• learn to work together,

• integrate assessment into all aspects of the program, and

• come to terms with the "coverage" issue.

Learning to work together effectively
The process of learning to work together as an effective teaching team involves keeping communication lines open and being flexible about accommodating each other's topics. Bob Kowalczyk (mathematics) explained that working together means being flexible about changing one's course curriculum to fit the needs of others:

I think if you want it to work you have no choice. It seems like physics has pretty much a set curriculum and both engineering and calculus had to really adapt to the physics content. So it wouldn't make sense for me to be doing differentiation while the physics instructor is doing integration. If I change the order of topics a little bit, maybe I can teach them integration before they actually see it in physics. When students see integration the week after in physics, they say, "Oh, gee, I just learned this in calculus so now I'm seeing it in physics." It makes more sense.

Bob Kowalczyk also explained that once communication is established, it is easier to synchronize the content in ways that reinforce the concepts through real-world applications.

The main thing is that the engineering, math and physics faculty have to talk to each other. We try to meet during the semester and see how things are going. The engineering professor last year said he was doing this rocket project and asked if I could do some linear approximation in my calculus class. So the next class, I went in and fortunately I was near that material, and I did some linear approximation so he could use it in his engineering project. So, there's that kind of interdependency between the faculty. We probably should do even more of that because the more we talk and work together the better things get. But of course sometimes it's not that easy. Besides my students, I think I need to be in contact with the engineer and the physicist.

Integrate assessment into all aspects of the program
In addition, the IMPULSE faculty had to integrate assessment more fully into the structure of their courses.

Nick explained: I believe we are better prepared for accreditation because IMPULSE has continuous improvement loops built-in. This gets us to build an assessment way of thinking among the faculty. You do one of these courses; you're assessing it.

Come to terms with the "coverage" issue
Another difficulty encountered by all faculty who adopt collaborative learning methods is the "coverage" issue. Nick explained that there is a serious on-going debate about whether to focus more on the content presented or on the content learned:

You know, the first question that comes up is, "Wait, with cooperative learning, I don't think I can cover as much." Well, the answer is, "Yeah, you can't cover as much when you expect them to really learn it." On the one hand, people feel like they have to cover all that stuff-write it on the board, make sure they at least see it, even if they don't understand or learn it? We've been through these arguments, and this is a debate we're going to have forever. The only way to deal with that debate is to decide what it is that's important in your classroom and then go measure it.

In addition to the view that some lecturing should be retained, some instructors clearly feel that students should be proficient in solving rote problems, particularly given that these students will take more traditional courses after their IMPULSE experience.

Indeed, as Nick explained, physics had made some adjustments to that effect: Physics decided this year to actually run a recitation with this classroom, but it's 48 students in a one-hour recitation. They wanted to do this because the lab is merged into IMPULSE and they were uncertain that the students were actually developing their own understanding, and they felt they needed to work the more rote problems to manipulate the symbols and work the problems. So they decided this year to have an extra hour of recitation. And I think that's worked in their favor. But the total number of class hours went from six to four during the pilot, then to five.

In this regard, John Dowd (physics, now retired) suggested that future adapters turn to education research to address the matter of why it is that, while students shine at learning in these inquiry-based environments, they do not shine in problem solving:

There's no question that, in terms of concepts, the students know more. Now, you would think that if you know the concepts better you should solve the problems better, but they don't practice solving problems as much. If I was in this game longer, I would investigate if conceptual learning helps you do better in problem solving. Apparently, it doesn't hurt, but I think it should help somehow.

And, as would be expected, there is a portion of faculty and staff who hope for a return of the old ways.

For example, a computer support personstated: I don't particularly feel that IMPULSE trains the students. Once they leave this place, they're not going to be using virtual probes or virtual equipment; they're going to have to know how to use a piece of equipment that happens to be sitting in the company that they're working with. And I don't think it's going to be all computer-driven. If what we're doing is preparing students to go out in the working world, I don't think that's a proper way to do it. I'm still for the old school way. My general feeling is they're pushing towards more the engineering and designing end of the education and from what I've seen, and I guess this is true everywhere, it depends more on what the student wants to do. If a student has a mindset to go further, they go further.