviewer made needed corrections. Next, we read the tran-scripts by year and began to identify emerging themes. Interview tran-scripts were culled to identify quotations that supported or challengedthe patterns we were finding in the data. Although open to unexpectedfindings, the interview prompts intentionally elicited comments aboutthe epistemological, interpersonal, and intrapersonal dimensions of stu-dents’ learning. We relied on students’ verbal accounts and did not as-sess written work. To the extent that some students may be less success-ful in sharing their understanding orally, this omission could beconsidered a limitation. Additionally, the study involved participants en-rolled in a residentially-based interdisciplinary program. Students re-ferred to in-class and out-of-class influences on learning, but these do-mains are experienced seamlessly by students making it impossible todocument the relative contribution of each. Our findings are grounded inour data, and having two investigators offered an important check-and-balance needed for trustworthiness.

Findings and Analysis

After reviewing interview data, we identified distinguishing featuresof students’ experience. The following sections describe and interpretstudents’ experiences in the first year, middle two years and final year.

The Beginning of the Journey

“My education so far is like a surprise party when it’s not my birthday.You’re coming home from work, and you are tired. You unlock the door, andthere happens to be balloons and screaming people.” (Rockstar)

The statement above encapsulates the sentiments of many first-yearstudents we interviewed. When asked to provide a metaphor for theirfirst-year experience, students generated images that illustrated their en-thusiasm for interdisciplinary learning and college life. Ellen likened


herself to a light bulb. Others painted images of expanding washcloths(Bee) or absorbent sponges (Rockstar) to personify their eagerness tosoak up new knowledge. Their enthusiasm stemmed from the new chal-lenge of college courses as well as the feeling of community fostered bythe small size of their interdisciplinary classes, the shared core curricu-lum, and the residential college environment. As Ellen put it, “It feelslike everything is blended in. . . . It feels like your classes are your home,and your home is your classes. You’re in class with your roommates, andeveryone is just together.”

The close-knit learning environment was so meaningful to the stu-dents that they tended to equate the qualities of that environment (smallseminars, peer-to-peer interaction, residential learning, and personal re-lationships with faculty members) with interdisciplinary education ingeneral and to assume that these qualities were not, or could not be, pre-sent in disciplinary courses. When asked to define the term, “interdisci-plinary,” they typically did so by setting up a dichotomy between inter-disciplinary and disciplinary courses. Don noted, “Disciplinary coursesare straight lectures. You don’t really know anybody in your classes, andyou forget everybody’s name.” Cindy commented,

In disciplinary courses, you learn the facts, and you’re expected to learnthem and spit them back out at the teacher. But if someone were to ask me,“So, what exactly did you learn in your interdisciplinary courses?” I wouldnot be able to tell them the actual facts I learned, but instead the processes[of questioning and discussion] that I gained throughout the course. I thinkthose will stick with me.

When students attempted to articulate a formal definition of interdis-ciplinarity, their explanations were typically vague. Ellen mused, “I stilldon’t know exactly what [interdisciplinarity] means. I know that certainthings integrate into each other.” Ken explained that “when people askme [what my major is], I’m like, ‘I don’t know.’ And I just make it seemlike I’m undecided right now because it’s easier, especially if I don’thave time to sit down and explain this is what I do.” Others likened in-terdisciplinarity, or at least the various perspectives to be integrated, toparticular people. Bee noted: “You can almost think about it [interdisci-plinarity] in kinds of people. Different kinds of heads think differently,and it’s about learning to take the stance of all of these people and learn-ing to become one.” Similarly, Ellen commented on the team-taught in-terdisciplinary course she was taking, “It’s the teachers who are more interdisciplinary than the students. [Professor A] does feminism; [Pro-fessor B] does racial rhetoric, and then you had [Prof C] for art.”

Students’ difficulty developing their own definitions of interdiscipli-narity and their tendency to view only faculty as interdisciplinarians



herself to a light bulb. Others painted images of expanding washcloths(Bee) or absorbent sponges (Rockstar) to personify their eagerness tosoak up new knowledge. Their enthusiasm stemmed from the new chal-lenge of college courses as well as the feeling of community fostered bythe small size of their interdisciplinary classes, the shared core curricu-lum, and the residential college environment. As Ellen put it, “It feelslike everything is blended in. . . . It feels like your classes are your home,and your home is your classes. You’re in class with your roommates, andeveryone is just together.”

The close-knit learning environment was so meaningful to the stu-dents that they tended to equate the qualities of that environment (smallseminars, peer-to-peer interaction, residential learning, and personal re-lationships with faculty members) with interdisciplinary education ingeneral and to assume that these qualities were not, or could not be, pre-sent in disciplinary courses. When asked to define the term, “interdisci-plinary,” they typically did so by setting up a dichotomy between inter-disciplinary and disciplinary courses. Don noted, “Disciplinary coursesare straight lectures. You don’t really know anybody in your classes, andyou forget everybody’s name.” Cindy commented,

In disciplinary courses, you learn the facts, and you’re expected to learnthem and spit them back out at the teacher. But if someone were to ask me,“So, what exactly did you learn in your interdisciplinary courses?” I wouldnot be able to tell them the actual facts I learned, but instead the processes[of questioning and discussion] that I gained throughout the course. I thinkthose will stick with me.

When students attempted to articulate a formal definition of interdis-ciplinarity, their explanations were typically vague. Ellen mused, “I stilldon’t know exactly what [interdisciplinarity] means. I know that certainthings integrate into each other.” Ken explained that “when people askme [what my major is], I’m like, ‘I don’t know.’ And I just make it seemlike I’m undecided right now because it’s easier, especially if I don’thave time to sit down and explain this is what I do.” Others likened in-terdisciplinarity, or at least the various perspectives to be integrated, toparticular people. Bee noted: “You can almost think about it [interdisci-plinarity] in kinds of people. Different kinds of heads think differently,and it’s about learning to take the stance of all of these people and learn-ing to become one.” Similarly, Ellen commented on the team-taught in-terdisciplinary course she was taking, “It’s the teachers who are more interdisciplinary than the students. [Professor A] does feminism; [Pro-fessor B] does racial rhetoric, and then you had [Prof C] for art.”

Students’ difficulty developing their own definitions of interdiscipli-narity and their tendency to view only faculty as interdisciplinarians



suggest that they are following “external formulas,” a typical phase ofmost traditionally aged first-year college students which is characterizedby a perception of “authorities as holders of truth and knowledge,” (Bax-ter Magolda, 2001, p. 29). As a result of their reliance on faculty as ex-perts, students measured their learning through the grades the faculty as-signed them. As Rockstar admitted, “Getting a good grade . . . is whatmotivates me.” When faculty seemed to withhold answers or approval,they felt uneasy. For example, Alice felt demoralized when an instructortold a student, “You’re wrong. I want to see a documented source of thatfact.” Don particularly liked his economics professor because “if youhad a question about something that he didn’t know right away, he couldalways find a way to produce it. He would come back next class, and hewould have the numbers.” But he was distressed when one of his inter-disciplinary professors did not immediately offer answers and thus—inhis view—must not be “well versed in all of the areas of study.”

