Global Change I Course: A Technology-
Enhanced, Interdisciplinary Learning 
Environment

at the

University of Michigan

by
The Institute on Learning Technology

part of the

 
Andrew Beversdorf (abeversd@students.wisc.edu), M.A.,
 Susan Millar (smillar@engr.wisc.edu), Ph.D., and 
Jean-Pierre R. Bayard (bayardj@csus.edu), Ph.D

Spring 2000

This case study also is available from the
Learning Through Technology web site,
www.wcer.wisc.edu/nise/cl1/ilt.

Acknowledgements: The authors thank the University of Michigan faculty, staff, and students 
who participated in this study. These individuals very graciously responded to our request for 
their time and attention. This case study is based on a deeply collaborative analysis and planning 
process undertaken by the NISE's Learning Through Technology "Fellows" group: Jean-Pierre 
Bayard, Stephen Erhmann, John Jungck, Flora McMartin, Susan Millar, and Marco Molinaro. 
The Fellows, in turn, benefited substantially from members of the College Level One Team: 
Andrew Beversdorf, Mark Connolly, Susan Daffinrud, Art Ellis, Anthony Jacob, Kate Loftus-
Fahl, and Robert Mathieu, Sharon Schlegel.



ReaderÕs Guide	i
Introduction	ii
What goes on in the Global Change I course?	iii
I. Setting	1
II. Learning Problems and Goals	4
A. Problems Motivating U of M Faculty to Develop the Global Change Course	4
B. Learning Goals the U of M Faculty Seek to Achieve	5
III. Creating the Learning Environment	8
A. Computer-dependent Learning Activities	10
B. Computer-improved and Computer-independent Activities	13
1. Group work	13
2. Lecture	14
3. Homework	15
IV. Outcomes	16
V. Implementation	20
A. Personal Resources	21
B. The Unique Implementation Issues of an Interdisciplinary Course	22
1. Time and workload pressures and the special role of teaching assistants	22
2. Difficulty securing funding	22
3. Financial and personal rewards	24
C. Hardware and Software Implementation Issues	25
VI.  Summing Up	27
Discussion A. Students views of the interdisciplinary nature of the GC course	28
Discussion B. Faculty views on computer-dependent learning activities	30
Discussion C. Student views on computer-dependent learning activities	31
Discussion D. Faculty and student views of the role of lecture	33
Discussion E. Faculty views on the role of personal qualities in fielding an interdisciplinary 
course	35
Discussion F.  Faculty views on the extra time needed for, and the special importance of, the GSI 
role	37
Discussion G.  Faculty views on the U of M reward structure	39
Resource A.  Institutional Context	42
Resource B. Methods Used to Produce this Case Study	42
Resource C.  Types of Course Evaluation Data Collected	44
Resource D.  Results of End-of-Semester Survey	45
I. Lab Experience	45
II. Lecture Experience	46
III. Web Experience	46
IV. Personal Growth	47
Glossary:  Special Terms Used in the LT2 website	47
References	49


ReaderÕs Guide
When the words "Global Change" appear in capital letters, they refer to Global Change I, 
Physical Processes (UC 110), the first course in the University of MichiganÕs 3-course Global 
Change minor.

Special terms appear in the Glossary. The first time one of these terms occurs in a major section, 
it appears underlined and the definition is available in a mouse-over box. These definitions 
appear as lettered footnotes.
 
All citations to which the case study refers are listed in the References. 

Technical asides are indicated by a numbered footnote marker and available to the reader in a 
mouse-over box.  These asides also can be found in the Endnotes.

Lengthy quotes from participants that illustrate a point often are available in mouse-over boxes 
(and also as lettered footnotes), for the benefit of the reader who prefers to read the participantsÕ 
own words.  

Various topics introduced in the study are developed at greater length in Discussions (specified 
by number) to which the reader is referred at relevant points. 

The reader is referred at relevant points to various other Resources (specified by letter).  Among 
these is a short description of the Methods Used to Produce this Case Study (Resource B).

Of note for users of the web version: Clicking the "previous page" button will take you to the 
previous linear section of the case study, not necessarily to the page which you last visited. 
Clicking the "back" button of your web browser will return you to the section last visited.

We use pseudonyms for the students who appear in the quoted material. To help avoid 
confusion, the researchers are identified as "interviewer" the first time their voice appears an 
interview segment. Lengthier quotes appear in italics.

The instructors and administrators who are identified in the case study read the document and 
gave us permission to use the quotes we attribute to them. These U of M readers also affirmed 
that this case study conveys the essence of what they were doing in the Fall of 1999.

Introduction

Ben van der Pluijm
Director of the Global Change Project (2000 Ð )

"Many of these [Global Change students] will go on to be lawyers, politicians, or whatever they 
want to be, and they will make major decisions that affect our lives. To do this right, they will 
not only need to read and write, but also think about the material that is given to them.  ThatÕs 
what we want them to do in Global Change, teach them to be critical thinkers about the world 
around them."







Timothy Killeen
Director of the Global Change Project (1992-2000)

"We think that all students should be exposed in a quantitative, robust way, to the science basis 
of our evolving understanding of the human relationship with the earth system.  And that 
involves a lot of complexity, a lot of issues, and it's a big panorama.  Society is going to have to 
make decisions on the basis of knowledge and the ability to process information, to understand 
limitations of knowledge, how to evaluate the errors of systems, where uncertainties might arise, 
and how you can draw on tools from different disciplines to solve real-world problems."




What is the Global Change I course?
Tim Killeen, Ben van der Pluijm and several other faculty at the University of Michigan-Ann 
Arbor have designed and teach Global Change I, a team-taught, interdisciplinary course that 
focuses on the complex, related factors that affect the world.  These factors include, among 
others, chemical, biological, ecological, and astronomical phenomena, as well as sociological 
and economic issues. Global Change I is a 4-credit course that has no prerequisites and enrolls 
some 170 students each fall term.  It serves predominantly first- and second-year students, and 
fulfills natural science distribution requirements. It is the part of a three course curriculum that 
forms the core of a minor in Global Change.

The topics of study addressed in Global Change I include: origin and evolution of the universe, 
solar system, and the Earth; origin of the elements; geological processes; the Earth's atmosphere 
and oceans; chemical and biological evolution; origin and evolution of life; life processes; 
biogeochemical cycles; ecosystems and ecosystem dynamics; atmosphere-biosphere interactions; 
paleoclimate; sea level changes; climate change and global warming. The course introduces 
interactive dynamical modeling. 

Why take on all the extra work for a team-taught interdisciplinary course? 
The Global Change faculty reasoned that, while students could learn about each of these areas in 
separate classes, they would learn about global change in a more meaningful way if the faculty 
themselves demonstrated the interconnectedness of these subjects.  Moreover, the Global Change 
faculty felt a course of this type would provide studentsÑregardless of their planned majorsÑa 
powerful way to learn about science. 

WhatÕs so special about this course?
Drawing on material and computer-based tools from their respective academic areas of study, 
and on the expertise of guest lecturers from the social and natural sciences, these instructors seek 
to synthesize a broad array of knowledge into what one student called a "melting pot" of ideas 
about global change. To facilitate this synthesis of ideas, the Global Change faculty have 
constructed a computer-enhanced learning environment.  As part of the course requirement, 
students spend between one and tow hours a week in a computer lab where they use two 
interactive software programs: ArcView, a geographic information system, and STELLA, a 
geographic modeling program.  With this software, students experiment with the dynamic, 
interrelated factors that affect global change.  George Kling, a biology professor, calls these labs 
an environmental "test tube" where students are able to, among other things, simulate the effect, 
around the globe, of increased population, and to visualize the worldwide impact of 
chlorofluorocarbons (CFC) emissions. 

What goes on in the Global Change I course? 
Students in the Global Change I course learn through the following key activities: 

_ Lectures. Three hour-long lectures per week, presented by the Global Change faculty, 
with occasional guest lecturers.

_ Readings. Lecture notes on the course website (http://www.sprl.umich.edu/GCL) serve as 
both the textbook and "coursepack," and also connect students to material available on 
other websites.  Material in the lecture notes is not identical to that presented in class.  
The course website also presents lab materials and assignments, Quicktime movies, the 
course syllabi and outlines.  Materials on the Web are updated frequently.  The 
instructors expect students to keep current on the web material, and to check email for 
news and information about the course, such as links to relevant information sources. 
Supplemental reading material is occasionally distributed in class. There is no cost for 
course materials except when students choose to print from the web.

_ Lab/Discussion. A lab/discussion section meets for two hours per week in a discussion 
classroom or computer classroom, and is led by a graduate student instructor (GSI). 
Student participation in these sessions is mandatory. Each lab/discussion session is worth 
15 points (attendance and participation - five points,  assignments - ten points), and 
together these sessions count for approximately 25% of the final grade.  

Laboratory sessions involve use of the dynamic modeling program STELLA, an easy-to-
use, yet powerful, graphics-based program that allows students to investigate global 
change issues such as ozone depletion, population growth, and the greenhouse effect. Lab 
assignments generally consist of answering a series of questions that are submitted to and 
reviewed by the GSI the following week. 

During discussion sessions the students and GSI explore issues covered in lectures, view 
movies, and go on short field trips to campus resources (e.g., the Natural Science 
Museum). Discussion sessions usually include a short assignment due the following 
week. 

_ Projects. In both the Global Change I and Global Change II courses, teams of 2-3 
students develop a term project, leading to the development of a web-based poster that 
involves the creation of a website, which is presented at the end of the semester. (Details 
on how projects are developed appear in the syllabus, 
http://www.sprl.umich.edu/GCL/globalchange1/fall2000/syllabus/gc1_syllabus.html.)

_ Tests.  Students take two one-hour midterm exams and a two-hour final exam. The tests, 
comprised of a mixture of multiple choice and short-answer questions, examine material 
from the lectures and required readings (both on-line and handouts).                      

Evaluation and Grading
_ Evaluation Activities. All students are expected to participate in evaluation activities 
(short questionnaires and web assessments) designed to continuously improve the course.
_ Grading. A point system (800 points) is used to assign grades:
	Midterms: 100 points each 
	Final: 150 points 
	Lab/Discussion Sessions: 15 points each 
	Participation: 50 points 
	Assignments: 25 points each 
	Term Project: 150 points 

How do students respond to the Global Change course?
Very favorably.  The students we interviewed told us that this interdisciplinary course taught 
them not to analyze environmental phenomena in isolation, but rather as a set of interconnected 
parts of a whole.  
 

Beth: If you really sit down and you look at how everything is connected to everything else, 
[you see] that there will be an effect.  Sometimes it'll be positive, and sometimes things that 
we think are going to be the most negative might not turn out to be that negative at all.  And 
everything just might end up working itself out just because of all the inter-relationships.  
Amy: As a result of this course, you don't just hear something and assume that it's fact.  You 
hear something and say, "Why would they say that? What does that mean? Where did they 
get that information?" And then, "What about the other side?"

The computer-enhanced features of the course received as favorable a review as the course 
overall.  Students resoundingly affirmed that the courseÕs computer-dependent activities fostered 
meaningful learning by allowing them to work with and manipulate data as opposed to just 
memorizing it.  

Laura, Global Change alumna:  I think that learning is enhanced by a student taking raw 
data and making a graph rather than just looking at the finished product.  It'll mean less to 
them and they won't retain it.  And I can tell you that because of my own experiences.  I knew 
a lot more about the carbon cycle after constructing a model, playing with it, and 
manipulating it than I ever did by memorizing the relationships. 
***
Ruth:  If you're just in a science-based major and you don't like the way the results come 
out, well, "If I tweak this number a bit, it will come out to this number right here."  Whereas 
if you're using something like a modeling program, you're saying, "Well, if I tweak that 
number, yeah, this will come out right, but it's still affecting how everything else is viewed as 
well."  And if you're just using the pure common numbers, you're not going to see it.

Beth:  I think [these activities] could have been done on paper.  I just don't think it would 
have been as effective.  When we did the STELLA models we actually put them together. Our 
GSI [graduate student instructor] would show us how, but we actually did it.  We actually 
would connect things to what our GSI would ask us.  If we would have done that on paper, it 
wouldn't have been us doing it.  It would have been the professor.

