In this section, we discuss the personal characteristics--such as a willingness to participate in a grassroots effort^c --that faculty need in order to overcome the unique implementation impediments that accompany interdisciplinary education, and more common implementation issues that go along with the creation and maintenance of any computer-enhanced learning environment.

A. Personal Resources
According to the faculty bricoleurs at the University of Michigan, the Global Change course would not be a success if not for the personal qualities of the people involved in its creation. Among these are leadership^d and a willingness to engage in what Dan Mazmanian, dean of the School of Natural Resources and Environment^e called an "uphill effort." The instructors involved with the program constantly come across financial, organizational, and technical problems. According to Bob Owen, associate dean of Literature, Science and the Arts, to overcome these problems you need "committed faculty. I think without that, forget it. You really need people who are committed to put the effort into making it happen." The success of Global Change depends on the faculty's recognition that interdisciplinary education is what Ben van der Pluijm calls a "bottom-up" endeavor (i.e., one that is initiated and led by committed instructors). The faculty must demonstrate through their own efforts that their ideas are good and feasible to implement, and then seek support from administration at all levels--from the departments to the provost. To read a faculty discussion of the personal resources needed for initiating and maintaining the Global Change course, see Discussion 5.

B. The Unique Implementation Issues of an Interdisciplinary Course

1. Time and workload pressures and the special role of teaching assistants
   Many of the faculty members told us that it takes more time to teach in an interdisciplinary course sequence like Global Change than it does to teach in a single disciplinary course. The main reason for this is that the organization of the course depends on the chronological coordination and synthesis of many different topics over the course of an entire semester. For example, George Kling, professor of biology, told us about an instance where one of his colleagues, Ben van der Pluijm, geology professor, was planning to include information about oxygen in the earth's primordial atmosphere in one of his lectures. However, because a different faculty member had not yet presented material on the evolution of life (an event that predates atmospheric oxygen), Ben was forced to restructure his lecture. It is these types of organizational "disconnects" that lead to what George called an "inherent inefficiency" in team teaching, and contribute to the increased amount of time instructors must devote to such courses.

   To minimize this problem, the graduate student instructors (GSIs) have taken on the responsibility of repairing these disconnects and synthesizing the diverse material. While the professors provide the disciplinary ingredients for the course, the GSIs turn these ingredients into what one Global Change student called a "melting pot" of ideas. Creating this melting pot requires GSIs to learn about academic subjects outside of their primary field of study. As George Kling pointed out, in order to adequately answer student questions in lab (the main venue for student-instructor interaction), GSIs need to know "economic models as well as psychological, geological, biological and social models." George, his faculty colleagues, and the GSIs themselves, expressed concern about the enormous time that it takes to fuse all of these subjects into a coherent whole and, therefore, the importance of having dedicated GSIs who are willing to make an extra effort.

   For a discussion of the extra time needed for, and the special importance of the GSIs' role in Global Change, see Discussion 6.

2. Difficulty securing funding
   The matter of obtaining regular instructional funding for the Global Change course has been a concern since the course was initiated. One view was expressed by George Kling, biology professor. He believes that it is difficult for "bottom-up" efforts like Global Change to get funding because they must compete with initiatives that come from people higher up on the administrative ladder^f Dan Mazmanian, Dean of SNRE, however, said that the reason Global Change has been "barely a blip" in the university budget is that the instructors themselves have been so proficient in finding external funding^g George Kling, biology professor, agreed with this point but said that if this external money stopped coming through, they [the bricoleurs] would need to put more pressure on the administration to provide funding. Finding such sources can also be difficult because of the interdisciplinary nature of the course, according to Tim Killeen, professor of Atmospheric, Oceanic and Space Sciences, in the College of Engineering.^h

   Others whom we interviewed believe that the biggest obstacle to secure funding is that administrators are reluctant to allocate regular funds for the course. This view was presented by Bob Owen, associate dean of Literature, Science, and the Arts, who told us that,

   interdisciplinary programs are almost always more expensive than programs run by a single unit or faculty member, and thus administrators are aware that there is usually a greater risk associated with investing resources in such programs. On the other hand, the potential gains in any academic interdisciplinary venture are enormous if the different components can have a synergistic effect. The U of M Global Change Program is an example of a risk worth taking.