Similar feelings of consternation arose when students were given as-signments that did not seem to have a definitive response. As Bee de-scribed, one assignment “was to connect four readings any way that youwanted. It didn’t matter what the connections were. Just do it. And so Iwas really freaked out.” Ken concurred, “I just didn’t like it.” Becausethey craved clear answers, some students were uncomfortable when con-flicting perspectives arose in a discussion. For Ellen, “a good classwould be a class with a whole bunch of us that have similar views. . . .[W]hen you’re trying to combat against opposite opinions, you don’t re-ally learn anything.” Yet, one student, Rockstar, stood out for his capac-ity to appreciate the value of multiple perspectives:

One of the best things I have experienced is when you’re in class in the mid-dle of a discussion, and you have an argument ready to go. Then someonesays something that completely stops you and makes you think of somethingin a totally different way. You’re like, “How does that person who is on paperno different from me—same age, etc.—do a completely different interpreta-tion of that?” That’s really fun.

Rockstar’s view, however, was unique; other students were daunted bymultiple perspectives presented on an issue, open-ended assignments,and conflicting student opinions because at this point in their journey,they defined themselves, their views and their relationships externally.

The Middle of the Journey

“I feel like my freshman and sophomore year [in the interdisciplinary pro-gram] was like, ‘This is how we are going to help you.’ Now I just feel likeNemo who is very lost. I don’t know what I’m doing. I don’t know what Ishould be doing.” (Alice)


As students moved into the sophomore and junior years, metaphors ofenthusiasm gave way to ones connoting unpredictability and instability.Lanta likened her second-year experience to Ohio weather, which is in-termittently “warm, sunny, rainy, cold. . . . Sometimes I hit walls andeventually overcome them. It’s very erratic.” Rockstar compared hissophomore year to a stick of dynamite “with the little burning thing atthe top, just hot and sparking and annoying. But it’s eventually going toget there, and then everything will explode.” Hopefully, he quicklyadded, it will explode into something non-destructive, such as fireworks.

The feelings of instability and unpredictability evident in the secondyear did not dissipate in the third year. Bee likened her situation to “fol-lowing a path but going deeper into a forest, a dark forest. . . . It’s aboutgoing deeper. . . . It’s getting less and less clear, while at the same time Iknow I am making progress.” Lanta described her journey as “a highwaythat has multiple lanes . . . I’m not there yet, but I can see . . . that signthat says, ‘Merge ahead.’” In his metaphor, Rockstar placed himself in adistant and potentially risky location: “You are on a plane cruising at35,000 feet, and you can see the airport ahead. Now, you’ve got somepeanuts. You would rather not be on the plane, but you know eventually,it’s going to land.”

The program’s curriculum and co-curriculum may account for the fearof uncertainty and quest for security that pervaded students’ metaphorsduring the middle years. Unlike the first year, which consisted almostcompletely of core interdisciplinary courses, the sophomore and junioryears marked the beginning of students’ individualized majors and thusincluded a greater number of disciplinary courses. Thus, not only werestudents in this period exposed to new disciplinary epistemologies as wellas to unknown faculty and peers, but they were also making key decisionsabout their own educational process by creating their self-designed con-centration. In addition, they undertook these challenges with a less struc-tured support network. Although, in the sophomore year, they continuedliving in the residence hall for interdisciplinary majors, they began takingmany courses in which students in their hall were not enrolled; and in thejunior year, with the completion of the residency requirement, most ofthem moved to various houses and apartments off campus. As Alice’sNemo metaphor quoted at the beginning of this section suggests, studentswere flummoxed by the lack of contact with faculty and peers sharingtheir same experiences. Bee complained, “I don’t have anyone to com-pare myself to in terms of progress or something.” To try to remedy herfeeling of isolation, she explained, “At one point, I actually called somegirl in my class that I’m not really friends with. But I was like, ‘Can I justcome over? I just want to hang out and talk about school.’”



As students moved into the sophomore and junior years, metaphors ofenthusiasm gave way to ones connoting unpredictability and instability.Lanta likened her second-year experience to Ohio weather, which is in-termittently “warm, sunny, rainy, cold. . . . Sometimes I hit walls andeventually overcome them. It’s very erratic.” Rockstar compared hissophomore year to a stick of dynamite “with the little burning thing atthe top, just hot and sparking and annoying. But it’s eventually going toget there, and then everything will explode.” Hopefully, he quicklyadded, it will explode into something non-destructive, such as fireworks.

The feelings of instability and unpredictability evident in the secondyear did not dissipate in the third year. Bee likened her situation to “fol-lowing a path but going deeper into a forest, a dark forest. . . . It’s aboutgoing deeper. . . . It’s getting less and less clear, while at the same time Iknow I am making progress.” Lanta described her journey as “a highwaythat has multiple lanes . . . I’m not there yet, but I can see . . . that signthat says, ‘Merge ahead.’” In his metaphor, Rockstar placed himself in adistant and potentially risky location: “You are on a plane cruising at35,000 feet, and you can see the airport ahead. Now, you’ve got somepeanuts. You would rather not be on the plane, but you know eventually,it’s going to land.”

The program’s curriculum and co-curriculum may account for the fearof uncertainty and quest for security that pervaded students’ metaphorsduring the middle years. Unlike the first year, which consisted almostcompletely of core interdisciplinary courses, the sophomore and junioryears marked the beginning of students’ individualized majors and thusincluded a greater number of disciplinary courses. Thus, not only werestudents in this period exposed to new disciplinary epistemologies as wellas to unknown faculty and peers, but they were also making key decisionsabout their own educational process by creating their self-designed con-centration. In addition, they undertook these challenges with a less struc-tured support network. Although, in the sophomore year, they continuedliving in the residence hall for interdisciplinary majors, they began takingmany courses in which students in their hall were not enrolled; and in thejunior year, with the completion of the residency requirement, most ofthem moved to various houses and apartments off campus. As Alice’sNemo metaphor quoted at the beginning of this section suggests, studentswere flummoxed by the lack of contact with faculty and peers sharingtheir same experiences. Bee complained, “I don’t have anyone to com-pare myself to in terms of progress or something.” To try to remedy herfeeling of isolation, she explained, “At one point, I actually called somegirl in my class that I’m not really friends with. But I was like, ‘Can I justcome over? I just want to hang out and talk about school.’”



Compounding their feeling of uncertainty was the perception thattheir interdisciplinary faculty did not offer answers to the complex top-ics they explored in courses. Courses in this program not only featuredactive engagement where students and faculty explored topics from mul-tiple perspectives, but they also placed emphasis on the inquiry processover content delivery. As a result, Bee mused, “Everyone has their ownidea of what the right answer is. So, I guess there is no right answer.”Unlike in Rockstar’s first year when he reveled in multiple perspectives,he now felt so overwhelmed by the absence of clear answers that hebriefly considered transferring to a business major which is “very cutand dry” and where “there is more of a chance to prove yourself . . .[and] I would know exactly what I was doing and get exactly the job Iwant when I am done with college.”

Although the students’ expressions of uncertainty and confusion at firstmay appear disconcerting, their comments actually signal their develop-ment—that is, their progress away from following “external formulas”and into the “crossroads.” As Baxter Magolda explains, “Letting go of ex-ternal formulas for how to know” leaves students “with the task of figur-ing out how to know for themselves. The struggle to establish their ownbeliefs when they had learned so well how to adopt those of others [is]substantial” (2001, p. 112). Signs that students were beginning to estab-lish their beliefs were evident in their capacity for critical analysis, partic-ularly as related to disciplinarity and interdisciplinarity. Don was able todetect the limited nature of disciplinary natural science courses: “Theyare one-sided and going at it that way. Usually I would think with earthsciences, it would be all-encompassing because everything affects every-thing, just like a giant web. But that’s not the case [with these courses].”In discussing her sociology course, Alice made a distinction between acourse that offers multiple perspectives on a topic from a course that is in-terdisciplinary: “The professor doesn’t really teach it from a variety ofdisciplines, [he] examine[s] every social problem with three differentviews. We all know which one he believes in because he cracks on theother two the whole time.” Rockstar demonstrated his awareness of thearbitrary separations of disciplines: “Disciplines can work together—whereas typical disciplinary academia kind of makes these forced separa-tions [among disciplines] that don’t exist in everyday life.”