Global Change students not only praised the course during our interviews, but also in their 
course evaluations.  The results of these evaluationsa corroborate the Global Change facultyÕs 
notion that their course provides an environment in which students learn about global change in 
meaningful ways. For example, in their responses to the surveys, students report strong cognitive 
gains.  In the Fall of 1999, over 90% agreed or strongly agreed* that: a) they learned a good deal 
of factual material in the course, b) the knowledge they gained improved their ability to 
participate in debates about global change (Figure 1), and c) the course encouraged them to think 
critically about global change.


Figure 1. Responses to sample "cognitive gains" question
Global Change I, Fall 1999

 


The students also reported strong positive responses to the lab component of the course. Eighty 
percent of the respondents either agreed or strongly agreed that lab assignments were both 
carefully chosen and intellectually challenging.  While only just over 50% of respondents 
indicated that laboratory assignments made an important contribution to their understanding of 
the topics discussed in lecture, over 60% agreed or strongly agreed that ArcView helped them 
understand Global Change concepts and principles (Figure 2).  Over 90% agreed or strongly 
agreed that they felt confident in their ability to use ArcView to construct models.  And over 
80% agreed or strongly agreed that ArcView helped them understand the relationships among 
different variables.


Figure 2. Responses to sample laboratory question
Global Change I, Fall 1999

 


When asked about the personal growth experienced from Global Change, students once again 
responded favorably.  Over 90% of the respondents agreed or strongly agreed that they had 
deepened their interest in the subject matter of the course (Figure 3). Over 80% agreed or 
strongly agreed that they were enthusiastic about the course material.  Over 50% agreed or 
strongly agreed that they have had opportunities to help other students learn about global change 
issues. And over 80% said they felt empowered to act on what they learned.


Figure 3. Responses to sample "personal growth" question
Global Change I, Fall 1999

 


In short, students who take the Global Change course leave with a new way of thinking about, 
and acting on important environmental issues. 

Wow!  How can I develop a course like that?  The Global Change facultyÕs story may sound 
simple, but the truth of the matter is that creating an interdisciplinary course like this entails a 
host of challenges.  Through the following links, we offer you a more complete and 
comprehensive story of the U of M facultyÕs efforts to help students gain a new understanding 
about global change.


I. Setting
Note: For useful tips and information on how this case study is organized, please
see the Readers Guide.

This case features the University of Michigan-Ann ArborÕs (Resource A. Institutional Context) 
interdisciplinary team-taught science course called "Introduction to Global Change I:  Physical 
Processes (UC 110).   To read a brief overview of the activities of the Global Change I course, 
see the Introduction. This course is the part of the University of Michigan (U of M) "Global 
Change Program," which consists of three interdisciplinary, team-taught courses that examine 
the topic of global change from physical and human perspectives.  All three Global Change 
courses are designed for first and second year students who want to understand the historical and 
modern aspects of Global Change. Global Change I, II, and III also comprise the three required 
courses in the University of MichiganÕs recently-approved 17-credit Global Change minor. The 
GC minor is open to all students except those minoring in Biology or the Residential CollegeÕs 
Environmental Studies. 

The Global Change I, II and III courses evolved through a grass-roots effort involving mostly 
senior faculty from five U of M schools and colleges (most notably the School of Natural 
Resources and Environment), some ten departments (most notably, the Department of Biology, 
Department of Atmospheric, Oceanic, and Space Sciences, and Department of Geological 
Sciences), the Space Physics Research Laboratory, and the national network of faculty known as 
the Earth Systems Science Education (ESSE) program funded by NASA.

A significant recent development for the Global Change Program is that it has recently been 
institutionalized.  Originally, Global Change was designed without any departmental home in the 
University and, therefore, faced many obstacles to both funding and staffing. Because Global 
Change had no departmental home, its faculty had to cobble together a course budget each year, 
drawing heavily on external resources.  Moreover, teaching in the courses for many faculty 
reflected an overload.  However, when we last talked to Ben van der Pluijm, he told us that 
Global Change Program now receives "significant support from the University (line item in 
provostÕs budget for an initial 3 years)" and received a 100% match on external funding that the 
course obtained from the W and F Hewlett Foundation. The institutional support also includes 
some summer salary for long-term faculty recruitment and some teaching compensation.  

Since the time we began researching this case study in the winter of 1999 (Resource B, Methods 
Used to Produce this Case Study), the three-course Global Change sequence was approved as the 
core of a minor at the U of M.  Ben van der Pluijm, geology professor and director of the Global 
Change Program, calls the minor a "front-loaded" degree program, because it allows students to 
complete the requirements in the first few years of college.  The program substitutes for a portion 
of the liberal arts requirements using an integrated natural and social sciences approach. As of 
Spring 2001, over 30 students were enrolled in the Global Change minor.

Dramatis Personae

The Global Change faculty seek to provide a team-taught course that "seamlessly integrates 
material."  To this end, they maintain a high level of interaction with each other, attending 
weekly meetings with the GSIs, bi-weekly team meetings, and each otherÕs lectures, and 
participating in summer workshops, among other things. They all have agreed to conform to a 
single format for presenting material, produce extensive web notes, and design hands-on 
experiences for the students. 

In January 1999, when we studied their efforts, these instructors included:

Dr. Ben van der Pluijm, geology professor, College of Literature, Science and the Arts.  Ben has 
been at U of M since 1985, where his research focuses on the deformation of minerals and rocks.  
His group uses state-of-the-art laboratory facilities to study the deformation of regions around 
the world. Whereas some projects are of immediate societal relevance, he is a strong proponent 
of curiosity-driven research. His professional efforts involve significant editorial duties, whereas 
his educational interests focus on science education to undergraduates.





Tim Killeen, professor of Atmospheric, Oceanic and Space Sciences, College of Literature, 
Science and the Arts. Dr. Killeen is the director of the National Center for Atmospheric Research 
(NCAR) in Boulder Colorado and Senior Scientist at NCAR's High Altitude Observatory. Prior 
to taking on this responsibility in July 2000, Dr. Killeen was a faculty member in the College of 
Engineering at the University of Michigan (UM), Ann Arbor, where he taught many 
undergraduate and graduate classes. He also served as UM's Associate Vice-President for 
Research, with responsibilities for integrating undergraduate research and education across the 
spectrum of disciplines. Dr. Killeen was the course director for the UM Global Change sequence 
from 1993 until his departure from the university.


Dave Allan, professor, School of Natural Resources and Environment.  Dr. Allan received his B. 
Sc. (1966) from the University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada, and his Ph.D. (1971) 
from the University of Michigan.  He served on the Zoology faculty of the University of 
Maryland until 1990, when he moved to the University of Michigan where he currently is 
Professor in the School of Natural Resources and Environment.  Dr. Allan specializes in the 
ecology and conservation of rivers.   In his research he works with colleagues from other 
disciplines to examine how changes in land use affect the status of rivers and watersheds in both 
North and South America.



George Kling, biology professor, College of Literature, Science and the Arts.  Dr. Kling received 
his Ph.D. from Duke University in 1988, where he studied the aquatic ecology of lakes in Africa, 
and worked at the Marine Biological Lab in Woods Hole from 1988-1991 as a postdoctoral 
researcher, where he studied aquatic ecology in arctic environments. He is interested in how the 
cycling of elements such as carbon, nitrogen, and phosphorus underlie our understanding of the 
broad environmental problems of acid rain, eutrophication, species introductions, and climate 
change. The general goal of his research and teaching is to better understand what controls 
important ecosystem functions, to relate this understanding to major environmental problems, 
and to communicate this knowledge to students and the public at large.


Lisa Curran, Assistant Professor, School of Natural Resources and Environment.  Dr. Curran 
received her BA in Anthropology from Harvard University and her Ph.D. in Ecology and 
Evolutionary Biology from Princeton University.  Her professional experience includes over 15 
years of interdisciplinary problem-solving and consultancies in South and Southeast Asia 
working for US Agency for International Development, World Bank, Asian Development Bank, 
UNESCO-MAB  and several international and regional non-governmental conservation 
organizations.  Her research and teaching combines ecology, land use, resource economics and 
forestry policies with conservation of bio-cultural diversity primarily in Indonesia.  She held an 
interdisciplinary faculty position at the University of Michigan ( School of Natural Resources & 
Environment, Dept of Biology and Center for Southeast Asian Studies).   Currently, Dr. Curran 
is an Associate Professor at the Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies


Patrick Livingood, graduate student instructor, School of Natural Resources and Environment.  
Patrick is a Ph.D. student in anthropological archaeology.  He has a B.S. in Computer Science 
and a B.A. in anthropology.  His primary research focus is on the prehistory of southeastern 
North America.  Archaeologists are necessarily interdisciplinary, using physical science 
techniques to generate information, which they interpret as social scientists.  In addition, he 
utilizes GIS and computer simulation in his own research, so he was familiar with both the tools 
and the goals of the course.


David Halsing, graduate student instructor, School of Natural Resources and Environment.   
Dave earned a Bachelor's Degree in Human Biology from Stanford University and is currently 
completing his Masters of Science degree in Resource Policy and Management at U of M. He is 
studying integrated approachesÑscience, economics, risk management, and optimizationÑto 
natural resource issues. He also spent several years as an on-site trainer for computerized 
medical technology systems. The experience he had teaching people how to use computers was a 
huge help in working with Global Change students.


II. Learning Problems and Goals
A. Problems Motivating U of M Faculty to Develop the Global Change Course
_ Students are "running away" from science because it is not seen in a relevant context. 
_ Students have a fear of science.
_ Academic community has overlooked global change issues for too long. 
_ Students do not see technology as an educational tool.

According to many of the University of Michigan faculty with whom we spoke, the Global 
Change course began as an attempt to provide a more relevant context in which students learn 
science.  A group of U of M professors realized that there was a problem with teaching science 
as a series of titration labs,a carbon cycles, and mathematical formulas that appear to have no 
relation to anything outside of the classroom.  Ben van der Pluijm, a geology professor, told us 
that teaching these things in a setting void of relevant context contributes to what he calls "the 
running away as fast as students can from science."b George Kling, biology professor, attributed 
this exodus to a fearc and to studentsÕ misconception that science is just an amalgamation of 
abstract concepts and numbers. These U of M faculty decided that global change, an area that 
Dave noted had been ignored for too long by the academic community, could provide a more 
meaningful context for science instruction.d  

Lisa Curran, also a professor in the School of Natural Resources and Environment, told us that 
although the current generation of students is relatively technologically savvy, they are still not 
fully aware of the power technology has as an educational instrument.e

B. Learning Goals the U of M Faculty Seek to Achieve
_ Provide a relevant context in which to teach science.
_ Bring the previously neglected issue of global change to center stage.
_ Dispel student fear of science by showing that it is just common sense.
_ Get students to think independently and critically about global change issues.
_ Provide technology as a tool to foster independent and critical thinking.

The U of M instructors established a set of goals to address the problems spoken of in the 
previous section.  For instance, to address the problem of providing a meaningful context for 
science instruction,a the faculty told us that they needed a new angle, something that "makes it 
relevant again, like it was in the sixties when we put a man on the Moon."b  The U of M faculty 
felt that by focusing on vital environmental problems, they could create a compelling, 
meaningful context for science education, and could also address the problem that Dave spoke 
about in the previous sectionÑthe academic community's failure to address global change 
issues.c Tim Killeen, for example, thinks that the Global Change initiative will mitigate this 
failure and will, hopefully, inspire institutions like the University of Michigan to require students 
to take a course on environmental issues as a requirement for earning a degree.d
Another problem that the U of M faculty pointed out in the "problems and goals" section is that 
students often express fear of science because they see it as just a series of abstract numbers and 
formulas.  George Kling, therefore, made it his goal to "dispel that fear" by pointing out to 
students that, "in your daily life, certain things make perfect sense" and that is "exactly the same 
way science works."e Tim Killeen expressed a similar sentiment saying that the goal of the 
course is to open studentsÕ eyes to science so they would use science as a "tool" instead of a 
"club."f

Finally, in order to address their students' failure to see technology as a useful educational tool, 
the Global Change faculty made it their goal to introduce their students to technology in ways 
that would facilitate meaningful learningg by letting students "examine materialÉand come to 
conclusions on their own" with "essentially the same software and the same data that any 
professional social scientist would use."h By putting the responsibility of learning into the hands 
of the students, they hope to make them more "independent,i critical thinkers."j 

III. Creating the Learning Environment

The U of M Global Change faculty are among the growing number of faculty who are designing 
their courses as learning environments.a  As such, we consider them to be bricoleursb: keeping 
their focus on their problems and goals, they scan their environment for, and then creatively 
combine, a set of resources that achieve their goals.  To meaningfully examine the Global 
Change learning environment, we link the problems that motivate these faculty bricoleurs to 
create alternative learning environments with the goals for student learning that they believe will 
address their problems. 