   One central administrator also noted that the course is already partially funded, and likely to receive even more support in the future.ⁱ [Researcher's note: Since we conducted interviews for this case study, the University has begun to provide considerable support to the Global Change Project. According to Ben van der Pluijm, the Global Change Project has "received significant support from the University that offers staffing and some summer salary as compensation for extra effort and preparation." In addition, outside support was obtained from the W and F Hewlett Foundation to develop the Global Change minor, and matched with funds from several colleges, schools, and the central administration.

3. Financial and personal rewards
   The U of M bricoleurs indicated that they receive a lot of personal satisfaction from teaching the Global Change course. They expressed their fulfillment at having changed the way students view science and global environmental issues, and also emphasized their satisfaction at being able to work with and learn from colleagues in academic fields unrelated to their own,^j teach eager, entry-level students,^k and pursue a general love of teaching.^l However, according to faculty members, one of the main obstacles in implementing the Global Change course is the U of M financial reward structure. George Kling, biology professor, asked and answered the question, "Will the Provost ever offer us a raise for doing this? No. It doesn't look that way." George and most of his colleagues feel that the reward structure does not adequately recognize their efforts to improve instruction because it does not provide them with appropriate financial compensation for doing so. According to them, this lack of recognition:
   1. leads senior faculty members to discourage their junior colleagues from participating in the course;

   2. discourages team teaching; and

   3. doesn't allow professors to fully prepare lessons for the organizationally demanding courses.

   To remedy this problem, the faculty members proposed several ways to reform the process by which rewards are given: They suggested that:

   1. courses be crosslisted among units;

   2. the reward structure not penalize instructors for working outside their department;

   3. the university create professorships that recognize excellence in teaching;

   4. external reviews recognize teaching efforts;

   5. state schools systematically reform their reward structure so that they more closely resemble those of private institutions,^m

   6. the effort for interdisciplinary teaching should be rewarded in a different way from that of disciplinary teaching; for example, teaching credit could be multiplied by a facor of 1.5 or 2 for co-taught, interdisciplinary courses.

   It is of interest that members of the administration perceive that the university already is pursuing a number of these strategies for rewarding teaching.ⁿ

   For a faculty discussion, in their own words, of these problems and their ideas for remedying them, see Discussion 7.

C. Hardware and Software Implementation Issues

While constructing their computer-dependent learning environment, the U of M bricoleurs faced challenges that almost inevitably accompany the implementation of new technology. Tim Killeen, professor of Atmospheric, Oceanic, and Space Sciences, said that it would be "naïve."^o to think that new technology could come without these types of problems. Eric Dey, professor of the School of Education confirmed that, in the early stages, there were technical bugs. He said that computers would crash, geographic models couldn't be saved and that students were frustrated by this. To address these problems, the U of M bricoleurs were fortunate to have GSIs with computer knowledge. This knowledge, according to Patrick Livingood and Dave Halsing, the GSIs, really helped them help students "figure out how to work a computer."^p

a. "Bricoleur" is a French term meaning, roughly, "handyman." A bricoleur is adept at finding, or simply recognizing in their environment, resources that can be used to build something they believe is important and then combining these resources in a way that achieves their goals.

b. Quote taken from "Evaluation Plan for Development, Deployment, and Evaluation of an Interdisciplinary Undergraduate Curriculum Development Testbed" (UCDT) a project funded by the National Science Foundation program on Institution-Wide Reform of Undergraduate Education in Science, Mathematics, Engineering, and Technology.