With students’ growing capacity for critical analysis came a buddingunderstanding of the differences between their own identities and that ofstudents in other majors as well as a nascent sense of their own way ofthinking. This development was particularly apparent in an incident inRockstar’s disciplinary course on mythology which he described as follows:


It’s like this big lecture room . . . and [the professor] is just like talk, talk. . . . On the first day, he was asking what defines a hero. So, I raise my hand.I was like, “Well, in current society, a hero is someone who is patriotic andwhite, and male, and straight, and is very active and autonomously violent.”And the whole class went dead silent, and he [the faculty member] just went,“Okay, next person; you over there.” I was just shot down, shot down. It waslike, “Okay, I’m done talking in this class.” [laughter] Yeah, I was all proud,hand in the air. Yeah, it’s very strange to force myself at this point not to beinterdisciplinary and just focus on the one topic for however many weeks itis and just go study the notes, and take the test on notes, and study morenotes and then take that test. It’s a totally different mindset; it’s very strange.And, still [you’re] constantly making those connections in your head . . . andsort of pushing them back until class is over.

Like Rockstar, Bee detected that interdisciplinarity invested her with adistinct way of knowing that “gets you on these rolling trains of thoughtwhere you’re suddenly realizing that things are connected, possibly toomuch.” Ken also reported that his interdisciplinary education had givenhim the ability “to have an opinion and blow people away.” After engag-ing in community service work where she applied knowledge gained inher interdisciplinary major, Lanta commented, “I’m starting to feel thatit doesn’t sit with me very well to think a whole lot and not do a lot ofwhat I am thinking. So, I guess I’d say like to act on, or transform mythinking into doing something.”

As students gained a sense of their own beliefs and way of knowing,their understandings of interdisciplinarity became more sophisticated.Ellen, for example, noted:

To be interdisciplinary is to be knowledgeable and aware of the multiple dis-ciplines or areas. When you go to think about something, you can takeknowledge from all those different areas and integrate them and use all ofthem to come up with an answer.

Ellen and the other students recognized interdisciplinarity as a process ofthinking that depends on disciplinary knowledge. Moreover, they were moreaware of their own position vis-à-vis interdisciplinarity. Bee, for example,put her own twist on a scholarly expert’s definition of interdisciplinarity:“I’ve read Bill Newell’s essay on [interdisciplinarity], but there is more to it.. . . I think that for a person’s life to be interdisciplinary, . . . you are allowedto . . . change perspectives.” Apparent in the students’ self-reflections duringthe middle years is not only an emerging set of beliefs but also an ability torelate to others more maturely. For instance, Lanta, who in the first year dis-liked it when students offered conflicting perspectives, commented in themiddle years, “I am learning how to look at opposing perspectives and ana-lyzing those. [I’m] looking at . . . how they could come together and be notopposing forces but something that could complement each other.”



It’s like this big lecture room . . . and [the professor] is just like talk, talk. . . . On the first day, he was asking what defines a hero. So, I raise my hand.I was like, “Well, in current society, a hero is someone who is patriotic andwhite, and male, and straight, and is very active and autonomously violent.”And the whole class went dead silent, and he [the faculty member] just went,“Okay, next person; you over there.” I was just shot down, shot down. It waslike, “Okay, I’m done talking in this class.” [laughter] Yeah, I was all proud,hand in the air. Yeah, it’s very strange to force myself at this point not to beinterdisciplinary and just focus on the one topic for however many weeks itis and just go study the notes, and take the test on notes, and study morenotes and then take that test. It’s a totally different mindset; it’s very strange.And, still [you’re] constantly making those connections in your head . . . andsort of pushing them back until class is over.

Like Rockstar, Bee detected that interdisciplinarity invested her with adistinct way of knowing that “gets you on these rolling trains of thoughtwhere you’re suddenly realizing that things are connected, possibly toomuch.” Ken also reported that his interdisciplinary education had givenhim the ability “to have an opinion and blow people away.” After engag-ing in community service work where she applied knowledge gained inher interdisciplinary major, Lanta commented, “I’m starting to feel thatit doesn’t sit with me very well to think a whole lot and not do a lot ofwhat I am thinking. So, I guess I’d say like to act on, or transform mythinking into doing something.”

As students gained a sense of their own beliefs and way of knowing,their understandings of interdisciplinarity became more sophisticated.Ellen, for example, noted:

To be interdisciplinary is to be knowledgeable and aware of the multiple dis-ciplines or areas. When you go to think about something, you can takeknowledge from all those different areas and integrate them and use all ofthem to come up with an answer.

Ellen and the other students recognized interdisciplinarity as a process ofthinking that depends on disciplinary knowledge. Moreover, they were moreaware of their own position vis-à-vis interdisciplinarity. Bee, for example,put her own twist on a scholarly expert’s definition of interdisciplinarity:“I’ve read Bill Newell’s essay on [interdisciplinarity], but there is more to it.. . . I think that for a person’s life to be interdisciplinary, . . . you are allowedto . . . change perspectives.” Apparent in the students’ self-reflections duringthe middle years is not only an emerging set of beliefs but also an ability torelate to others more maturely. For instance, Lanta, who in the first year dis-liked it when students offered conflicting perspectives, commented in themiddle years, “I am learning how to look at opposing perspectives and ana-lyzing those. [I’m] looking at . . . how they could come together and be notopposing forces but something that could complement each other.”



Although students in the middle years were propelled into unfamiliardisciplinary territories, they made sense of their experience by identify-ing connections with others, comparing ways of knowing, and applyingideas gained in diverse settings to projects both in and out of class. Theybegan formulating their own definitions of interdisciplinary work andtheir own identity as interdisciplinarians. Although their understandingof interdisciplinarity was formed mainly through basic comparisonswith (or in opposition to) disciplinarity, they gained an awareness of in-terdisciplinarity as a way of knowing that was becoming more their ownand less dependent on the definitions of others.

The End of the Undergraduate Journey

“You’re looking at a map, and it can get you anywhere you want to go, andyou were literally going cross country. And you could go a number of differ-ent ways.” (Alice)

Although the senior year marked a period of transition for our partici-pants, they also enjoyed greater clarity about their beliefs and values andwere generally more optimistic than in their middle years. Not surpris-ingly, the metaphors used to describe their educational experienceevoked travel and change. Bee described her interdisciplinary educationas a suitcase packed for traveling:

I guess I feel like school’s over, and you’re about to go on a journey. Andyou’re prepared for the rest of your life without your parents. . . . You nowhave the confidence that in your little bag of tricks, you have the skills; youhave what you need to be able to show people that you have proved yourself.