 

The majority of learning activities that the U of M Global Change faculty use to achieve their 
goals are informed by the following teaching principles:  

 

In regard to their first teaching principle, the faculty members believe that students learn most 
effectively not when teachers act as "authority figures,"c but rather when students carry out their 
own investigation and critical thought processes. Dave Halsing and Patrick Livingood, graduate 
student instructors (GSIs), articulated this difference by describing an activity that deals with 
ozone depletion.  Dave explained that the students "look at real world numbers concerning CFC 
production and ozone depletion and we ask them to tinker with the percentage reduction after a 
certain year.  They're told that they have to keep ozone at a certain level and then they run the 
model to find out what point it can't dip below."  Patrick Livingood then contrasted this hands-on 
method with what would be a more passive one, saying, "Someone could have said in lecture, 
ÔWe're going to have to reduce ozone by 99.5% to keep skin cancer rates below this certain 
number,Õ and students would have forgotten about it five minutes later.  It would have been a 
meaningless number." 

Regarding their second teaching principle of enabling learning to occur in diverse ways, the 
bricoleurs feel that teaching the course in an interdisciplinary way is crucial. As Tim Killeen, 
professor of Atmospheric, Oceanic and Space Sciences (now director of the National Center for 
Atmospheric Research), stated, an understanding of global change is shaped not by single, 
separate, tunneled view points but rather by a "panorama" of perspectives involving "a lot of 
complexity, a lot of issues." 

To help students manage this complexity, the U of M faculty have incorporated 
interdisciplinarity in all of the Global Change learning activities, whether computer-dependent or 
computer-independent.  The geographic modeling programs that students use in labs entail both 
social and scientific variables.  The lecture sessions feature guest professors whose fields of 
expertise range from economics to geology.  According to Lisa Curran, professor in the School 
of Natural Resources and Environment, the eclectic range of student interest can vary from those 
concerned with "community development" to those concerned with "international policy."d 

See Discussion A for a student discussion of the interdisciplinary format.  

Having students run computer-based STELLA models is one of several activities that the U of M 
faculty use to create a learning environment that implements their teaching principles.  These 
learning activities fall into three separate categories:

Computer-dependent activities are activities that would not be possible, or at least not feasible, 
without computers.  In the University of Michigan Global Change course, these activities include 
labs in which students:
_ conduct hands-on analysis with real-world data and geographic information models
_ research and critically assess an array of global change issues using on-line literature 
and data. 

Computer-improved activities are activities that faculty believe work incrementally better with 
technology, but can still be implemented without it. In this course, these activities include web-
based lecture notes, simple animations, and other aids that give students material in a uniform 
format and help them manage the amount of content presented to them.

Computer-independent activitiesÑthat is, activities that do not involve the use of computers, 
include:
_ group work
_ lectures
_ homework
A. Computer-dependent Learning Activities

 

The U of M faculty employ two learning activities in ways that would not be possible without 
computers.  These activities are:
_ Hands-on application of real-world data with dynamic modeling programs like STELLAa 
http://www.hps-inc.com/STELLAdemo.htm# and geographic information systems like 
ArcViewb  http://www-personal.umich.edu/~jmfenty/arcview4.htm.
This software allows students to extract global change information from data banks (for 
example, from the World Resources Institute, using the Internet), and, using this data, to 
"model global change phenomena and understand the human consequences of 
environmental change."*  Dave Allan, Professor of Natural Resources and the 
Environment, noted that, "the STELLA program is a terrific enabler of critical thinking 
about dynamic processes and the GIS software is a terrific enabler in thinking about 
patterns on the globe." As George Kling, biology professor, explained, the two interactive 
software programs allow students to experiment with the dynamic, interrelated factors 
that affect global change in a computer-enhanced, environmental "test tube."a  This 
research gives students first-hand training in managing what one central administrator 
calls "an information explosion," a skill that is essential to the future of evaluating global 
change policies.

_ Research and critical assessment of an array of global change issues using on-line 
literature and data.  After analyzing this literature and data, Global Change students 
create their own website on environmental issues. This activity gives students training in 
managing the information explosion. It also provides them with insight about the 
credibility of on-line information by showing them how easy it is to put information on 
the World Wide Web.

The U of M instructors explained that having students use computer-dependent learning 
activities like STELLA models and ArcView geographic information systems enable students to:
_ engage in hands-on application of real-world data analysis*, a process that is crucial if 
students are to understand global change issues in a meaningful way
_ focus more on learning concepts rather than on doing calculations; and
_ receive training in the use of tech-enhanced research tools 

They described three advantages of having students use technology to collect and analyze data: 
_ It helps students develop a better understanding of how different phenomena are related 
(for example, CFC emissions and skin cancer rates) because they investigate the 
relationship in a hands-on fashion.
_ By shortcutting the need for students to focus on technical details of calculations and 
graphing (a form of cognitive overload), it enables them to focus their attention on the 
deeper concepts. 
_ They gain first-hand knowledge of the tools used to achieve this understanding. 

Patrick Livingood and Dave Halsing, graduate student instructors (GSIs), describe a lab that 
encapsulates these three advantages of technology. Students were asked to run a model 
concerning the real-world reduction in CFC emissions.  Because the students themselves  
calculated the amount of reduction necessary to keep the death rate at an acceptable level, they 
truly understood the process they were studying.  According to the GSIs, merely hearing these 
same statistics in lecture would not have had the same meaningful impact.  Simultaneously, the 
technology performed mathematical and graphing tasks, thus allowing students to concentrate on 
the conceptual focus of the exercise. 

Dave Halsing: They look at real-world numbers concerning CFC production and ozone 
depletion and we ask them to tinker with the percentage reduction after a certain year.  
They're told that you have to keep ozone at a certain level and then they run the model to find 
out what point it can't dip below.  And of course you first try 50% reduction and that doesn't 
get it, 75% reduction doesn't get it, 90% reduction didn't get it. And you keep pushing up and 
you end up having to put 99.5% reduction to keep skin cancers below a certain level. It was 
to teach them the difference between emission-based standards versus health rates standards.  

And that was a really cool concept for a lot of the students, because they're mostly freshman 
and sophomores who haven't thought about how policies are written.  And so you present 
everything in emission-based standards.  This is how many tons of CFCs you can emit per 
year.  And  all of a sudden you come out on the other side and go, "Okay, three hundred 
thousand skin cancer deaths per year in the U.S. is acceptable, get there."  And for them to 
think of it that way, it was like the whole world flipped over.  It's much more powerful.  
Someone could have said in lecture, "We're going to have to reduce ozone by 99.5% to keep 
skin cancer rates below this certain number," and they would have forgotten about it five 
minutes later.  It would have been a meaningless number.

Jean-Pierre (interviewer):  When you say, "seeing the results," what are they seeing?

Dave Halsing:  They can put in a value and then see a graph where skin cancer cases per 
year are plotted, for example.  And then they say, "Okay, at the end there are still too many 
deaths."  So they have to change the  percentages. . . Without the technology, it'd be a lot 
more challenging.  You certainly wouldn't get through as much material.  You'd be spending 
a lot more time calculating numbers and producing graphs on your own, assuming you have 
students with the mathematical expertise to do that.

See Discussion B for a faculty discussion of computer-dependent learning activities.

On their part, the students we interviewed explained that these computer-based activities helped 
them understand global change systems better by:  
1. helping them visualize a working picture of global change processes
2. learning through tinkering
3. providing real-world contextualization
4. helping them develop information management skills

For example, Sally and Amy, Global Change Students, told us that by using STELLA, they got a 
"working picture" of geographical and chemical processes that is superior to a static 
representation of those same processes. STELLA, they explained, animates the complex 
"connections" and "interactions" upon which their understanding of global change issues hinges. 

Amy: If you can draw a picture of how all these systems work togetherÑwhich is essentially 
what STELLA doesÑit's like a working picture, and you can get a graph from it.  That helped 
us understand so much more, like the connections between the different chemical systems or 
elemental systems, like the carbon cycle.  I understood so much better after the lab.
*****
Sally:  Without the technology, I don't think you'd have been able to see the interactions in 
the lab.  It would have been something that was still kind of vague and that you didn't 
understand.   

See Discussion C for a student discussion of computer-dependent learning activities. 
B. Computer-improved and Computer-independent Activities
The U of M Global Change bricoleurs use three computer-independent activities to achieve their 
teaching goals.  These activities consist mainly of group work, lecture, and homework.

1. Group work
The U of M Global Change instructors use group work for both computer-dependent and 
computer-independent activities.  According to the students we interviewed, group work is 
encouraged in the lectures and discussion sections but is demanded in the computer labs (See 
What Goes on in the Global Change I Course? for a description of the key course activities).  In 
the first two settings, group interaction allows students to get feedback on global change issues 
from a variety of perspectives.  In the latter, it allows students to develop both technical and non-
technical skills when using the modeling software. In both settings, group work facilitates 
independent learning. One student, Sally, told us about the importance of having peers in the 
class who could often explain a concept in a way that "made more sense than what the professor 
or GSI said."  Because of this, she said it was often unnecessary to ask the graduate student 
instructor (GSI) or professor a question.a  

Amy, also a Global Change student, concurred with SallyÕs assessment of the importance of 
group work. She emphasized the way that the eclectic backgrounds and academic interests of the 
students mirror the interdisciplinary framework of the course.  She said that the purpose of group 
work for her and the other students was not to collaborate with students who had similar majors 
but to team up with students majoring in anything from pre-dentistry to music, thereby taking 
advantage of the vast array of viewpoints that were represented in the class.b

In the computer labs, the U of M faculty use group work to ensure that every student gets equal 
experience with the various facets of a given activity.  For example, while doing group work 
with the geographic modeling programs, some students feel more comfortable working on the 
research aspect of the activity while others are more at home managing the technical factors 
involved. According to the students we interviewed, the instructors and GSIs require them to 
split up these tasks.c 
2. Lecture
While the collaborative activities mentioned above are aligned with the instructorsÕ teaching 
principles that teachers should shift major responsibility for learning from the faculty to the 
students, other course activities, like standard lectures, are not yet aligned with that principle.  
However, even when describing their lectures, the faculty signaled a desire to construct a more 
"discussive framework," suggesting that they are considering ways to proceed with the ambitious 
attempt to consistently implement active learning strategies in the large lecture courses.   

One way the U of M bricoleurs have tried to improve upon the more traditional lecture is by 
providing students with online lecture supplements, which comprise a "computer-improved" 
learning activity.  The Global Change home page (http://www.globalchange.umich.edu) provides 
students with on-line lecture summaries and also provides hyperlinks to websites related to 
particular lecture topics*.  Eric Dey, a professor in the School of Education and member of the U 
of M Center for the Study of Higher and Postsecondary Education, explains that by using the 
"exact same web material in the lecture that shows up on the web page" they are creating a much 
"more smoothly organized course."b The students told us that information on the Web provides a 
good complement to the lecture materialc because it offers a more dynamic version of a textbook 
and allows them to explore questions that lead to other questionsd.

See Discussion D to read a faculty and student discussion of Global Change lectures.    