c. Central administrator: "I think it is fair to say that the Global Change Poject has been a rising concern, a grassroots concern-grassroots in the sense of the level of the faculty. We're concerned both about the quality of students in the classroom, the level of preparation, and how well the university is acquitting this fundamental part of its mission, its academic mission of teaching undergraduates. So this is a way in which this has been a percolation upward, which is a good, the best way to have an institution respond."

d. Dan Mazmanian, dean of the School of Natural Resources and Environment (SNRE): "All of the instructors contribute to the program, but Tim Killeen turns out to be just one of these unusual people who makes things happen. Leadership matters. The older I get, the longer I'm around, the more I appreciate in a hundred little ways that leadership matters. Someone else could step in, but right now Tim's that leader." [Researchers' note: Professor Ben van der Pluijm assumed this leadership role as of spring 2000, when Professor Killeen left the U of M to become the director of the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder (NCAR), CO.]

e. As of fall 2000, Dan Mazmanian has been the C. Erwin and Ione L. Piper dean and professor of the University of Southern California's new School of Policy, Planning, and Development.

f. George: "I think at almost all universities the faculty and student generated issues that come from the bottom up rarely get very much money. Where does the big money go? Oh, the President's Initiative on this or that. Or the Provost's Initiative. That's where the millions, hundreds of millions of dollars go. So we are fighting against that general structure that we have at universities. And we have fought it in part by going outside and getting external funds from NSF, for example. And if we hadn't been able to do that, no matter what the university says about how enthused they are about this approach, they are not going to support it to the level that it takes to actually do it. So I think that that's something that everyone has to fight."

g. Dan Mazmanian, dean of School of Natural Resources and Environment (SNRE): "It's actually one of those situations where they have done extremely well on external grants. So there hasn't been a direct cost that's been very significant. They contribute a lot of their time. They're not taxing us."
Susan (interviewer): "It doesn't show up in your budget pages?"
Dan: "Barely a blip...As a dean, I support it financially and otherwise, but it takes a collection of us to do it, and we only do it because we see the value of what they're doing, rather than doing it just to support an ongoing institutional structure. And whether it becomes institutionalized will, I'm sure, be a question in the next several years. Given the sorting, repositioning and the reorganization, I can't predict where an entity like this ends up residing. If we had a fixed system and I knew all the pieces were fixed for the next five years, I'd say, 'The logical thing to do is this.' But, with so many things up in the air, it's not clear what the 'logical' thing to do is. So, I think it's going to ride on the momentum, the enthusiasm of the faculty and students for the next several years."

h. Tim: "Our thesis is that we were going to take an interdisciplinary approach before we do a disciplinary approach, and we've been turned down multiple times by NSF because reviewers say you cannot do interdisciplinary before you do disciplinary. You've got to get the grounding in the disciplines before you can do interdisciplinary. [Institutional funding works the same way.] We proposed a concentration, or minor, two years ago, and we knew then, on the basis of the student evaluations, that there was a need for that, and that the logical next step would be to put a minor together. We proposed it to the university course committee, and what happened is it didn't have the signature from a particular school or college, so we asked a couple of departments whether they would sponsor it for us and they said, 'no.' So, Bob Owen has played a critical role because he opened the door, and in fact, this time when it did get approval, it still did not come with a departmental sponsor, which is the general rule. So, once again, we were breaking new ground."

i. Central administrator: "Global Change has received enormous support, you know, as far as GSI positions that have been given. I say this without looking at the budget itself. There has been an enormous release of individual time to cross the borders to participate in this very connective course that brings together Engineering, School of Natural Resources and Environment, and LS&A, especially. The provost has a commitment to the course's success. But first, she wants to see that it's a valuable contribution, it's made a difference, and it should go forward. If the deans say that this is a priority for us, and it's providing a very useful model for other faculty to re-envision their teaching, then it will be supported."

j. Lisa Curran, professor of the School of Natural Resources and Environment: "You really get to know other people from different disciplines, and you're involved in activities across the university that you wouldn't otherwise seek out. You're exposed to a range of students that is really challenging at first, but you realize that this is a different audience. For example, I'm an ecologist, a tropical ecologist by training, so I find that I have to change how I'm presenting the material. And I have insights into my own work as I give talks for different groups. I think what's really satisfying is the students who come up and say, 'This is probably the best course I've ever had,' or 'This has really changed the way I thought about things.' You know, it's just this 'Wow! Okay, I got ten of them out there. I just multiplied myself.'"