As the quotation at the beginning of this section suggests, Alice imag-ined her role as she neared the end of her undergraduate studies as thatof a map-reader. Don shared a similar image: “You have to make yourown map or path. . . . I think if you’re kind of aggressive with what youwant to do, it [the interdisciplinary studies major] is fantastic.” Ken’simage of playing ever more complex upgrades of computer games rein-forced this theme of development: “It’s just kind of layers building uponeach other. And each year, each semester, even after version 2.0 upgrade,you gain a little bit more understanding.” Several students commentedthat becoming interdisciplinary involved a way of seeing that couldnever be undone. Alice recalled the magic eye pictures where an imageis masked in an array of color: “You know it’s in the picture, and thenthe picture pops out at you. I look at the magic eye picture, and [now] Isee the picture without even trying.”

All of the seniors’ metaphors were characterized by an individualgaining increasing mastery over his or her perspective or life. Their em-


phasis on mastery may have been sparked by the fourth-year require-ment for all interdisciplinary majors to complete a year-long senior cap-stone assignment. The project asked students to leverage disciplinaryand interdisciplinary sources to respond to a question or solve a problemin approximately 80 pages of written text. To complete this project, stu-dents met individually and regularly with a faculty advisor throughoutthe year; also, they enrolled in a two-semester workshop where theyconferred with the faculty workshop director and each other about com-mon issues. Thus, unlike the junior year when students had minimal in-class contact with their interdisciplinary peers, the ten-credit seniorworkshop marked a regrouping point. As did all of the students, Rock-star welcomed this reconnection: “I’m just really excited to see my classget back together for our senior year and just . . . interested in gettingthat whole tight knit thing because I know what happens when you getus in one room.”

For these students, the senior project induced conflicting emotions ofexcitement about researching a topic of great interest and stress as theexpectations for the project were understood. Part of the excitementstemmed from a personal connection with the project topic. Don empha-sized, “People who are like the worst groups ever, [like] horrible slack-ers, will do well on their senior project. Finally, it is something that theywant to do. And that is one of the coolest things.” Students’ exuberance,however, was tempered when confronted by the assignment’s demand-ing scope. Rockstar experienced “sheer terror,” and Ken recalled the“long periods of time when I was triple panicked.” One reason for theiranxiety was the assignment’s open-endedness: “It [the senior project]was such a different experience from all the other writing we’ve beendoing for the last three years. . . . At first, I was very unsure about thewhole process. I wasn’t sure if I was right or if I was doing somethingwrong” (Lanta). Bee also fretted over the lack of a clear structure or ex-ternal affirmation: “They’re not telling me I’m doing anything wrong, soI guess I’m assuming I’m doing it right. Yet, I still feel like I don’t knowwhat I’m doing.” As was evident in earlier years, the students turned totheir peers for support. Don reported: “It’s kind of cool to get anotherperspective. I know people with other [topics of interest] have openedmy eyes to other things that I would not have thought of.”

For several of the seniors, peer support was not enough. Bee was ap-preciative when the workshop director offered explicit expectations,“like ‘cite three authors per subsection’ . . . that will kind of help.” Rock-star echoed this sentiment: “It’s nice to have somebody [the workshopinstructor] with all of the answers in a way. Whether those answers areset by him or just our answers in general, it’s nice to have a very directapproach.” Concrete guidelines from authority figures helped make the



phasis on mastery may have been sparked by the fourth-year require-ment for all interdisciplinary majors to complete a year-long senior cap-stone assignment. The project asked students to leverage disciplinaryand interdisciplinary sources to respond to a question or solve a problemin approximately 80 pages of written text. To complete this project, stu-dents met individually and regularly with a faculty advisor throughoutthe year; also, they enrolled in a two-semester workshop where theyconferred with the faculty workshop director and each other about com-mon issues. Thus, unlike the junior year when students had minimal in-class contact with their interdisciplinary peers, the ten-credit seniorworkshop marked a regrouping point. As did all of the students, Rock-star welcomed this reconnection: “I’m just really excited to see my classget back together for our senior year and just . . . interested in gettingthat whole tight knit thing because I know what happens when you getus in one room.”

For these students, the senior project induced conflicting emotions ofexcitement about researching a topic of great interest and stress as theexpectations for the project were understood. Part of the excitementstemmed from a personal connection with the project topic. Don empha-sized, “People who are like the worst groups ever, [like] horrible slack-ers, will do well on their senior project. Finally, it is something that theywant to do. And that is one of the coolest things.” Students’ exuberance,however, was tempered when confronted by the assignment’s demand-ing scope. Rockstar experienced “sheer terror,” and Ken recalled the“long periods of time when I was triple panicked.” One reason for theiranxiety was the assignment’s open-endedness: “It [the senior project]was such a different experience from all the other writing we’ve beendoing for the last three years. . . . At first, I was very unsure about thewhole process. I wasn’t sure if I was right or if I was doing somethingwrong” (Lanta). Bee also fretted over the lack of a clear structure or ex-ternal affirmation: “They’re not telling me I’m doing anything wrong, soI guess I’m assuming I’m doing it right. Yet, I still feel like I don’t knowwhat I’m doing.” As was evident in earlier years, the students turned totheir peers for support. Don reported: “It’s kind of cool to get anotherperspective. I know people with other [topics of interest] have openedmy eyes to other things that I would not have thought of.”

For several of the seniors, peer support was not enough. Bee was ap-preciative when the workshop director offered explicit expectations,“like ‘cite three authors per subsection’ . . . that will kind of help.” Rock-star echoed this sentiment: “It’s nice to have somebody [the workshopinstructor] with all of the answers in a way. Whether those answers areset by him or just our answers in general, it’s nice to have a very directapproach.” Concrete guidelines from authority figures helped make the



project manageable, but when the feedback from faculty was stronglycritical, the effect could be devastating. Don reported having his workcritiqued to the point that “it became so frustrating. By about the lastchapter, I just went, ‘Okay, I’m just going to agree with him and get thisdone.’ I got tired of arguing. . . . I don’t really like my senior project any-more because I wasn’t allowed to say what I wanted to.”

Although these comments may suggest that students regressed to lesscomplex ways of knowing, most of the students exhibited a reliance onexternal authority only temporarily in response to the capstone project, adifficult and novel task. Most participants resumed more complex waysof knowing once they developed a coping strategy—a pattern which isconsistent with another study (Pizzolato, 2004). This pattern highlightsthe recursive nature of development described by Perry (1981). Indeed,other comments made in this year indicate that they were expandingtheir thinking and grappling with ambiguous and complex topics. Dondefined interdisciplinarity this way:

It’s just when you pull from different disciplines for one thing and look atthat one thing in different lights. I could take one issue and look at it from theeconomics perspective, a science perspective, ethics perspective, philosoph-ical perspective, ecological perspective. I think that would be interdiscipli-nary because it is looking at a different scope of disciplines, and they all tie in.

Whereas Don’s notion of interdisciplinarity encompassed a spectrum ofdisciplinary perspectives, Cindy’s definition extended “even beyondlooking at academic disciplines. It’s looking at different experiences thatyou have outside the academic realm, whether it’s through teachingstyles, personal experiences, investigative experiences, cultural back-grounds.”

As their awareness of the variety of academic and non-academic per-spectives that could be used expanded, students became cognizant of theways that these points of view might differ or conflict. In describing thevarious disciplinary contributions to her senior project, Lanta pointedout that “it’s been difficult because the language that exists in the two lit-eratures [sociology and medicine] are very different.” Not only did thediscursive differences in disciplines pose challenges for Lanta, but shealso was daunted by the magnitude of using and integrating them:

I can’t be satisfied, ever . . . since I don’t have an expertise in any one disci-pline. I’ve thought and still think that a prerequisite of being an interdiscipli-narian is to be an expert in the disciplines you’re integrating. . . . Yet, I think it would be difficult to go back to learning just one discipline when I know that’s not the only discipline that I need to understand whatever I am learning.