3. Homework
The U of M faculty also use homework as a way to foster active learning.  We talked with two 
students who told us about homework activities that forced them to analyze and critically assess 
the global change phenomenon of oxygen reduction.  They were asked to calculate the harmful 
effects that cutting down the rainforests would have on global oxygen levels and were amazed to 
find that, contrary to the message conveyed in the popular media, the loss of the rainforests 
would have a very small impact on oxygen levels.  This epiphany gave them a vivid and new 
appreciation for the role of science in public policy, an appreciation they might not have gained 
had they not worked through the answers on their own.a 
IV. Outcomes

The faculty who developed and continue to sustain the U of M Global Change I and II (UC110 
and UC111) courses participated in the Undergraduate Curriculum Development Testbed 
(UCDT) [http://www-personal.umich.edu/~dey/ucdt/index.html].  The UCDT was designed to 
deploy an interdisciplinary curriculum as well as collect data about the interdisciplinary teaching 
environment at the University of Michigan.  It was funded by the central administration of the U 
of M and an award from the National Science FoundationÕs Institution-wide Reform of 
Undergraduate Education program.  Established in 1997, one of the UCDTÕs first projects was to 
field an evaluation team that worked closely with the Global Change core faculty to develop and 
undertake an evaluation plan intended to provide "formative" information that the faculty could 
use to improve their course while they were developing it.  The evaluation team was led by Eric 
Dey, professor of Higher Education in the University of MichiganÕs School of Education.

DeyÕs evaluation team encouraged the Global Change core faculty group to articulate student 
outcomes, which, in turn, the team used to guide its evaluation activities. The evaluation team 
gathered data on studentsÕ status as science majors or non-science majors, science preparation, 
pre-college experiences, course expectations, behaviors, and attitudes.  They collected these data 
by using surveys and cognitive assessments, web-based lab/lecture evaluation forums, 
interviews, in-class observations, focus groups, Early Student Feedback, and classroom 
assessment techniques promoted by Cross and Angelo (1993).c  (See Resource C for more 
information on the types of evaluation data collected.)

According to Tim Killeen (former director of the Global Change Project, and now director of the 
National Center for Atmospheric Research), the work that Eric Dey and his colleagues at the 
UCDT did was indispensable to the success of Global Change.  He said that EricÕs regular, 
critical feedback "helped [Global Change faculty] with all sorts of issues, such as the cadence of 
introducing new materials into the computer labs, crosscutting themes, transitions between 
professors, size of lab classes, numbers of discussions, and examples." According to Killeen, 
improvements in course organization that resulted from the evaluation process helped make 
Global Change one of the most highly regarded introductory science courses on campus as 
evidenced by student evaluations, high enrollment, and interest in the Global Change Minor.a

Moreover, the faculty lauded the formative role of the evaluation because of its contribution to 
the improvement of student learning.  For instance, Dave Allan, professor of Natural Resources 
and the Environment, stressed the role of evaluation in determining the amount of work that 
students did with modeling software.

Dave: We started off with the course thinking that the models and the exposure to this was so 
important to the students that we needed to give them as much of that experience as possible, 
because they probably hadn't had it before.  What we learned through the assessments and 
the feedback was that it was too much for them.  Instead of having a model every week, now 
we have a model about every third week. And in between we give them other kinds of 
exercises that actually help maximize their understanding of the models and their use of that 
technology.  We would have never figured that out.  We would have thought, "Oh, these 
students are grumbling, students always grumble." But because it was put to us in a very 
different way, with figures and a clear assessment, we decided, "Okay, we've got to change 
this."

The surveys that Eric Dey and his colleagues designed for the computer-enhanced Global 
Change course seek to determine the degree to which the course fosters meaningful learning. The 
surveys ask students for: 
_ their reactions to their laboratory, lecture, and Web experience
_ comparisons between Global Change and other U of M courses 
_ any personal growth they experienced from taking the Global Change course

The results suggest, among other things, that as a result of taking Global Change,
students:
_ recognize the ability of computer-enhanced laboratories to foster learning
_ "think critically about global change"
_ "feel confident in [their] ability to gather [web-based] information about global change.
_ value interdisciplinary education
_ "feel empowered to act on what [they] have learned"

For example, in their responses to the surveys, students report strong cognitive gains.  In the fall 
of 1999, over 90% agreed or strongly agreed* that: a) they learned a good deal of factual material 
in the course, b) the knowledge they gained improved their ability to participate in debates about 
global change (Figure 1), and c) the course encouraged them to think critically about global 
change.

Figure 1. Responses to sample "cognitive gains" question
Global Change I, Fall 1999

 


The students also reported strong positive responses to the lab component of the course. Eighty 
percent of the students either agreed or strongly agreed that lab assignments were both carefully 
chosen and intellectually challenging.  While only just over 50% of respondents indicated that 
laboratory assignments made an important contribution to their understanding of the topics 
discussed in lecture, over 60% agreed or strongly agreed that ArcView helped them understand 
Global Change concepts and principles (Figure 2).  Over 90% agreed or strongly agreed that they 
felt confident in their ability to use ArcView to construct models.  And over 80% agreed or 
strongly agreed that ArcView helped them understand the relationships among different 
variables.

Figure 2. Responses to sample laboratory question
Global Change I, Fall 1999

 


The student survey responses also show generally favorable responses to the lecture component 
of the course. Over 80% agreed or strongly agreed that having several professors in lectures 
contributed to their understanding of concepts, and only about 14% agreed or strongly agreed 
that the transition from one instructor to the next interfered with their ability to learn.  However, 
74% of respondents disagreed or strongly disagreed that the transition from one instructor to the 
next interfered with their ability to learn, and 72% disagreed or strongly disagreed that it was 
difficult to understand how topics covered in the lecture fit together.

The evaluation also showed that students valued their work with the Global Change website and 
the World Wide Web. Over 80% of the students agreed or strongly agreed that using the Web 
made a significant contribution to their learning.  Forty percent said that links from the Global 
Change website to other internet websites provided them with helpful information, while 50% 
were neutral on this issue.  Over 90% agreed or strongly agreed that they felt confident in their 
ability to use the Web to gather information about global change, and 60% agreed or strongly 
agreed that they used the web skills they learned in Global Change in other classes, and to 
investigate areas that interested them.

When asked about the personal growth experienced from Global Change, students once again 
responded favorably.  Over 90% of the respondents agreed or strongly agreed that they had 
deepened their interest in the subject matter of the course (Figure 3). Over 80% agreed or 
strongly agreed that they were enthusiastic about the course material.  Over 50% agreed or 
strongly agreed that they have had opportunities to help other students learn about global change 
issues. And over 80% said they felt empowered to act on what they learned.






Figure 3. Responses to sample "personal growth" question
Global Change I, Fall 1999

 


To see the complete tabulations of the Fall 1999 assessment see Resource D.


V. Implementation 

During our interviews with the U of M faculty we learned that the same characteristics that make 
interdisciplinary education a powerful teaching method can also make it an implementation 
headache.  Although not every obstacle the Global Change bricoleurs face is due to the 
interdisciplinary nature of the course, the majority are.  

The University of Michigan is not unlike other research universities when it comes to 
interdisciplinarity. It has strong academic departments that exert considerable influence over 
faculty scholarship. The majority of the faculty confine themselves to disciplinary activities. 
As faculty mature in professional rank, some faculty experiment with inter-departmental 
research and teaching.  There are many examples of faculty who have formed inter-
departmental teaching and research teams. The evidence seems to indicate that this kind of 
grassroots organizing is the dominant form of extra-disciplinary activity*.

In this section, we discuss the personal characteristicsÑsuch as a willingness to participate in a 
grassroots effortaÑthat 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 leadershipa and a willingness to engage in what Dan Mazmanian, dean of the 
School of Natural Resources and Environment,b 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 facultyÕs 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 levelsÑfrom 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 E.     
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 earthÕs 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 GSIsÕ role in 
Global Change, see Discussion F. 
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.c  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.d  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. e

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.f [ResearcherÕs 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,a teach 
eager, entry-level students,b and pursue a general love of teaching.c
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,*
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. a

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

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 "na•ve"a 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 couldnÕt 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."b   



VI.  Summing Up
Society depends on our citizensÕ ability to make wise decisions, which in turn depends on 
their capacity to process information, understand the limitations of data, how to evaluate 
the errors of systems, where uncertainties might arise, and how to draw on tools from 
different disciplines to solve real-world problems.

The Global Change faculty have created a curriculum that provides not only the tools, but also 
the people and perspectives that students can use to critically analyze the dynamic phenomena 
that affect the world in which we live.  Whether learning about carbon cycles, CFC emissions, 
global warming, population trends, or any of a host of global change issues, the interdisciplinary 
nature of the Global Change curriculum helps students consider multiple aspects of a 
problemÑthe physical, chemical, biological, geological, and mathematical, as well as the 
human. They learn to think critically about these various, yet connected, issues from natural and 
social science professors who themselves are learning to make interdisciplinary connections.  
From their professors and graduate student instructors, they explore the connections between 
overpopulation and natural resource use, using modeling programs that demonstrate how 
emissions contribute to atmospheric changes like ozone depletion and biological effects like 
cancer.  And they learn from their fellow students, who represent eclectic backgrounds and 
consider global change issues from such varied fields as zoology, engineering, medicine, or even 
art.  

By embarking on and maintaining their vision of the value of interdisciplinarity, the U of M 
Global Change bricoleurs have learned that the nature of higher education culture and 
organization is not always conducive to interdisciplinary instruction.  These faculty members 
constantly struggle to strike a balance between the amount of time they spend in their own 
departments, and the amount of time they spend with Global Change.  Although this tension is 
likely to continue to characterize interdisciplinary efforts on into the future, the U of M faculty 
have dealt with it by sustaining grassroots determination and a steadfast belief that, as a result of 
their efforts, their Global Change students are leaving the U of M with much more than just 
another course, or minor, completed.  They carry with them knowledge and habits of mind that 
will affect generations of posterity.
	

Discussion A. Students views of the interdisciplinary nature of the GC course
Sam and Robin, two students from the Global Change course, discussed the importance of 
receiving instruction from professors representing seemingly unrelated fields like atmospheric 
science and environmental policy.  According to the students, these apparently disparate 
perspectives harmonize in the discussion of changing earth systems by presenting potentially 
contradictory, yet equally viable points of view that require students to critically think about the 
connection between the two.

Sam:  For population growth, they talked about the two leading theories on what's going to 
happen with the populationÑone by Simon and one by EhrlichÑand they're completely 
opposite.  You could discuss them, and though most people always tend to believe one, the 
other one was just as viable and you could argue it. They taught us to not necessarily argue 
both, but they showed us that both exist.  

Robin:  I think that has to do with the interdisciplinary aspect of the class. One of the 
professors is in Atmospheric Science, whereas the other is in Environmental Policy but more 
conservation biology-based. Those two don't really go hand-in-hand to the casual observer, 
and once you get in there you see that what one may suggest, the other may contradict. That 
was one thing that I really liked about the class.

Beth and Amy, Global Change students, also discussed the importance of looking at global 
change issues from a variety of sources.  Beth, for instance, noted how the media often paints an 
inaccurate picture of the global change landscape by portraying certain environmental effects as 
either uniformly positive or uniformly negative.  She explained that a more critical analysis of 
environmental "inter-relationships" often produces an interpretation that is not so clear cut. 

Beth:  You read in the mass media that carbon dioxide levels are going to double and that 
there's a big hole in the ozone and there's going to be so much radiation.   [The class] 
showed that, yes, the carbon dioxide levels might double, but there's a lot of other effects that 
are going to go along with it. For example, if there's more carbon dioxide, there's going to be 
more carbon dioxide for plants to use, which means that they'll be able to grow more, which 
means there'll be more plants.  And that will affect the food chain, also.  

So you saw that the views that you had been getting from just the media are really, really 
biased. If you really sit down and you look at how everything is connected to everything else, 
[you see] that there will be an effect and sometimes it'll be positive and sometimes things that 
we think are going to be the most negative might not turn out to be that negative at all.  And 
everything just might end up working itself out just because of all the inter-relationships.  