***

Patrick Livingood, GSI: "I'm an archeologist so some of this material is new. So I'm learning things. I'm certainly learning a lot about these interdisciplinary courses and administrative discussions than I would never have guessed I would have been privy to. And I'm getting to teach different kinds of material, so I'm learning stuff that way. But I'm also getting some networking value to what I'm doing that may or may not be helpful in the future. There's a lot about this course that I can take away and say, 'These are things that can be improved on, or these are things not to do.'"

k. Dave Allan, professor of the School of Natural Resources and Environment: "I saw Global Change as an opportunity in a collaborative way to do something experimental and different in teaching at a level that appealed to me, that entry level in education, like freshmen and sophomores. To me, they're fun students, these really eager empty vessels who are easy to sell on the things I'm enthusiastic about."

l. George Kling, biology professor: "I teach in a number of other courses because I really like teaching in them and I find it extremely difficult to walk away from them. I enjoy the experience and I don't find it easy to turn my back on any of them. So, I think I teach more than I need to."

m. This reformation, according to Dave Allan, would require a societal as well as institutional change.

n. A central administrator claimed that teaching efforts are, indeed, factored into the rewards structure. He said, "From the point of view of research, when a faculty member comes up for tenure, the person has to put together a dossier that contains their writing and published work. There is a collection of materials that we put together for teaching. These are basically the raw materials that go before the tenure committee, and there's a great deal of importance placed on the evaluation of the quality of the research, especially from external letter writers from outside the University. Where does this person's research stand among the peers? Is this person going to make an original important contribution to advancing the field that she or he is in? Now in addition to this, what is the contribution of this individual to supporting the teaching mission of this unit? What are the contributions, not only inside the classroom but also how do you see this person reformulating the kinds of teaching? For instance, the Department of Chemistry has, in recent years, undertaken a very serious examination of what they expect an undergraduate major in Chemistry to be."

o. Tim Killeen: "I think there is perhaps a naïve perception on the part of many faculty that technology equals making things instantly easier, and that's definitely not the case. There's a considerable effort that needs to go into how to incorporate it, what it should be, and to fine-tuning it. And once you're over that, then indeed you begin to see the benefits of it. But I think some people who are not using computers and things like that a lot in their research effort think of it as, 'Boy, this is going to solve a lot of my problems,' and maybe ultimately it will. It would definitely improve the course, but it's not going to be something that's going to take over from day one. You have to really put a lot of effort into it in the beginning in order to realize the benefits down the road. And I think the faculty in this particular course have already done that. They've spent quite a bit of time."

p. Patrick Livingood: "I was actually a computer science major as an undergraduate. Last semester we used a simulation software, and I wasn't familiar with that package, but I had familiarity with other types of simulation software. This semester we're using GIS, and I use that in my own research quite a bit. I didn't have any specific experience teaching with software, but I've worked as a computer consultant, and things like that. So I have experience teaching people to use software."
Jean-Pierre (interviewer): "How about you, Dave?"
Dave Halsing: "Something of the same actually. I hadn't worked with the modeling program we used last semester, but for three years I worked for a big medical device company training hospital staff on how to use the CAT-scan and MRI machines that they had just bought. And those are computers, so really what you're doing is teaching software. So, I had gotten pretty good at helping people figure out how to work a computer, how to understand what the interface meant, and what they were doing when they were setting things up a certain way. So, that part of it was very easy. And as far as this semester, in my previous job at the Geological Survey, I used a really, really intricate GIS. It's more technical than ArcView, which is sort of a lot more user friendly, a lot easier to learn."