Like Lanta, Rockstar acknowledged the contributions and deficienciesof disciplines in the interdisciplinary process: “Once everything is con-nected, then it makes it much harder to ever look at one thing as just onething again.”

All of students credited their interdisciplinary education with helpingthem become more open minded, inclusive, and tolerant of differences.Bee stressed fairness when she described how an interdisciplinary ap-proach involves “find[ing] a balance and fairness between the insights ofeveryone involved and every concerned party.” Ken found an interdisci-plinary approach superior to that of a single discipline: “It just seemskind of dumb [not to take an interdisciplinary approach]. . . . I can take amore critical look . . . and can understand things in multiple contexts andsee how everything is connected.” Bee was able to detect a stronger ca-pacity for independent thought:

I remember before college or at the beginning of college feeling like I waslearning but really I was learning how to write papers or how to reproducethe argument of someone else. But now I am comfortable saying things thatI haven’t heard directly—like integrating my own voice into what I talkabout.

Our participants were now more active in making meaning, both abouttheir topic of study and about themselves as individuals. Cindy said:“Having a self-designed major and having to reflect within yourselfwhat’s important and critically think about yourself and your own passions and guide your own direction, that in and of itself is interdisci-plinary.” Being interdisciplinary was not just an academic task; it hadbecome part of how these students define themselves in relation to others. Table 1 summarizes these findings, highlighting the changes in how students view themselves, perceive others, and understand inter-disciplinarity.

Conclusion

As our data collection and analysis progressed, we were struck by theevolving insights about how students understand interdisciplinarity andfound indicators of how students become interdisciplinary thinkers. Weembraced an inductive/deductive approach, taking cues from our dataand channeling our observations back into questions for our partici-pants. Because we saw a progression relevant to academic year in thedata, we chose to use a chronological frame to present the data here. Amore open analytical procedure might allow for alternative interpreta-tions of the data.



Like Lanta, Rockstar acknowledged the contributions and deficienciesof disciplines in the interdisciplinary process: “Once everything is con-nected, then it makes it much harder to ever look at one thing as just onething again.”

All of students credited their interdisciplinary education with helpingthem become more open minded, inclusive, and tolerant of differences.Bee stressed fairness when she described how an interdisciplinary ap-proach involves “find[ing] a balance and fairness between the insights ofeveryone involved and every concerned party.” Ken found an interdisci-plinary approach superior to that of a single discipline: “It just seemskind of dumb [not to take an interdisciplinary approach]. . . . I can take amore critical look . . . and can understand things in multiple contexts andsee how everything is connected.” Bee was able to detect a stronger ca-pacity for independent thought:

I remember before college or at the beginning of college feeling like I waslearning but really I was learning how to write papers or how to reproducethe argument of someone else. But now I am comfortable saying things thatI haven’t heard directly—like integrating my own voice into what I talkabout.

Our participants were now more active in making meaning, both abouttheir topic of study and about themselves as individuals. Cindy said:“Having a self-designed major and having to reflect within yourselfwhat’s important and critically think about yourself and your own passions and guide your own direction, that in and of itself is interdisci-plinary.” Being interdisciplinary was not just an academic task; it hadbecome part of how these students define themselves in relation to others. Table 1 summarizes these findings, highlighting the changes in how students view themselves, perceive others, and understand inter-disciplinarity.

Conclusion

As our data collection and analysis progressed, we were struck by theevolving insights about how students understand interdisciplinarity andfound indicators of how students become interdisciplinary thinkers. Weembraced an inductive/deductive approach, taking cues from our dataand channeling our observations back into questions for our partici-pants. Because we saw a progression relevant to academic year in thedata, we chose to use a chronological frame to present the data here. Amore open analytical procedure might allow for alternative interpreta-tions of the data.



The data from this longitudinal study offer a comprehensive look atthe developmental journey experienced by students in one undergradu-ate interdisciplinary studies program. The students moved from viewingtheir interdisciplinary education as an exciting surprise party to perceiv-ing themselves as interdisciplinary mapmakers who could integrate di-verse forms of knowledge to create new understandings of self andknowledge. Cognitive-constructivist learning theory serves as an inter-pretive lens for understanding participants’ trajectory. Consistent withmuch student development theory, students did not progress at the same


TABLE 1

Students’ Developmental Understanding of Interdisciplinarity

Year Student’s View of Self Student’s View of Others Student’s View of Interdisciplinarity

• Enthusiastic aboutlearning

• Not an agent in inter-disciplinary knowledgeconstruction

• Seek faculty approval

• Anxious about makingkey decisions andexploring alone

• Gaining sense of theirdifference fromstudents in disciplinarymajors

• Lacking awareness ofself as agent ininterdisciplinaryprocess

• Eager to take activerole in applyingknowledge to out-of-class experiences

• Gaining a sense ofagency over educationand the integrativeprocess

• Interdisciplinarity isconceived as part ofself and one’sdistinctive way ofthinking

• Experts hold knowledge • Peers should validate and

agree with one another

• Gaining awareness oflimitations of others, in-cluding disciplinary andinterdisciplinary experts

• Peers important in help-ing them learn

• Disagreements with others can aid in learningprocess

• Teamwork is key to interdisciplinary under-standing

• Temporary reliance onexperts in face of majorproject

• Gaining view of peersand faculty as colleagues

• Uncertainty about inter-disciplinarity

• Interdisciplinarity is ex-plained in concrete terms (bylinking it to a pedagogical approach or expert)

• Interdisciplinarity does notoffer absolute answers

• Gaining awareness of limitsof disciplines and of differ-ences between disciplinarityand interdisciplinary

• Interdisciplinarity involvesintegration

• Interdisciplinarity viewed inopposition to disciplinarity

• Interdisciplinarity dependsupon disciplines

• Disciplines are constructed,may conflict with one another

• Beginning to form own understanding of inter-disciplinarity

• Interdisciplinarity is aprocess, encompassinggreater number of disciplines,fields

First

Middle

Senior

pace, and individual differences influenced a given student’s progress.However, all demonstrated traits indicative of the crossroads phase, asevident in their ability to engage with multiple disciplinary perspectives,their recognition of the importance of making their own decisions abouttheir educational and personal journeys, and their struggle to differenti-ate themselves from their peers and other experts. In short, they attaineda degree of maturity somewhat more advanced than was typical of col-lege seniors in Baxter Magolda’s original study who “left college . . . re-lying on the process authorities had taught them for how to know”(2001, p. 37). Because the participants in Baxter Magolda’s study wereenrolled in college almost two decades before the participants in ourstudy, it is impossible to determine whether the differences in our findingsare a result of their interdisciplinary major or other contextual factors.

