2005 Carnegie Scholar Reflection
“Discovering Moments of Integration”
A Reflection on My Carnegie Scholars Residency
Submitted by Jack Mino,
Holyoke Community College
July 10, 2005
Like a great Italian meal, the 2005 Carnegie Scholars Residency was an inspired combination of no more than four fresh ingredients prepared in perfect balance. First ingredient, the people – a diverse group of teachers (including the 21 Carnegie Foundation Scholars, Senior Scholars, and Carnegie Foundation Staff) dedicated to serving the learner with a profound generosity of mind, heart, and soul. Second ingredient, the place – an eco-friendly hilltop conference center built on a human scale to overlook the city of San Francisco and the surrounding hills, inhabited by mountain lions and kestrels, and featuring Jerusalem stone patios and a cascading natural spring (a.k.a., “the water feature”). Third ingredient, the support – the food and accommodations were lavish and abundant but it was the social, intellectual, and spiritual support that made the residency a transformational experience. Fourth ingredient, the design of the residency – the preparation (including the creation of our web-based personal profiles and project snapshots), our brilliant project work groups of seven, the large group plenaries led by Lee Shulman, dinner at Campo di Bocce, and darts at the Crown and Harp. Taken together, these were the essential ingredients of a transformational professional development experience for me. As Lee Shulman counseled and all of us understood, “Once a Carnegie Scholar, always a Carnegie Scholar.” And to make the Italian food metaphor more than figurative, we’ve made plans to cook for each other during our 2006 January Residency and Lee invited us to his home to celebrate and honor our newly established community of scholars. A La Familia!
Some Residency Highlights in Loose Chronological Order
* During the first three days or so of the residency the butterflies abounded. Unfortunately, reflection only prompted more anxiety. Was my project really any good? Was I really a qualified academic? Did I have the scholarly capabilities to carry out this research? In short I was having a crisis of confidence. I was able to work through such deeply felt self-doubt only with the generous support and affirmation provided by my project group: David Geelan (Secondary Education – University of Alberta), Rona Halualani (Communication Studies, San Jose University), Michael Smith (History – Ithaca College), Tricia Ferrett (Interdisciplinary Science – Carleton College), Mark Cladis (Religious Studies – Brown University), Joanne Stewart (Chemistry – Hope College), Mary Huber (Carnegie Foundation), and Richard Gale (Carnegie Foundation). Through a simple but ingenious process of peer review (including independent and group reviews of projects in writing and in person), we developed the trust necessary to be vulnerable and thus see the “invisible” in each of our projects. And it was these discoveries we made together that restored my confidence and moved me to the next level in my project design.
* One afternoon midway through the residency everything came together as if it was fated: a magnificently rich sample of student writing, a “sympatico” partner from my project group (Tricia Ferrett) who like me was an intellectual nomad roaming the disciplinary territories of academia, and a simple but fertile method for data gathering – close reading of student text. Reading together in a pine grove below the conference center we discovered some of the precise mechanisms students use to integrate their learning across disciplines. Though unplanned, it happened as a result of many months of preparation. And though it took less than an hour, it will have a lasting impact throughout and beyond the life of my project, particularly the methodology for “discovering moments of integration.”
* One of the last project group exercises of the residency involved defining, describing, and explaining Integrative Learning, in effect operationalizing it. The task was a difficult one and we were tired and feeling uninspired. Like the “3 Pillars of Chemistry” (thanks Joanne & Tricia), we were challenged to make sense of and synthesize “35 Pillars of Integrative Learning,” i.e., 35 categories of terms, phrases, and expressions from a previously brainstormed list. After a number of false starts we intuitively came to a solution – explain Integrative Learning by doing it! Capitalizing on the unique strengths of each member of our group, we created a portrait of integrative learning in the form of a fictional case study. As each project group represented their conception of Integrative Learning, a “natural” progression emerged. The first group distilled the essential elements of Integrative Learning and articulated a clear and comprehensive definition. The second group followed up with an application if you will, a “thick” description of the how, why, where, and when of Integrative Learning. The last group, (my project group in what can only be described as “just in time teaching”), performed the case study as a synthesis of Integrative Learning. Our presentation received a standing ovation and to quote a member of the second group, our group “kicked ass” but only in the most good-natured way.
* On the last night of the residency we were pinned in a very moving “ordination” ceremony of sorts conducted by Lee shulman and the rest of the Carnegie Foundation gang: Mary Huber, Pat Hutchings, Marcia Babb, Jim Bequette, Whitney Schlegel, and David Reichard. Our names were called and each of us received a silver “CF” (Carnegie Foundation) pin, hugs all around, and heartfelt applause and congratulations from our colleagues in residence.
* On the plane home - Here then is a preliminary list of lessons I learned while designing my SoTL research project on interdisciplinary teaching and learning at the 2005 Carnegie Scholars Residency.
1. Slow down and focus on the fundamentals – my students, course materials, and disciplinary research methods.
2. Begin at the center and ground my project-research in student learning, (the theory or conceptual framework will emerge later).
3. Be open to what students can teach me about their learning, not so much in words but in actions, i.e., what they can do with the course material.
4. Collaborate with like-minded colleagues throughout my project but especially in the early stages of the project design to push development beyond the limitations of my experience and imagination.
5. Use student work as a vehicle for “backward” course (re)design – if this is what students can and can’t do with the course material, how can I design the course to serve them better?