Amy:  So you think for yourself a lot more through this course. You don't just hear 
something and assume that it's a fact.  You hear something and say, "Why would they say 
that? What does that mean? Where did they get that information?" And then, "What about 
the other side?"

Jean-Pierre (interviewer):  So it sounds like your thinking is more complex.

{general agreement}

Amy:  You do a lot more analyzing. I would say that I went into the course last semester with 
the idea that the world was doomedÑthat the ozone was going to disappear and we were all 
going to burn, or we were all going to suffocate on carbon dioxide. Well, maybe not that 
extreme, but I thought things were looking pretty hopeless.  But the way that this course was 
approachedÑthe fact that they started with how galaxies are created, how the universe was 
possibly created, how the earth has been changing since the beginning of timeÑgave me 
such a rounder view of everything and made me realize a couple of things. Yes, carbon 
dioxide is going to double within the next 50 years, and there's absolutely nothing we can do 
about it.  There's nothing we can do to change it. Even if right now we cut emissions to the 
lowest we possibly could, it will still double within 50 years. 

But the object now is not to just go around and say, "Okay, we're all going to die."  What 
we're working for now is not to cut carbon dioxide but to figure out how we are going to live 
with the higher levels; what will be the effects, both positive and negative?  

And so, I gained a more realistic and more responsible understanding of what my role in the 
future is going to be. I feel like I can do something now.  Not that IÕm going to start recycling 
like crazy, like the organizations with those slogans, "Save the earth and save the whales and 
save the rainforests."  It's not that kind of an approach. It's a very responsible, systematic 
approach to what needs to be done. 

And I would say that the coolest experience I had in this class, in terms of learning 
experience, was when we were discussing the effects of carbon dioxide on plant growth. 
Carbon dioxide makes plants grow more, but the plants, though larger, will still have the 
same amount of nutrients. Therefore, you have to eat more of the plant to get the same 
amount of energy.  This has been shown in studies done on leafy green plantsÑjust on  the 
leaf, not on the rootsÑbut not on root plants like turnips. So I asked, "What about the roots? 
Do they grow more and have less nutrients, too?" The reply was, "Well, no one's studied 
that yet." And I said, "Well, that's what I want to do."  And [my instructor] said, "That 
would be a great senior honors project."  That was the coolest experience--to see that I 
could take all this information I'd been getting and take it a step further, to where it hadnÕt 
been taken before.

Jean-Pierre (interviewer): That definitely classifies as a real learning experience.

Amy: That was the coolest thing, and that made me want to minor in Global Change. 
Because [it deals with issues] that affect everyone.  There is no one in the world who will go 
unaffected by global change. So there's nothing that I could do that would help more 
peopleÑif that's my goalÑor that would affect more people, than to do something working in 
global change.  After I get my degree, I plan to go on for a graduate degree in the School of 
Natural Resources. I just thought, "That is exactly what I want to do.  That makes so much 
sense and that's something I could contribute that hasn't been contributed."  So that's my 
real learning experience.   
Discussion B. Faculty views on computer-dependent learning activities 

As mentioned earlier, the instructors indicated that the advantages of using computers in any 
particular learning activity are threefold. Tim Killeen, professor of Atmospheric, Oceanic, and 
Space Sciences, used an activity where he asked students to measure the ozone column 
abundance of a particular region and relate those measurements to the meteorology of that 
region. He and his colleagues believe that by using technology to collect and analyze data 
students will: a) develop a better understanding of how these two things (regional ozone 
abundance and meteorology) are related because they will have investigated the relationship in a 
hands-on fashion, b) not be distracted from gaining this meaningful understanding by 
digressional calculations and graphing, and c) gain first-hand knowledge of the tools used to 
achieve this understanding.  He also believes in the power of real world data and explained how 
real-time data sets from the United States Geological Survey provide the data for the models that 
students are constructing in class. 

Tim: We study the Great Lakes and get real-time data sets from the USGS sensors 
measuring the water flows down the tributaries, the pH and the sediment loading.  We put 
that into a model and build a real-time interface, so students can then come in for their term 
projects and say, "Now I'm in this Collaboratory space [a user-driven web environment that 
offers interactive access to global or regional datasets], in Houston, Texas, with all of these 
data sources. I can either do an experiment in one of these rooms where I'm measuring, say, 
an ozone column abundance, and relating it to meteorology of the region, or I can use the 
Collaboratory as a tool to get access to these multiple data sources, and the expertise that's 
in the Collaboratory."  

These same kinds of models can be run using real-time, real-world data from the fields of space 
and upper atmospheric science, according to Luis, a graduate student who develops the course 
website. 
  
Luis:  We're looking at space science or upper atmospheric topics.  We take data sets that 
are available there, simplify them somewhat, and build a lab around them.  So we try to give 
sort of real-world examples about what scientists are concerned with at this current time, 
and then let the students investigate it themselves. 

Below, a central administrator expands further on the value of using real world data. He says that 
the use of the Web in the Global Change course is not just a way of delivering information. It 
also trains students how to use tools that allow them to manage an "information explosion." This 
training is crucial to their future capacity to understand the science and public policies that affect 
the environment, according to him.

Central administrator:  The success of the course hinges on its ability to provide students 
with an enormous range of primary sources and fresh research about global change, about 
the climate, global warming, about the efforts to measure environmental change. It also gives 
them the ability to sort through that research and these sources in an effective way, so that 
the students can take that information and turn it to their own learning purposes.  It's a place 
where they're managing vast amounts of data and making it transparently accessible so the 
students can use it to do stuff they want to do inside the class.  There are, of course, many 
other kinds of teaching that don't need the type of information that the Internet provides.  You 
may have the seminar or books. But the Global Change course, I think, shows how the ability 
to manage an explosion of information [through the ability to manage on-line information] is 
crucial to certain courses in science and public policy.    

Dan Mazmanian, Dean of the School of Natural Resources and the Environment, reiterated that 
students can use technology for their own learning purposes. He believes the Internet is the tool 
providing them "ready access to all the other information" they need to "pursue a line of inquiry" 
independently.

Dan Mazmanian:  Through the use of technology, the web searches, and the links, they have 
ready access to all the other information. It's kind of like the unfolding of a book or a story, 
which is the way a CD-ROM or website should be used.  So the students can actually pursue 
that line of inquiry pretty rapidly.

Susan (interviewer):  It's like giving them a tool box.

Dan Mazmanian:  It is.  It is exactly that. 
 
Discussion C. Student views on computer-dependent learning activities

As Tim Killeen pointed out earlier, "our evolving understanding of the human relationship with 
the earth system [involves] a lot of complexity, a lot of issues."  Students told us that they are 
able to learn about such issues through lecture, web-based literature, and handouts, but that they 
are better able to understand intricate systems like the carbon cycle and other chemical systems 
through computer models that: help them visualize concepts, give them hands-on tinkering 
experience, provide real-world examples, and help them develop skills for managing complex 
information. 

Getting students to see a process was one of the issues the U of M bricoleurs brought up when 
discussing (in the Goals section) the importance of allowing students to "tinker with the idea 
they've been given."  This tinkering, according to the instructors, allows students to "come to 
conclusions on their own," which cannot be done as effectively when students have only static 
information from which to make conclusions.  One student noted that she would not have 
understood certain concepts "anywhere near as in-depth" were it not for the hands-on exploration 
that she was able to do with the modeling software used in the Global Change course. 

Sally:  I have such a better understanding of the material after having the labs. There's no 
way I could have gotten that without the whole modeling thing.  And I would have 
understood it, but not as in-depth, not anywhere near as in-depth.

Laura, another student who took the course in a previous semester, emphasized that 
"constructing, playing with, and manipulating a model" enhanced her learning much more than 
just memorizing the results of such a model.

Laura:  The professors do show those kinds of things, but it's a lot more interactive for 
students to put a graph together themselves.  I think that learning is enhanced by a student 
taking raw data and making a graph rather than just looking at the finished product.  It'll 
mean less to them and they won't retain it, I think.  And I can tell you that because of my own 
experiences.  I knew a lot more about the carbon cycle after constructing a model, playing 
with it, and manipulating it than I ever did by memorizing the relationships.

Students also reported that manipulating the figures on a modeling program is instructive, 
because "tweaking the numbers" in one area affects everything else in the model.  They said that 
seeing such models on paper would detract from their ability to envision such dynamic global 
interactions because they would only be involved in seeing results, as opposed to putting the 
models together on their own.   

Ruth:  If you're just in a science-based major and you don't like the way the results come 
out, you can tweak the numbers so that you get the right answer.  But if you're using 
something like a modeling program and you tweak that number, youÕll get the right number, 
but it still affects how everything else is viewed as well.

Beth:  I think a lot of our assignments could have been done on paperÑI just don't think it 
would have been as effective.  When we did the STELLA models, we actually put them 
together. Our GSI [graduate student instructor] would show us how, but we actually did it.  
We actually would connect things to what our GSI would ask us.  If we would have done that 
on paper, it wouldn't have been us doing it.  It would have been the professor.

Amy:  It's not just drawing the picture, you run it, too.  You run the model.

Beth:  And you make graphs.
 
According to Amy, independent investigation of real-world science and social issues allows 
students to contextualize facts and figures related to those issues.  She explained, for example, 
that the deleterious effects of a "population boom" can only be determined upon considering the 
social background of the area in which such a boom occurs.  ArcView allowed her to create such 
a real world background in a way that she "just doesn't get from somebody telling [her]."

Jean-Pierre (interviewer):  How does ArcView go beyond the numbers?  Can you express 
that?

Amy:  We watched a movie in our first lab about a naturalist, Paul Ehrlich, who collects 
butterflies.  But what he really did was make these big, doomsday predictions about the end 
of the world. He goes to Bihar, which is, I think, the poorest state in India, and he sees a lot 
of babies being born, and he comes back and says there's this population boom in India and 
nothing can be done, and it's the end of the world.  But he doesn't understand that this is not 
a population boom, and that they always have that many children, and that a lot of those 
children will die. It's an agricultural state, so they need a lot of children because they work 
on the land.  So then he gives all of these numbers and says that by the year 2050, India's 
population will grow by five times or something. I don't know the numbers.  And that doesn't 
mean anything to me because I see him as coming from absolutely no background.  The 
population has doubled before, we were worried, and now we have six billion and we're still 
doing okay.  So what if we have another six billion? Maybe we'll still be okay.  We really 
can't know. 

But if I can take something like ArcView and look at the way population is dispersed, like if 
you tell me that there are a lot of people in New York City or in the State of New York, vs. 
telling me there are a lot of people, with their tradition, in India, that means a big difference.  
Because New York has complex sewage systems.  So that means a lot to me.  And ArcView 
takes those populations, and will split it up, and you can see how different population growth 
occurs in different parts of the country.  It just adds another aspect to that that I just don't get 
from somebody telling me the population doubles.  It gives you a complete picture. Instead of 
them just saying something that you take for truth automatically, it lets you formulate your 
own view, which might be a little more cynical, but is also more complete.  And it gives you 
the ability to analyze as well, not to just repeat.     

The Internet provides access to real-world data sets, acts as a tremendous resource for literature 
on global change issues, and simultaneously gives students on-line information gathering 
experience. Using the information from this interactive resource, Global Change students create 
their own website. This work both exposes them to global change issues and teaches them to 
critically examine the contents of websites that can be created and maintained by anyone.

Sam:  We made our own website to show us how easy it is so that you become a bit more 
skeptical of websites you read.  They are very subjective.  We also did some research on the 
Web for various things.

Julia:  This year, it's required that every student make a website by the end of the course.  
Students pair up in groups of two or three and do a significant amount of research on a topic 
that was covered at some part of the course.  Then they do a quick presentation to show their 
website and explain what they did. And I thought that was really useful because it was the 
first time I had done a significant web development project.  
Discussion D. Faculty and student views of the role of lecture 
The lecture portion of the Global Change course in some ways resembles the standard university 
lecture format.  Students listen and take notes while a professor talks about a certain subject.  
However, during our interviews at the U of M, some of the faculty signaled a desire to modify 
this format by making lecture a place where more student dialogue could occur.  The students 
from the course said that this modification was already in motion.  They told us that to succeed 
in the course, they needed to be active during lecture sessions. George Kling, professor of 
Biology, presented this point when discussing ideas for restructuring the lecture design.   

