CeAL Case Studies in Active Learning

1. Core 2.0 - Linking Student Learning with the Discovery of Knowledge

2. Contact Details

Name and address:
Gregory Young, Vice Provost for Undergrad Ed
318 Montana Hall, MSU
Bozeman MT 59717
USA
Tel:  406-994-6057
Email: gyoung@montana.edu

3. Context.

• Institution / Department:  Montana State University
• Title of initiative:  Linking Student Learning with the Discovery of Knowledge
• Level:  Year 3, though the research/creativity can be taken in virtually any year of a student's degree programme
  

4. Brief Description

Linking Student Learning with the Discovery of Knowledge is part of the 5-year vision document for Montana State University, the implementation of which is the requirement in the new core curriculum (Core 2.0), that all undergraduates complete a research/creativity course.  While in many departments such as chemistry and physics, this requirement goes back decades, it is new for many others, especially in the Arts and Humanities.  In order to meet the instructional demand that this requirement brings, undergraduate research seminars in the arts and humanities have been necessary and desired.  Both students and faculty benefit when such seminars help advance the scholarship of the faculty member while providing an inside, participatory look at what research is and how it is carried out.

5. Issues of Department / Institution Organisation

For decades, undergraduate research has been conducted in the sciences, and is quickly becoming a ubiquitous teaching tool.  Faculty in the Arts & Humanities have not collectively embraced this pedagogy to the same extent.  At Montana State University, the new core curriculum includes a research/creativity requirement for all undergraduates, and having overseen the implementation of this “Core 2.0,” I believe that emerging models of instruction can eliminate obstacles for both faculty and students.  Besides the adoption of the science lab approach, where a professor oversees a team of individuals with varying levels of expertise from undergraduates to post-doctoral students, other models include: 1)employing emeritus faculty to conduct advanced tutorials, 2) incorporating undergraduate research into study abroad, and 3) designing courses in which students do group research.  The underlying philosophy is that students can help expedite the completion of faculty research, while earning academic credit and deepening their understanding of the process of academic inquiry.  Unlike the traditional independent student project, which takes time just to come up with an idea, linking student learning to an established faculty research project can be very rewarding for both student and professor, and may even generate new research ideas.  Such integration of scholarship and teaching, which involves collaboration, critical thinking, and group problem solving, is an important direction for the academy.  Examples include collaborative seminars and/or nationally published student work in Music, Architecture, Economics, Literature and History.

This effort is linked to the wider curriculum through its fulfilment of one of the key requirements of the new Core 2.0.  The mission of CORE 2.0 is to enhance students' use of multiple perspectives in making informed critical and ethical judgments in their personal, public, and professional lives through inquiry and research experiences.

CORE 2.0 is built on five Foundation courses, and on Inquiry and Research & Creative Experience courses in Arts, Humanities, Natural Sciences and Social Sciences.

Foundation Courses

• University Seminar (US)
• College Writing (W)
• Quantitative Reasoning (Q)
• Diversity (D)
• Contemporary Issues in Science (CS)

Ways of Knowing (Inquiry and Research & Creative Experience Courses)

All students must take at least one core course in each of the following areas:

• Arts (IA or RA)
• Humanities (IH or RH)
• Natural Sciences (IN or RN)
• Social Sciences (IS or RS)

All students must take at least one (1) approved Research & Creative Experience course. Students may take an approved Research & Creative Experience course in one of these four areas OR they may take a separate Research & Creative Experience course in any discipline, including the Undergraduate Scholars Program (USP 489/490).

Two examples of interdisciplinary seminars we have taught here at Montana State University are:  “Musi-Tecture:  Seeking Useful Correlations Between Music and Architecture,” and “London and the Lakes:  Music and Economics from Handel to McCartney.”  In the former seminar, eight music students and eight architecture students studied some of the correlations made by the two professors, primarily concerning common terminology and common sources of inspiration.  For example, the terms articulation, rhythm, form, and symmetry have specific meanings in both disciplines, but their meanings are related.  Similarly, an architect’s list of possible sources of inspiration might be quite similar to a composer’s list, with common elements being a commission, nature, emotion, materials/instruments, and client/performer,  among others.  The students then embarked on a project, in which the music students composed and performed an original work based on a  piece of architecture, and the architecture students designed a building, inspired and guided by a piece of music of their choosing. 
In the latter seminar, students researched interesting causal relationships between money and the composition of music in England between 1700 and 2000, presented it to the class, and led the class to the pertinent sites in London and the Lake District during our study abroad.  Examples included: 1) the music that was composed for and premiered in St. Paul’s Cathedral, complete with historical background of the reason for the composition and how much money was involved, both as a commission and as a result of subsequent performances; 2) Handel as an adopted Briton and how he made his living as a composer; 3) Vaughan Williams’ Pastoral Symphony, its inspiration, premier, and economic benefit to the composer; and 4) Music composed and premiered in Royal Albert Hall, and the finances involved. 

6. Issues of Student Selection and Support  

Since the research/creativity requirement is in place for all students, they self-select into courses they are interested in, or take the one prescribed in their major. Additional resources for course development were provided by the Office of the Provost, but staffing for Core 2.0 was primarily handled by resources formerly devoted to the old core curriculum.  Many students do the research with no support, as part of their curriculum.  This may be a one-to-one ration with the professor, or in a seminar of 20 students.  However, over one million dollars of external grant funding goes directly to support undergraduate research at Montana State University.

7. Issues of Student Reward

Students generally get hourly pay or academic credit, but in some cases get a scholarship for the research, plus academic credit.

8. Does it work?

Its impact has been seen in a variety of ways, including three Goldwater scholarships in one year, currently 11th in the nation; and an 83% acceptance rate of our graduates into medical school.  Although no formal assessment of undergraduate research benefits has been undertaken, a new question is being added to the alumni survey about undergraduate research and the benefits it has bestowed.  Most professors think that this will support their anecdotal evidence of the tremendous benefits of this activity.

9. Key advice

Lesson 1 — Make sure it is included in any renewal of the vision of the institution.
Lesson 2 — Convince the President and the Provost of the value of undergraduate research.
Lesson 3 — Have the public relations office spread the word about success stories in undergraduate research.

10. What leadership issues have arisen?

Certainly faculty workload issues are challenging, especially in cases where faculty see no benefit to their own research program.  Some faculty, especially in the sciences, can have some of the better undergraduates work in their labs and help them advance their own research.  Ideally, working undergraduate research mentoring into the process for tenure and promotion would be an important step.  We did institute an annual undergraduate research mentoring award of $2,500 for up to two faculty members.  We were one of the first public campuses to have an undergraduate research program in all disciplines, in the early 1990s, and perhaps the first land-grant institution to require research/creativity of all undergraduates.

11. Relevant references and Web sites

CORE 2.0

Hands-on Learning

This case study is also available as a pdf Case Study 1 Greg Young (42Kb Adobe PDF)

For more information on the Centre for Active Learning contact:
Barbara Rainbow, CeAL Administrator, Tel: +44 (0)1242 714683, E-mail: brainbow@glos.ac.uk
Sonia Chilton, CeAL Administrative Assistant, Tel: +44 (0)1242 714615, E-mail: slchilton@glos.ac.uk