The development of students in interdisciplinary programs appears tohave been supported by the complexity of the interdisciplinary coursematerial and assignments which encouraged students to wrestle with am-biguity, active engagement with the topics of study and inquiry-basedlearning, the residential learning community which facilitated ongoingand intensive exchange with faculty and peers, and the dissonance-induc-ing nature of self-directed study accompanied by frequent self-reflectionfostered in course writing assignments and one-on-one advising ses-sions. Other studies have supported the beneficial gains from the compo-nents of educational practice that were evident in this interdisciplinaryprogram, including active, engaged and inquiry-based forms of learning(Braxton, Milem, & Sullivan, 2000; Brown Leonard, 2007; Carini, Kuh,& Klein, 2006; Hake, 1998; Kuh, Cruce Shoup, Kinzie, & Gonyea,2007), living learning communities (Garrett & Zabriskie, 2003: Inkelas,Daver, Vogt, & Brown Leonard, 2007; Schein, 2005; Stassen, 2003),self-directed and challenging assignments that produce dissonance(Amelink, 2005; Pizzolato, 2003) and self-reflection (Boud, Keogh, &Walker, 1985; Mezirow, 1990; Schon, 1983). Several scholars have as-sessed the specific value of interdisciplinary courses and programs, par-ticularly in the advancement of cognitive or higher order thinking skillssuch as problem-solving, critical thinking, the ability to engage multipleperspectives, tolerance for ambiguity, sensitivity to ethical issues, cre-ative or independent thinking, listening skills, teamwork, self-reflectionand humility (Brown Leonard, 2007; Buchbinder et al., 2005; Field et al.,1994; Hursh, Haas, & Moore, 1983; Kavalosvky, 1971; Klein, 2002; Lat-tuca et al., 2004; Newell, 1998, 2002; Wolfe & Haynes, 2003). Yet, noneof these studies explore how students’ understandings of interdisciplinar-ity develop over time or how the interdisciplinary learning environmentrelates to their development throughout college.



pace, and individual differences influenced a given student’s progress.However, all demonstrated traits indicative of the crossroads phase, asevident in their ability to engage with multiple disciplinary perspectives,their recognition of the importance of making their own decisions abouttheir educational and personal journeys, and their struggle to differenti-ate themselves from their peers and other experts. In short, they attaineda degree of maturity somewhat more advanced than was typical of col-lege seniors in Baxter Magolda’s original study who “left college . . . re-lying on the process authorities had taught them for how to know”(2001, p. 37). Because the participants in Baxter Magolda’s study wereenrolled in college almost two decades before the participants in ourstudy, it is impossible to determine whether the differences in our findingsare a result of their interdisciplinary major or other contextual factors.

The development of students in interdisciplinary programs appears tohave been supported by the complexity of the interdisciplinary coursematerial and assignments which encouraged students to wrestle with am-biguity, active engagement with the topics of study and inquiry-basedlearning, the residential learning community which facilitated ongoingand intensive exchange with faculty and peers, and the dissonance-induc-ing nature of self-directed study accompanied by frequent self-reflectionfostered in course writing assignments and one-on-one advising ses-sions. Other studies have supported the beneficial gains from the compo-nents of educational practice that were evident in this interdisciplinaryprogram, including active, engaged and inquiry-based forms of learning(Braxton, Milem, & Sullivan, 2000; Brown Leonard, 2007; Carini, Kuh,& Klein, 2006; Hake, 1998; Kuh, Cruce Shoup, Kinzie, & Gonyea,2007), living learning communities (Garrett & Zabriskie, 2003: Inkelas,Daver, Vogt, & Brown Leonard, 2007; Schein, 2005; Stassen, 2003),self-directed and challenging assignments that produce dissonance(Amelink, 2005; Pizzolato, 2003) and self-reflection (Boud, Keogh, &Walker, 1985; Mezirow, 1990; Schon, 1983). Several scholars have as-sessed the specific value of interdisciplinary courses and programs, par-ticularly in the advancement of cognitive or higher order thinking skillssuch as problem-solving, critical thinking, the ability to engage multipleperspectives, tolerance for ambiguity, sensitivity to ethical issues, cre-ative or independent thinking, listening skills, teamwork, self-reflectionand humility (Brown Leonard, 2007; Buchbinder et al., 2005; Field et al.,1994; Hursh, Haas, & Moore, 1983; Kavalosvky, 1971; Klein, 2002; Lat-tuca et al., 2004; Newell, 1998, 2002; Wolfe & Haynes, 2003). Yet, noneof these studies explore how students’ understandings of interdisciplinar-ity develop over time or how the interdisciplinary learning environmentrelates to their development throughout college.



Our study demonstrates the interpersonal and intrapersonal as well asthe epistemological benefits of an engaged, interdisciplinary, and resi-dential learning community, but it also provides a glimpse into students’developmental journey and processes of meaning-making across the un-dergraduate experience. The data also offer suggestions for educatorsseeking ways to promote student development through interdisciplinarycourses and residential environments.

First-year students sought clear explanations of the way assignmentscontributed to the course goals and to their own learning and explicit cri-teria for interdisciplinary work. By explaining how each learning experi-ence relates to the course goals and contributes to students’ understandingof interdisciplinarity, faculty can help students understand the purposebehind their class work. Faculty can advance students’ learning bydemonstrating a concern for students’ viewpoints; welcoming students’experiences and participant-based knowledge, while introducing to themnew disciplinary perspectives; scaffolding activities and assignments toprompt students to gain disciplinary knowledge and then interdisciplinaryunderstandings; and steering away from “the position of omnipresent au-thority” by sharing their own musings, struggles, and mistakes as an in-terdisciplinary investigator (Baxter Magolda, 1999, p. 71).

Because students during the middle years appear to be convincingthemselves that they are “really going to start following their own voices”(Baxter Magolda, 2001, p. 116), faculty can assist their development byproviding opportunities for student decision-making and original thought(including the opportunity to generate their own conceptions of interdisci-plinarity); offering students concrete strategies for integrating knowledge;encouraging them to apply in-class learning to out-of-class situations;promoting comparative analysis of disciplinary thinking; and sharing di-verse models of integrative work (created by experienced scholars as wellas the students themselves). Given that this is a period when students seekgreater independence from authorities, faculty should help them identifysupport structures and forge support networks. In addition, it is importantto encourage them to take pride in themselves as interdisciplinary scholarsyet also learn to appreciate the value of rigorous disciplinary thinking.

Faculty can promote fourth-year students’ learning by providing op-portunities for students to reflect on and make connections among thedisciplinary, interdisciplinary, and other forms of knowledge gained dur-ing the undergraduate experience. In addition, they can foster a collegialclimate where differing perspectives can be exchanged, identify strate-gies for coping with emotional and intellectual obstacles of the integra-tive process, and encourage them to take purposeful risks to work out-side conventional academic norms.


Our study aims to provide insight into the holistic development of stu-dents in dedicated interdisciplinary programs (see Table 1) as well assuggestions for faculty in promoting their understanding of interdiscipli-narity. Because this study did not include a comparison group of studentspursuing only disciplinary studies, it is unclear how much of the stu-dents’ development is attributable to the interdisciplinary nature of theprogram or to the general impact of the college maturation process. Bax-ter Magolda has noted that students’ maturity is fostered when studentsconfront “multiple interpretations, ambiguity, and the need to negotiatewhat to believe with others,” when they are encouraged to “define them-selves and bring this to their way of learning,” and when they are invitedto “participate as equal partners” in the creation of knowledge (2004, pp.41–42). Clearly, the interdisciplinary studies program and its key ele-ments—including the residential component, the capstone requirement,and seminar-style classroom environment—promoted the principles Bax-ter Magolda has found are central to promoting students’ development.