George:  I go to the class with fifty to seventy minutes of material to deliver and always try 
to use every minute.  I like to stop and ask for questions and promote dialogue.  I'm thinking 
this semester of some ways that I can do things differently that might allow more time for 
dialogue.  You have to build it into a more discussive type of framework.  I don't think 
dialogue happens easily or naturally. 

According to Luis Fernandez, a graduate student assistant, Dave Allan is a traditional lecturer 
who focuses less on audio-visual tools, videos, and animation than on being a "dynamic 
speaker," drawing on his own research and giving students "extra information that they can't find 
in the [web-based] notes as an incentive to show up to class."  

Luis:  Dave Allan uses a lot of case studies that he draws from his own research or that he 
finds on the Web before class.  He'll bring up a case study, website, or an article in class to 
illustrate the traditional material that the students can find on the course website.  He told 
me a couple times that he likes to give students extra information that they can't find in the 
notes as an incentive to show up to class.

Dave himself said that, despite the WebÕs role as a "terrific enabler of self-instruction," 
instructors should not "lose sight of how they communicate."  To illustrate this point, he 
described a lecture that Professor Gayl Ness, sociology professor, gave that kept him on the 
"edge of his seat."  The material that Ness covered in that lecture would not have been nearly as 
powerful if Dave had just read about it on the Web.   

Dave: The Web is such a terrific enabler of self-instruction. You can go out there and get all 
this information and bring it back and integrate it.  And I am not personally attached to the 
Web as the delivery system for lecture material. For instance, Gayl Ness, [emeritus sociology 
professor] gave this fantastic lecture a while ago.  I was just on the edge of my seat through 
that whole thing. He is still, I am sure, the absolute top person in his field.  He has a 
tremendous amount of field experience and can talk about his experience in Thailand and 
Southeast Asia. He's seen these changes first-hand, and has, I think, a masterful integration 
of the topography and the social processes that are interacting and both drive it and result 
from it.  I thought he was just a  marvelous speaker. He spoke with passion and humor.  If 
you were to say, "Let's put somebody up here who gives a heck of a good lecture, let's not 
worry about whether they are using computers or technology, they just give a heck of a good 
lecture," I would say it would be hard pressed to top that one.  He used transparencies and 
he talked.  The most powerful part about it was Ness, as a lecturer, not whether it was 
already packaged on the Web or whether you put a glitzy Power Point presentation together.  
And that is that personal sense to communication [that we should] not lose sight of.

Some of the students we spoke with corroborated DaveÕs point, with respect to a particular type 
of lecture style.  They pointed out that "how [instructors] communicate" and how students 
respond are equally important because they have a complementary effect on one another.  
Students must take a dynamic role that goes beyond just "taking the lecture notes that are already 
printed out and not adding anything to them" and instead need to actively "ask why."  Beth, 
meanwhile, pointed out that Professor Kling, professor of Biology, inspires this kind of inquiry 
by asking questions with deceptively simple answers, thereby dissuading students from relying 
solely on their intuition, and forcing them to rely instead on careful thought and analysis. 

Amy: Don't come into the course thinking, "Just sit and absorb," and "This is an easy 
course." Don't just take the lecture notes that are already printed out and not add anything 
to them.  Add things and look for things that you're interested in and question everything.  
Always ask whyÑthey give you a statistic, ask where that came fromÑdon't just take 
anything [at face value]. Because a couple times, especially with Professor Kling, he would 
tell [us] something and everyone would say okay [without questioning], and then he'd say 
"No!" 

Beth:  He says, "Ask why. Don't you even wonder?"

Amy:  HeÕll say, "You just believe that!?"  
Discussion E. Faculty views on the role of personal qualities in fielding an 
interdisciplinary course 
In discussing the personal resources necessary for developing and maintaining an initiative like 
the Global Change Project, the faculty emphasized three qualities:
_ a willingness to put forth an "uphill effort," by working through the inevitable obstacles 
that surface during the implementation of interdisciplinary curricula. 
_ leadership
_ a "bottom-up," "grassroots" mentality that instructors, not administrators, are responsible 
for the success of the initiative.

They observed that if these characteristics were absent from the people involved in creating and 
maintaining the project, it would "fall through the cracks," especially in a decentralized 
university like the U of M.  George Kling, biology professor, and Bob Owen, associate dean of 
the College of Literature Sciences and Arts, emphasized the importance of a committed faculty.

George:  I think we have a group of people who are really excited about doing this and 
willing to do extra work to be involved in it.  It almost fell apart, sometime around Ô94-Ô95 
when Gayl Ness retired.  But Tim Killeen picked it up, he salvaged it, and despite all the 
support for interdisciplinary education, all the recognition we've got, this is still mostly an 
uphill effort.  We are still rolling a rock uphill to make a course like this continue. 
***
Bob: I think if you're committed, remain committed.  Don't pull out halfway.  As you reach 
bumps in the road, you've got to keep going.  You don't dip your toe in the water for 
something like this. You've got to have a total commitment.

Dan Mazmanian, dean of the School of Natural Resources and Environment, added to George 
and BobÕs points about commitment by praising the groupÕs resilience, their ability to maintain 
the course despite not having an "established niche" in the University.
  
Susan (interviewer):  You mentioned something earlier that I thought was pretty significant 
about how this course or this emerging minor has no natural niche.  Typically, groups that 
have no natural niche also fall through the cracks in terms of reward structure things.
Dan:  I think that this group has lasted longer than most, for those very reasons.
Susan:  For which reasons?
Dan:  That, without having an established niche and organizational place and all those 
things that go with it, they typically do kind of fade into the woodwork. The work theyÕre 
doing is above and beyond the call of duty.  It's not in any of their job descriptions.  They've 
held together as a critical group for six or seven years.  They have stayed with this despite 
the fact that it hasn't had a natural niche in any department.  They stayed with this despite 
the fact that they had to reach across the different colleges and schools at the University of 
Michigan to make this happen.  They have been a very thoughtful, integrated group working 
together as a real team.  And it's on the surviving end, which is a compliment to them.  
Organizationally they should have fallen through the cracks a long time ago, but they haven't 
because they have resilience.

Tim Killeen, professor of Atmospheric, Oceanic and Space Sciences, commented further on his 
own resilience in the face of organizational obstacles saying that, in order for the course to work, 
the faculty need to remain committed and continue to improve the course.

Tim:  I decided that if we were really going to make this work, we had to keep at it.  That's 
the way I feel, and the that's the way other people in the group feel.  Keep working on course 
developmentÑlearning how to do it better and better, and modifying it, and adjusting it, and 
evaluating it.  And over the years, this effort has been validated.  [We didnÕt expect it would 
be] like that at the beginning.  We all thought that we could just do this, show up and plot our 
graph packets, and lo and behold, interdisciplinary courseÑhere it is.  

Intimately connected with the facultyÕs ability to "keep at it" is their recognition that they are 
part of a "bottom-up effort" in which no single department takes responsibility. Below, Bob 
Owen stressed the value of taking ownership in an independent course like Global Change.

Bob: Some of the same things that help us tend to get in our way. We are well-known as 
being an extremely decentralized university. Which means that on a relative scale, individual 
departments, individual faculty, tend to be far more independent. That independence gives 
them the freedom to explore and talk about things they want to do.  At the same time, that 
independence also means that you can't really send down an edict from an on-high 
administration and say, "Do this." They'll just say, "No, we're not going to do this."  So, 
that's why it has to be a bottom-up effort to do this.  At a place like Michigan, you need to 
send a green light to the faculty saying, "This is a goal." You then provide the means and 
incentive for them to get there. They need to gain ownership, otherwise it won't happen. 

I've heard and seen the applause of the provost and everybody around the University. They 
all applaud the initiative, but it only worked, and works, because it is driven from the bottom 
up, from the individuals who are willing to go the extra mile.  I do not see an easy change 
whereby this process can come from the top down.  Now, a course like this is what the 
University wants to do, but as I see it, as soon as it's not driven by [faculty] individuals, 
things don't work.      

BobÕs emphasis on the responsibility of "subunits" (the Global Change faculty) to independently 
affect change is reminiscent of what Karl Weick (1976) called "loosely coupled organizations," a 
term that was applied to colleges and universities by Birnbaum (1988). 

Discussion F.  Faculty views on the extra time needed for, and the special 
importance of, the GSI role 
U of M professors discussed the challenge of coordinating individual Global Change lectures 
into a coherent, chronologically organized course. George Kling, biology professor in the 
College of Literature, Science and Arts, emphasized the extra time professors need to team teach.  

George:  There is an inherent inefficiency in team teaching that is not expressed when you're 
teaching a course alone.  When Ben [van der Pluijm, Geology Professor] thinks about his 
lecture, he says, "Well, I'll talk about this, and then I'll talk about that."  He has a logical 
progression in his mind.  But sometimes we have to say, "No, you're not. You can't have 
oxygen in the atmosphere until we've evolved life. And that doesn't happen until this time, so 
you have to change the way you are presenting this so that it fits with our overall scheme 
through the entire semester." We're all very efficient at thinking about our discipline, but this 
is interdisciplinary.  So all of a sudden, we have to fit what we know in with these other 
disciplines.  And we don't know them very well, so these other people are telling us, "No, you 
can't do that Ben. The world doesn't really work that way.  That's the way you think geology 
works, but in the big picture, it doesn't." So that takes a tremendous amount of extra time on 
top of what we give a normal course that we teach by ourselves.   

Expanding on GeorgeÕs point, Tim Killeen, professor of Atmospheric, Oceanic and Space 
Sciences, gave an example of a topic that was mistakenly presented four different times by four 
different professors.

Tim:  The problem with interdisciplinary team teaching is all the disconnects.  For example, 
we taught the peppered moth four times in one semester.  The peppered moth is an example 
of rapid evolution in an organism in response to external change, which in this case was a 
rise in pollution in England during the Industrial Revolution. It was taught four times by 
different professors. There wasn't enough coordination.

George Kling and Ben van der Pluijm, geology professor, stated that to appropriately coordinate 
the lectures, the instructors themselves need to become students of each othersÕ discipline. 

George: To properly organize the classes, you have to process something you don't really 
know that much about.   You become a student who has to learn material from your 
colleaguesÕ fields.  You are a freshman.  All of a sudden I have to figure out how Ben puts his 
stuff together. Just like the students are figuring out how everyone puts their stuff together.  
We're all students of the othersÕ discipline. That is why we all teach this instead of one 
person.

Ben:  Exactly, that's why this matter of preparation time comes in again, because all of a 
sudden I have to speak about prokaryotes and eukaryotes. I just mentioned something in 
class because it was not really important from the rock perspective.  I see now how it could 
be made a lot more important after having talked with my colleagues, which forces you to 
change, even though what you have said is still perfectly valid in your own field.

The GSIs have a similar time burden when it comes to connecting information from one field to 
another.  Although they do not have to coordinate lectures like the professors, they are 
responsible for helping students synthesize the diverse content of the course.  This means 
answering questions about subjects that are unrelated to their own studies.  

Ben van der Pluijm, geology professor:  In order to answer studentsÕ questions in lab, the 
GSIs need to know what so-and-so said and what was meant.  Well, that requires the GSIs to 
do a lot more than they would normally do as GSIs.  So that structure canÕt stay.  You canÕt 
expect every GSI to know economic models as well as social models, psychological, 
geological, and biological.  So in the short run, itÕs a difficult experience for them, because 
sometimes they work 30 hours in a week.  This is just another reason why there arenÕt very 
many courses like this, that have a true interdisciplinarity to them.  And there wonÕt be in the 
current structure.  Ten years from now, I could see us sitting around the table and having 
exactly the same conversation, asking the same questions.

***
George Kling:  The GSIs probably work more than they are supposed to.  There are pretty 
strict contracts now, 17 to 20 hours a week, that a full-time position is supposed to work and 
they are working 25 to 30.  We drop a lot of responsibility on them and it is pretty clear that 
if they donÕt live up to it, we are in big trouble. 