Future studies not only could compare the developmental patterns ofdisciplinary versus interdisciplinary students but also attempt to identifywhich of the elements of interdisciplinary studies programs are most re-sponsible for advancing students’ maturity. We hope that our findingswill encourage future research on the value of interdisciplinary educa-tion and aid educators in supporting students through the surprise par-ties, deep forest expeditions, and mapmaking endeavors that are part ofthe interdisciplinary undergraduate journey.

References

Amelink, C. T. (2005). Predicting academic success among first-year, first generationstudents. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and StateUniversity, Blacksburg, VA.

Applebee, A. N., Burroughs, R., & Cruz, G. (2000). Curricular conversations in elemen-tary school classrooms: Case studies of interdisciplinary instruction. In S. Wineburg& P. Grossman (Eds.), Interdisciplinary curriculum: Challenges to implementation(pp. 93–111). New York: Teachers College Press.

Astin, A. W. (1992). What matters in college? Four critical years revisited. San Fran-cisco: Jossey-Bass.

Barnett, S. A., & Brown, V. A. (1981). Pull and push in educational innovation: Study ofan interfaculty programme. Studies in Higher Education, 6, 13–22.

Baxter Magolda, M. B. (2001). Making their own way: Narratives for transforminghigher education to promote self-development. Sterling, VA: Stylus.

Baxter Magolda, M. B. (2004). Learning partnerships model: A framework for promot-ing self-authorship. In M. B. Baxter Magolda & P. M. King (Eds.), Learning partner-ships: Theory and models of practice to educate for self-authorship (pp. 37–61). Sterling, VA: Stylus.



Our study aims to provide insight into the holistic development of stu-dents in dedicated interdisciplinary programs (see Table 1) as well assuggestions for faculty in promoting their understanding of interdiscipli-narity. Because this study did not include a comparison group of studentspursuing only disciplinary studies, it is unclear how much of the stu-dents’ development is attributable to the interdisciplinary nature of theprogram or to the general impact of the college maturation process. Bax-ter Magolda has noted that students’ maturity is fostered when studentsconfront “multiple interpretations, ambiguity, and the need to negotiatewhat to believe with others,” when they are encouraged to “define them-selves and bring this to their way of learning,” and when they are invitedto “participate as equal partners” in the creation of knowledge (2004, pp.41–42). Clearly, the interdisciplinary studies program and its key ele-ments—including the residential component, the capstone requirement,and seminar-style classroom environment—promoted the principles Bax-ter Magolda has found are central to promoting students’ development.

Future studies not only could compare the developmental patterns ofdisciplinary versus interdisciplinary students but also attempt to identifywhich of the elements of interdisciplinary studies programs are most re-sponsible for advancing students’ maturity. We hope that our findingswill encourage future research on the value of interdisciplinary educa-tion and aid educators in supporting students through the surprise par-ties, deep forest expeditions, and mapmaking endeavors that are part ofthe interdisciplinary undergraduate journey.

References

Amelink, C. T. (2005). Predicting academic success among first-year, first generationstudents. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and StateUniversity, Blacksburg, VA.

Applebee, A. N., Burroughs, R., & Cruz, G. (2000). Curricular conversations in elemen-tary school classrooms: Case studies of interdisciplinary instruction. In S. Wineburg& P. Grossman (Eds.), Interdisciplinary curriculum: Challenges to implementation(pp. 93–111). New York: Teachers College Press.

Astin, A. W. (1992). What matters in college? Four critical years revisited. San Fran-cisco: Jossey-Bass.

Barnett, S. A., & Brown, V. A. (1981). Pull and push in educational innovation: Study ofan interfaculty programme. Studies in Higher Education, 6, 13–22.

Baxter Magolda, M. B. (2001). Making their own way: Narratives for transforminghigher education to promote self-development. Sterling, VA: Stylus.

Baxter Magolda, M. B. (2004). Learning partnerships model: A framework for promot-ing self-authorship. In M. B. Baxter Magolda & P. M. King (Eds.), Learning partner-ships: Theory and models of practice to educate for self-authorship (pp. 37–61). Sterling, VA: Stylus.



Boix Mansilla, V. (2005, January/February). Assessing student work at disciplinarycrossroads. Change, 37(1), 14–21.

Boix Mansilla, V., & Dawes Duraising, E. (2007). Targeted assessment of students’inter-disciplinary work: An empirically grounded framework proposed. The Journal ofHigher Education, 78, 215–237.

Boix Mansilla, V., Miller, W. C., & Gardner, H. (2000). On disciplinary lenses and inter-disciplinary work. In S. Wineburg & P. Grossman (Eds.), Interdisciplinary curricu-lum: Challenges to implementation (pp. 17–38). New York: Teachers College Press.

Boud, D., Keogh, R., & Walker, D. (1985) Reflection: Turning experience into learning.London: Croom Helm.

Braxton, J. M., Milem, J. F., & Sullivan, A. S. (2000). The influence of active learning onthe college student departure process: Toward a revision of Tinto’s theory. The Journalof Higher Education, 71, 569–590.

Brown Leonard, J. (2007). Integrative learning as a developmental process: A groundedtheory of college students’ experiences in integrative studies. Unpublished doctoraldissertation, University of Maryland, College Park.

Buchbinder, S. B., Alt, P. M., Eskow, K., Forbes, W., Hester, E., & Struck, M. (2005).Creating learning prisms with an interdisciplinary case study workshop. InnovativeHigher Education, 29, 257–274.

Carini, R. M., Kuh, G. D., & Klein, S. P. (2006). Student engagement and student learn-ing: Testing the linkages. Research in Higher Education, 47, 1–32.

Edwards, A. F., Jr. (1996). Interdisciplinary undergraduate programs: A directory (2nd

ed.). Acton, MA: Copley Custom Textbooks.

Field, M., Lee, R., & Field, M. L. (1994). Assessing interdisciplinary learning. In J. T.Klein & W. G. Doty (Eds.), Interdisciplinary studies today (pp. 69–84). San Fran-cisco: Jossey-Bass.

Franks, D., Dale, P., Hindmarsh, R., Fellows, C., Buckridge, M., & Cybinski, P. (2007).Interdisciplinary foundations: Reflecting on interdisciplinarity and three decades ofteaching and research at Griffith University, Australia. Studies in Higher Education,32, 167–185.

Garrett, M. D., & Zabriskie, M. S. (2003). The influence of living-learning program par-ticipation on student-faculty interaction. Journal of College and University StudentHousing, 32(2), 38–44.

Hake, R. (1998). Interactive-engagement vs. traditional methods: A six-thousand-student survey of mechanics test data for introductory physics courses [Electronic version]. American Journal of Physics, 66, 64–74.

Hursh, B., Haas, P., & Moore, M. (1983). An interdisciplinary model to implement gen-eral education. The Journal of Higher Education, 54, 42–49.

Inkelas, K., Daver, Z. E., Vogt, K. E., & Brown Leonard, J. (2007). Living-learning pro-grams and first-generation college students’ academic and social transition to college.Research in Higher Education, 48, 403–434.

Johnson-Carey, S. (Summer/Fall 2005). From the editor. Peer Review, 7(4), 3.

Jones, S. R. (2002). (Re)writing the word: Methodological strategies and issues in qual-itative research. Journal of College Student Development, 43, 461–473.

Kavalovsky, V. C. (1979). Interdisciplinary education and humanistic aspiration. In J. J.Kockelmans (Ed.) Interdisciplinarity and higher education (pp. 224–243). UniversityPark: Pennsylvania State University Press.


Klein, J. T. (1999). Mapping interdisciplinary studies. Washington, DC: Association ofAmerican Colleges and Universities.

Klein, J. T. (Ed.). (2002). Interdisciplinary education in K–12 and college: A foundationfor K–16 dialogue. New York: The College Board.

Klein, J. T., & Newell, W. H. (1998). Advancing interdisciplinary studies. In W. H.Newell (Ed.), Interdisciplinarity: Essays from the literature (pp. 3–22). New York:The College Board.

Kuh, G. D., Cruce, T., Shoup, R., Kinzie, J., & Gonyea, R. M. (2007, April). Unmaskingthe effects of student engagement on college grades and persistence. Paper presentedat the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago,IL.

Kvale, S. (1996). InterViews: An introduction to qualitative research interviewing.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Lattuca, L. R. (2001). Creating interdisciplinarity: Interdisciplinary research and teach-ing among college and university faculty. Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt University Press.

Lattuca, L. R., Voigt, L. J., & Fath, K. Q. (2004). Does interdisciplinarity promote learn-ing? Theoretical support and researchable questions. The Review of Higher Educa-tion, 28, 23–48.

Lindholm, J. A., Astin, A. W., Sax, L. J., & Korn, W. S. (2002). The American collegeteacher: National norms for the 2001–02 HERI faculty survey. Los Angeles: HigherEducation Research Institute.

Mezirow, J. (1990) Fostering critical reflection in adulthood. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Newell, W. H. (1998). Interdisciplinary curriculum development. In W. H. Newell (Ed.),Interdisciplinarity: Essays from the literature (pp. 51–65). New York: The CollegeBoard.

Newell, W. H. (2002). Integrating the college curriculum. In J. T. Klein (Ed.), Interdisci-plinary education in K–12 and college (pp. 119–137). New York: The College Board.

Nowacek, R. S. (2005). A discourse-based theory of interdisciplinary connections. JGE:The Journal of General Education, 54, 171–195.

Page Fernandez, N. (2006, May/June). Integration, reflection, interpretation: Realizingthe goals of general education capstone course. About Campus, 23–26.

Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). ThousandOaks, CA: Sage.

Perry, W. G., Jr. (1981). Cognitive and ethical growth: The making of meaning. In A. W.Chickering & Associates (Eds.), The modern American college (pp. 76–116). SanFrancisco: Jossey-Bass.

Pizzolato, J. (2003). Developing self-authorship: Exploring the experiences of high-riskcollege students. Journal of College Student Development. 44, 797–812.

Pizzolato, J. (2004). Coping with conflict: Self-authorship, coping, and adaptation tocollege in first-year, high-risk students. Journal of College Student Development, 45,425–442.

Rhoten, D., Boix Mansilla, V., Chun, M., & Klein, J. T. (2007, April 4). Interdisciplinaryeducation at liberal arts institutions. New York: Teagle Foundation. Retrieved December 23, 2008, from http://www.teaglefoundation.org/learning/pdf/ 2006_ssrc_whitepaper.pdf



Klein, J. T. (1999). Mapping interdisciplinary studies. Washington, DC: Association ofAmerican Colleges and Universities.

Klein, J. T. (Ed.). (2002). Interdisciplinary education in K–12 and college: A foundationfor K–16 dialogue. New York: The College Board.

Klein, J. T., & Newell, W. H. (1998). Advancing interdisciplinary studies. In W. H.Newell (Ed.), Interdisciplinarity: Essays from the literature (pp. 3–22). New York:The College Board.

Kuh, G. D., Cruce, T., Shoup, R., Kinzie, J., & Gonyea, R. M. (2007, April). Unmaskingthe effects of student engagement on college grades and persistence. Paper presentedat the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago,IL.

Kvale, S. (1996). InterViews: An introduction to qualitative research interviewing.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Lattuca, L. R. (2001). Creating interdisciplinarity: Interdisciplinary research and teach-ing among college and university faculty. Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt University Press.

Lattuca, L. R., Voigt, L. J., & Fath, K. Q. (2004). Does interdisciplinarity promote learn-ing? Theoretical support and researchable questions. The Review of Higher Educa-tion, 28, 23–48.

Lindholm, J. A., Astin, A. W., Sax, L. J., & Korn, W. S. (2002). The American collegeteacher: National norms for the 2001–02 HERI faculty survey. Los Angeles: HigherEducation Research Institute.

Mezirow, J. (1990) Fostering critical reflection in adulthood. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Newell, W. H. (1998). Interdisciplinary curriculum development. In W. H. Newell (Ed.),Interdisciplinarity: Essays from the literature (pp. 51–65). New York: The CollegeBoard.

Newell, W. H. (2002). Integrating the college curriculum. In J. T. Klein (Ed.), Interdisci-plinary education in K–12 and college (pp. 119–137). New York: The College Board.

Nowacek, R. S. (2005). A discourse-based theory of interdisciplinary connections. JGE:The Journal of General Education, 54, 171–195.

Page Fernandez, N. (2006, May/June). Integration, reflection, interpretation: Realizingthe goals of general education capstone course. About Campus, 23–26.

Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). ThousandOaks, CA: Sage.

Perry, W. G., Jr. (1981). Cognitive and ethical growth: The making of meaning. In A. W.Chickering & Associates (Eds.), The modern American college (pp. 76–116). SanFrancisco: Jossey-Bass.

Pizzolato, J. (2003). Developing self-authorship: Exploring the experiences of high-riskcollege students. Journal of College Student Development. 44, 797–812.

Pizzolato, J. (2004). Coping with conflict: Self-authorship, coping, and adaptation tocollege in first-year, high-risk students. Journal of College Student Development, 45,425–442.

Rhoten, D., Boix Mansilla, V., Chun, M., & Klein, J. T. (2007, April 4). Interdisciplinaryeducation at liberal arts institutions. New York: Teagle Foundation. Retrieved December 23, 2008, from http://www.teaglefoundation.org/learning/pdf/ 2006_ssrc_whitepaper.pdf



Roth, K. J. (2000). The photosynthesis of Columbus: Exploring interdisciplinary cur-riculum from the students’ perspective. In S. Wineburg & P. Grossman (Eds.), Inter-disciplinary curriculum: Challenges to implementation (pp. 112–133). New York:Teachers College Press.

Schein, H. K. (2005) The zen of unit one: Residential learning communities can fosterliberal learning at large universities. In N. Laff (Ed.), Identity, learning and the liberalarts (New Directions for Teaching and Learning, no. 103, pp. 73–88). San Francisco:Jossey Bass.

Schön, D. A. (1983) The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. Lon-don: Temple Smith.

Seabury, M. B., (Ed.). (1999). Interdisciplinary general education: Questioning outsidethe lines. New York: The College Board.

Stassen, M. L. A. (2003). Student outcomes: The impact of varying living-learning com-munity models. Research in Higher Education, 44, 581–613.

Vess, D. (2001, Spring). Explorations in interdisciplinary learning: A study of learningoutcomes in an interdisciplinary fine arts course. inventio: Creating thinking aboutlearning and teaching, 1. Retrieved June 12, 2007, from http://www.doit.gmu.edu/inventio/issues/Spring_2001/Vess_1.html

Wolfe, C. R., & Haynes, C. A. (2003). Interdisciplinary writing assessment profiles. Is-sues in Integrative Studies, 21, 126–169.


Documents

From Surprise Parties to Mapmaking: Undergraduate Journeys toward Interdisciplinary Understanding