Dave Halsing and Patrick Livingood, GSIs, presented their own views on the time burden of 
repairing the interdisciplinary disconnects, explaining that their willingness to do so is linked to 
their dedication and love of teaching.  They contend that, without these characteristics, GSIs 
might not be as keen on taking extra responsibility.  

Dave:  In a large class with lots of professors like this, the professors arenÕt there every day 
in lecture.  And so weÕre kind of the source of continuity for the students throughout the 
semesterÉAnd I think that theyÕre very lucky.  I mean, thatÕs going to sound like IÕm patting 
ourselves on the back, but I think they got lucky that they got a batch of GSIs last semester 
and this time who enjoy teaching and are dedicated. I got a lot of feedback from students 
saying that the discussions where we synthesized the lecture topics were very helpful.  

I know a lot of graduate students are GSIs because of the tuition credit and the salary. They 
donÕt particularly love it, and itÕs a "have to" rather than a "get to" for them.  And if one of 
those people wound up in a course like this, I think the course would suffer a lot.  Where they 
do better is in courses where the instructor takes a larger role, and the GSI is really for 
support and grading and things like that. 

Patrick:  The students come in and get the lecture from the professors but we run all of the 
other actual student activities or interactions.

Dave:  Half-way through, as Patrick says, we sort of figured out, "Hey, if this semester is 
going to work, itÕs going to work because weÕre going to take care of these things." And so 
we did. But I think there needs to be one person, one faculty member, who takes responsibility 
for the course from beginning to end and works with the GSIs to keep everything running 
smoothlyÉBecause thereÕs so many different faculty drifting in and out, there isnÕt one 
person running the content or the flow of the course.  ThereÕs no one person that the students 
can go to.

Discussion G.  Faculty views on the U of M reward structure

As we stated elsewhere, the U of M rewards structure presents a challenge to the faculty in their 
attempt to implement the Global Change course.  The bricoleurs told us, for instance, that junior 
faculty members were wary of participating in the course because of the potential damage such 
participation could cause to their tenure prospects. One professor said that it is difficult to 
convince the high-level administrators to give professors the amount of credit they deserve for 
teaching in Global Change.  He argued that, because of the time and workload burdens that 
teaching in Global Change brings with it, a professor who teaches a fraction of the Global 
Change course should receive greater credit than for teaching a disciplinary course.  However, 
when he and his colleagues try to recruit professors from different departments to teach in Global 
Change, the chairs of those departments say, "[the reward structure] doesn't work that way." In 
fact, some professors who teach in Global Change get no credit at all for doing so, but rather 
participate voluntarily.  This voluntary participation can potentially cut into the time they spend 
on research, which, especially for junior faculty on a tenure track, is risky.

Dan Mazmanian:  Global Change is not an enterprise that has attracted many junior faculty 
because their colleagues have told them that inter-discipline has all those wonderful virtues, 
but given its tenuous political organizational footing, you probably ought not spend a lot of 
time with it right now.  That's probably safe advice coming from your peers.  I don't say that. 
I don't treat it differently than other kinds of activities.  

Bob Owen, associate dean of LS&A, stated that he would give junior faculty members that same 
advice if he were in a position to do so.

Bob: If I put myself in the role of a department chair, I would probably counsel an assistant 
professor to hold off on their involvement until they got their own research effort going. After 
that hurdle I think that faculty can be more free to get involved in projects of this sort. The 
bias certainly would be toward tenured and full professors.

Tim Killeen, professor of Atmospheric, Oceanic and Space Sciences, expanded on Bob's point, 
using a junior faculty colleague of his as an example.    

Tim:  Lisa Curran [SNRE] is very dynamic, passionate, and valuable for the classroom 
element, particularly for something like global environmental change. So we want to bring 
her in, but we don't want to damage her prospects for tenure track.

Below, Lisa Curran, a junior faculty member herself, questioned how changes might be made so 
that the reward structure recognizes teaching efforts in team settings like the Global Change 
course.

Lisa: If you teach your regular load and you team-teach on the side, team-teaching counts 
for less, and I think people want to see that change. The question is, how do we implement it?

Ben van der Pluijm, geology professor, said there needs to be a change not only in the way 
teaching time factors into tenure considerations, but also in the way that preparation time is 
calculated.  According to him, "prep" time is especially important in the Global Change course 
because it requires multiple professors to synchronize their lectures.
 
Ben:  Dealing with the large amount of prep time to teach this kind of course is the major 
problem that you run into with interdisciplinarity. That is why we need to talk about it. The 
current organizational structure does not have that solution built in, because it still counts 
your hours in the class as your teaching load. In other courses you can wing a class but you 
can't here because if I am not done, George will simply say, "Friday is my turn, so if you 
didn't get to formation of oxygen in the atmosphere that ruins my class." So, it's very 
different and that is what people don't realize until you've done it and the administration has 
heard enough about it.  It is a fundamental structural change that the university will have to 
make, but that's got to be very expensive.  We are talking about a fundamental change of how 
we see and how we spend our time.

George:  I put in about ten hours a week, which is 25% of my work time, but I don't give any 
lectures, and as Ben said, if other people haven't had the experience, I really don't think they 
appreciate it.  They just think you are making it up.

According to Lisa Curran, the types of challenges George talked about are due to the type of 
pressures that characterize research universities.  Despite this, however, she observed that her 
colleagues are taking steps to change the way administrators value teaching.  

Lisa:  Let's face it, in the end, this is a research institution.  And so one of the difficulties if 
you enjoy teachingÑand I actually love itÑis how will the standards reflect that?  I think the 
provost, Tim Killeen certainly, and a number of people are trying to change how much 
teaching is worth in a tenure process versus just counting publications, per se.  And Nancy 
Cantor [provost] has been pressuring deans and chairsÉThe questions that abound are: 
How do we make the review process more equitable for this teaching service? And how do 
we then find people that want to do thisÑand there are many senior people who don't want 
to.  One common theme is, "Oh, we've got to keep junior faculty out of this, because it's just 
too much work, and there are no rewards."  Well that seems like a very defeatist attitude to 
me.  I think that external reviews need to have recognition for these things, like having a 
website win an award. This could mean that an organization like NSF says that a review 
process must look at the impact of this work.

In order to change the value of teaching, teaching time must be fully calculated.  As Lisa Curran 
said above, team teaching across departments does not get counted equally with teaching that 
goes on in a single department.  Bob Owen suggested that courses be cross-listed to solve this 
problem.

Bob: One way to get around the problem of having professors teaching across departments, 
in terms of who gets credit, is to have courses cross-listed. So, there's been an effort to do 
that with what we call "university courses."

Another way to increase the value of teaching at the University is by creating professorships that 
reward quality teachers, according to a central administrator.

Central administrator:  In the early Ô90s the university created professorships that 
recognize excellence in teaching. There are ten or twelve of these very distinguished 
professorships that provide rewards and prestige for faculty. Many steps have been taken at 
the department and college level which have produced a real turn-around.   

Dan Mazmanian, dean of the School of Natural Resources and Environment, said that, although 
he is not in a position to hand out rewards for good teaching, he does make sure that no one is 
penalized for teaching outside of his or her department.

Dan:  I surely don't penalize participation in Global Change, but I'm also not on the 
promotion and tenure committee other faculty members are.  So they have a reality to live 
with, which is a peer-based reality. I can do a lot, but when it comes time for a tenure 
decision, I can't walk in and say, because junior faculty member x spent a long time with 
Global Change, we're going to overlook, or treat him or her differently than others in terms 
of their research, in terms of their service to the school, and so on and so forth. 

Susan (interviewer):  Have you seen any situations where faculty who have been involved in 
this course, either at the core, or in a more peripheral way, have been penalized, from the 
stand point of tenure and reward?

Dan:  Not in SNRE. Not in my school. 

George Kling, biology professor explained that the tenure and reward structures at state schools 
should more closely resemble those of private universities where professors have more time to 
try innovative teaching methods.

George:  Now, private universities have a lot more money to invest in reducing the overall 
time commitments of professors.  That allows them to teach in this new kind of way.  
Columbia has twice as many Graduate Student Instructors as they do faculty, whereas we 
have about one-fifth.  We have many more faculty than graduate student instructors.  So they 
have a huge amount of money and resources to spend that we don't have.  Stanford, 
HarvardÑthe same way.  I don't know how that is going to work with state schools.  That is 
why I think it has to be a very large systemic change that involves society.


Resource A.  Institutional Context
[All of this information is taken from the UMICH website 
http://www.umich.edu/~info/aboutum.html] 

The University of Michigan (U of M) was founded in 1817 as one of the first public universities 
in the nation. The school moved from Detroit to Ann Arbor in 1837, when Ann Arbor was only 
13 years old.   

Today, U of M is one of only two public institutions consistently ranked in the nation's top ten 
universities, with over 51,000 students and 5,600 faculty at three campuses. Over 5,500 
undergraduate courses are taught each term in over 100 programs. Undergraduate, graduate and 
professional students have a choice of 17 separate schools and colleges, 588 majors, over 600 
student organizations.

The students at the University of Michigan come from all 50 states and over 100 foreign 
countries from Afghanistan to Zimbabwe. Almost 50% come from the top five percent of their 
graduating high school class and 66% are in the top tenth of their class. 

Michigan's teaching and research staff include an astronaut, distinguished world authorities, 
Pulitzer Prize winners, internationally acclaimed performing artists and composers, Supreme 
Court Justices, best-selling novelists, artists, and filmmakers. Michigan has more than 100 
named endowed chairs.

Michigan receives over $374 million in research expenditures annually, the largest research 
expenditure for any university in the country. The diversity of the University's research activities, 
from medical to social to cultural, is a major contributor of Michigan's capacity for growth and 
development. 

Resource B. Methods Used to Produce this Case Study
Susan Millar and Jean-Pierre Bayard, researchers for the Institute on Learning Technology, 
conducted interviews and observed labs and classrooms during mid-January 2000 at the 
University of Michigan. We interviewed:
_ four "core" Global Change faculty members: 
-	Timothy Killeen, at the time, director of the Space Physics Research Laboratory, 
professor in the Atmospheric, Oceanic, and Space Sciences Department of the College of 
Engineering, and director of the Global Change Project, and as of fall 2000, director of 
the National Center for Atmospheric Research
-	Ben van der Pluijm, professor of Geology and present director of the Global Change 
Program
-	David Allan, professor, School of Natural Resources and Environment
-	George Kling, professor of Biology, School of Literature Sciences and Arts
_ one new Global Change faculty, Lisa Curran, assistant professor, School of Natural 
Resources & Environment
_ three graduate teaching assistants 
-	David Halsing, currently completing a Master of Science degree in Resource Policy and 
Management 
-	Patrick Livingood, graduate student instructor, Ph.D. student, School of Natural 
Resources and Environment
-	Luis Fernandez 
_ Professor Daniel Mazmanian, then dean of School of Natural Resources & Environment and 
as of fall 2000, C. Erwin and Ione L. Piper Dean and professor of the University of Southern 
CaliforniaÕs new School of Policy, Planning, and Development
_ Robert M. Owen, associate dean of Undergraduate Education of the College of Literature, 
Science and the Arts, and professor of Marine Geochemistry
_ two leaders from the central administration
_ Two evaluators
-	Eric Dey, professor in the School of Education and member of the U of M Center for the 
Study of Higher and Postsecondary Education (CSHPE)
-	Anne Chapple, graduate student, CSHPE, School of Education, and faculty in the 
Department of Law, History & Communication
_ eight students
-	seven Global Change students
-	on Global Change I student alumna who now serves as an administrative assistant for the 
course.

In addition, we observed one of the weekly organizational meetings in which the Global Change 
instructors participate, two of the weekly Global Change lab meetings, and one of the large 
lectures (given by Gayle Ness, professor emeritus of Sociology, and former member of the core 
Global Change faculty group).

At the time of our visit, these Global Change faculty and teaching assistants were in their third 
week of classes with a group of approximately 190 students enrolled in Global Change I.

The interviews were guided by the protocols used in all the Learning Through Technology case 
studies and were taped and transcribed. Andrew Beversdorf analyzed the interview material, and 
with help from Susan Millar, as well as from Sharon Schlegel and Mark Connolly, produced this 
case study. 

Acknowledgements:
The authors thank the University of Michigan faculty, staff, and students who participated in this 
study. These individuals very graciously responded to our request for their time and attention. In 
particular, the authors thank Professor Ben van der Pluijm for the many hours and the thoughtful 
attention he dedicated to the improvement of this document.

This case study is based on a deeply collaborative analysis and planning process undertaken by 
the NISEÕs Learning Through Technology "Fellows" group:  Jean-Pierre Bayard, Stephen 
Erhmann, John Jungck, Flora McMartin, Susan Millar, Marco Molinaro.

The Fellows, in turn, benefited substantially from members of the College Level One Team:  
Susan Daffinrud, Art Ellis, Kate Loftus-Fahl, Anthony Jacob, and Robert Mathieu.

Resource C.  Types of Course Evaluation Data Collecteda

_ Surveys. During each semester that Global Change I was offered from fall 1997 through 
spring 2000, the evaluation team administered web-based baseline, midterm, and final 
assessment surveys, and then analyzed the resulting data and presented their findings to the 
faculty group at each semester's end. These surveys use both closed- and open-ended 
questions to gather information about students' experiences with the labs, lectures, and 
Global Change website. During the 2000-2001 academic year, only baseline and final 
surveys were administered, and the evaluation team analyzed the resulting data and presented 
reports to the faculty group within several weeks after the end of each term. As of fall term, 
2001, the Global Change teaching staff will transition to administering simplified baseline 
and end-of-term web surveys only, which the teaching staff will analyze themselves. For 
more detail on DeyÕs survey-based findings, see below.

_ Interviews. During the early years of the UCDT project, interviews were conducted with the 
faculty, teaching assistants, and administrators to understand their experiences with the 
UCDT program, focusing issues pertaining to interdisciplinary teaching at the University of 
Michigan.  

_ Observations. A member of the evaluation team attended most of the lectures and some of 
the labs during a substantial portion of the fall 1997 semester.  Conducting observations is 
standard procedure for new evaluators who join the Global Change project from time to time.  
 
_ Focus Groups. The evaluation team conducted a student focus group during the 1997 winter 
semester to gather the collective experiences of students. 

_ Classroom Assessment Techniques. On the urging of the evaluators, the faculty experimented 
with the following two easy-to-use "classroom assessment techniques," the One-Minute 
Paper, and a web-based forum for weekly commentary on lectures and labs known as "GC 
Week," both of which are designed to assess course-related knowledge and skills and assess 
learner reactions to lecture and laboratory instruction.  
-	In previous years (though not during the 2000-2001 academic year), the faculty employed 
One-Minute Paper exercises to assess the results of the weekly labs. (To use the One-
Minute Paper, an instructor stops class two or three minutes early and asks students to 
respond briefly to some variation on the following two questions: "What was the most 
important thing you learned during this class?" and "What important question remains 
unanswered?") When we conducted interviews for this case study in January 2000, the 
students were writing One-Minute Papers (for which they received a small number of 
points), and submitting them to the evaluators, who then noted which students submitted 
responses, stripped the studentsÕ names from the data, collated the data and provided it to 
each GSI.  
-	In order to minimize the amount of class and lab time used for assessment activities, as 
well as routinize and make the data acquisition process more efficient, the "GC Week" 
initiative was implemented during the fall 2000 academic term and was operational 
through winter term, 2001.  Students were required to access a web-based evaluation 
form and to rate numericallyÑon a scale from 1 (very inefficient) to 5 (very 
efficient)]Ñeach of three weekly lectures and one weekly lab for effectiveness of the 
lecturer/GSI as well as effectiveness of the lecture/lab content. Students were also given 
the opportunity to submit comments on how the lecturer/GSI or lecture/lab material could 
be improved.  For this work, students were also awarded a small number of points. 
Resource D.  Results of End-of-Semester Survey 
Below are data from the end-of-semester survey administered to Global Change I students in fall 
1999.b

I. Lab Experience	


Strongly 
Agree
Agree
Neutral
Disagree
Strongly 
Disagree
1. The lab assignments seem carefully 
chosen.
12.3%
67.7%
10.8%
4.6%
4.6%
2. The lab assignments are 
intellectually challenging.
7.7%
72.3%
12.3%
3.1%
4.6%
3. Laboratory assignments make an 
important contribution to my 
understanding of the topics discussed 
in lecture.
7.7%
44.6%
32.3%
7.7%
7.7%
4. ArcView has helped me understand 
Global Change concepts and 
principles.
13.8%
56.9%
20.0%
4.6%
4.6%
5. I feel confident in my ability to use 
ArcView to construct models.
24.6%
67.7%
4.6%
3.1%
0.0%
6. ArcView helps me understand the 
relationships among different 
variables.
18.5%
63.1%
10.8%
6.2%
1.5%



II. Lecture Experience	


Strongly 
Agree
Agree
Neutral
Disagree
Strongly 
Disagree
1. Having several instructors give the 
lecture contributes to my 
understanding of the concepts and 
principles related to Global Change 
II.
38.5%
46.2%
10.8%
3.1%
1.5%
2. The transition from one instructor 
to the next interferes with my ability 
to learn.
6.2%
7.7%
12.3%
66.2%
7.7%
3. I have learned a good deal of 
factual material in this course.
36.9%
56.9%
6.2%
0.0%
0.0%
4. The knowledge I have gained 
through this course has improved my 
ability to participate in debates about 
global change.
30.8%
63.1%
6.2%
0.0%
0.0%
5. This course has encouraged me to 
think critically about global change.
46.2%
50.8%
3.1%
0.0%
0.0%
6. It is difficult for me to understand 
how topics covered in the lecture fit 
together.
3.1%
16.9%
7.7%
60.0%
12.3%


III. Web Experience


Strongly 
Agree
Agree
Neutral
Disagree
Strongly 
Disagree
1. Using the web has made a 
significant contribution to my 
learning.
32.3%
50.8%
12.3%
4.6%
0.0%
2. The links from the Global Change 
website to other internet websites 
have provided me with helpful 
information.
15.4%
24.6%
50.8%
6.2%
3.1%
3. I feel confident in my ability to use 
the web to gather information about 
global change.
52.3%
41.5%
4.6%
1.5%
0.0%
4. I have used the web skills I have 
acquired in this course to complete 
academic work for other classes.
16.9%
43.1%
26.2%
12.3%
1.5%
5. I have utilized the web skills I have 
developed in this course to investigate 
areas that interest me.
21.5%
38.5%
29.2%
9.2%
1.5%







IV. Personal Growth	


Strongly 
Agree
Agree
Neutral
Disagree
Strongly 
Disagree
1. I have deepened my interest in the 
subject matter of this course.
39.4%
51.5%
6.1%
1.5%
1.5%
2. I am enthusiastic about the course 
material.
31.8%
50.0%
15.2%
1.5%
1.5%
3. I feel like I make an important 
contribution to the learning of others 
in the course.
12.1%
36.4%
40.9%
9.1%
1.5%
4. I have had opportunities to help 
other students in the course learn 
about Global Change concepts and 
principles.
10.6%
42.4%
34.8%
7.6%
4.5%
5. I feel empowered to act on what I 
have learned.
22.7%
57.6%
16.7%
3.0%
0.0%


Glossary:  Special Terms Used in the LT2 website

Assessment Ð What do faculty who are experimenting with interactive learning strategies (see 
constructivism) mean by "assessment?" In the simplest terms, assessment is a process for 
gathering and using data about student learning and performance. The LT2 website distinguishes 
the following two types of assessment:
_ Formative assessments Ð activities that simultaneously (1) provide instructors with 
feedback about how and what students are learning, which the instructors can then 
immediately use to adjust and improve their teaching efforts; and (2) foster student 
learning directly because the students are in the process of performing such activities. 
(For more information, see the FLAG website, which features classroom assessment 
techniques that have been shown to improve learning.)
_ Summative assessments Ð formal examinations or tests, the results of which faculty use to 
demonstrate in a way that is definitive and visible to people outside the course the degree to 
which students have accomplished the courseÕs learning goals.  

Tom Angelo (1995) defines assessment as an ongoing process aimed at understanding and 
improving student learning. It involves:
_ making our expectations explicit and public; 
_ setting appropriate criteria and high standards for learning quality; 
_ systematically gathering, analyzing, and interpreting evidence to determine how 
well performance matches these expectations and standards; and 
_ using the resulting information to document, explain, and improve performance.  
When it is embedded effectively within larger institutional systems, assessment can help us 
focus our collective attention, examine our assumptions, and create a shared academic 
culture dedicated to assuring and improving the quality of higher education. 

Bricoleur Ð a French term for a person who is adept at finding, or simply recognizing in their 
environment, resources that can be used to build something she or he believes is important and 
then putting resources together in a combination to achieve her or his goals.  

Constructivism Ð According to Schwandt, constructivism is a "philosophical perspective 
interested in the ways in which human beings individually and collectively interpret or construct 
the social and psychological world in specific linguistic, social, and historical contexts" (1997, 
p.19). During the last 20 or so years, cognitive psychologists (James Wertsch, Barbara Rogoff, 
and Jean Lave, among many others) have found that constructivist theories of how people 
construct meaning are closely aligned with their observations of how people learn:  knowledge is 
mediated by social interactions and many other features of cultural environments. 

Learning activity Ð As used in the LT2 case studies, learning activity refers to specific pursuits 
that faculty expect students to undertake in order to learn. Thus, "Computer-enabled hands-on 
experimentation is a useful way to get students to take responsibility for their own learning" is a 
statement of belief that a particular learning activity (experimentation) helps realize a particular 
teaching principle.  

Learning environment Ð According to Wilson, a learning environment is a place where learners 
may work together and support each other as they use a variety of tools and information 
resources in their pursuit of learning goals and problem-solving activities (1995). This definition 
of learning environments is informed by constructivist theories of learning. 

Microcomputer-Based Laboratories (MBL) Ð A set of laboratories that involve the use of (1) 
electronic probes or other electronic input devices, such as video cameras, to gather data that 
students then feed into computers, which convert the data to digital format and which students 
analyze using graphical visualization software; and (2) a learning cycle process, which includes 
written prediction of the results of an experiment, small group discussions, observation of the 
physical event in real time with the MBL tools, and comparison of observations with predictions. 

Seven Principles for Good Practice in Undergraduate Education Ð These principles, 
published in "Seven Principles for Good Practice in Undergraduate Education" by Zelda 
Gamson and Arthur Chickering, were synthesized from their research on undergraduate 
education (1991). According to their findings, good practice entails:
1. Encouraging student-faculty contact.  
2. Encouraging cooperation among students.  
3. Encouraging active learning.  
4. Giving prompt feedback.  
5. Emphasizing time on task.  
6. Communicating high expectations.  
7. Respecting diverse talents and ways of learning.  

Teaching principles Ð Teaching principles refer to a faculty memberÕs more general beliefs 
about, or philosophy of, learning. For example, the idea that "students should take responsibility 
for their own learning" is a teaching principle. It is general and informed by a theory of learning. 
It does not refer to something specific that one might actually do in a course.  
References

Angelo, T.A. (1995). Assessing (and defining) assessment. The AAHE Bulletin, 48(3), 7.

Birnbaum, R. (1988). How colleges work: The cybernetics of academic organization and 
leadership (1st ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Chickering, A.W., and Gamson, Z.F. (1991). Applying the seven principles for good practice in 
undergraduate education. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 47, 63-69.

Schwandt, Thomas A. (1997). Qualitative inquiry: A dictionary of terms. Thousand Oaks, CA: 
Sage.

Weick, K.E. (1976). Educational organizations as loosely coupled systems.  Administrative 
Science Quarterly, 21 (1), 1-19.

Wilson, B. G. (1995). Metaphors for instruction: Why we talk about learning environments. 
Educational Technology, 35(5), 25-30. Available at 
http://www.cudenver.edu/~bwilson/metaphor.html.






a These data were gathered, analyzed, and provided by an evalu