Difference between revisions of "Pkal-keck-webinar"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(→Computational and Multidisciplinary Curriculum and Research Initiative) |
|||
(4 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
− | + | == Computational and Multidisciplinary Curriculum and Research Initiative == | |
− | + | * Supported by the W. M. Keck Foundation | |
+ | * Mike Deibel and Charlie Peck (deibemi at earlham.edu, charliep at cs.earlham.edu) | ||
+ | * Earlham College, Richmond Indiana | ||
+ | * Summer research projects and course modules with computational aspects across a wide variety of science disciplines | ||
− | + | ---- | |
− | + | A. Our work was facilitated by | |
+ | # Regular and established multidisciplinary meetings/communication (SciFri, SciDiv) | ||
+ | # Project of interest to the campus and off-campus communities and interest to students | ||
+ | # Project intentionally chosen to be as multidisciplinary as possible (approach and process) | ||
− | + | B. Barriers which we experienced | |
+ | # Lack of time in faculty and student schedules for new initiatives | ||
+ | # Staffing limitations at small schools, small departments have less inherit flexibility. | ||
+ | # Disciplines sometimes speak different "languages" | ||
+ | # Students often like to compartmentalize their education | ||
+ | C. Strategies and tactics for overcoming the barriers | ||
+ | # Regular face-to-face meetings and lots of electronic communication | ||
+ | # Creativity and adaptability of faculty | ||
+ | # Common presentation material or guest presentations of material for courses and research | ||
+ | # Shared field work, shared meals | ||
− | + | D. Assessment | |
+ | # External evaluation, on-site visits | ||
+ | # Internal surveys | ||
+ | # Personal analysis and reflections by faculty each year | ||
+ | # Exam questions (criterion referenced assessment) | ||
− | + | E. Sustainability of multidisciplinary work | |
− | + | # Course module vs. separate course | |
− | + | # Service learning - outside of a course or built into course | |
− | + | # Involving pre-tenure faculty | |
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | E. | ||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− |
Latest revision as of 10:25, 20 July 2009
Computational and Multidisciplinary Curriculum and Research Initiative
- Supported by the W. M. Keck Foundation
- Mike Deibel and Charlie Peck (deibemi at earlham.edu, charliep at cs.earlham.edu)
- Earlham College, Richmond Indiana
- Summer research projects and course modules with computational aspects across a wide variety of science disciplines
A. Our work was facilitated by
- Regular and established multidisciplinary meetings/communication (SciFri, SciDiv)
- Project of interest to the campus and off-campus communities and interest to students
- Project intentionally chosen to be as multidisciplinary as possible (approach and process)
B. Barriers which we experienced
- Lack of time in faculty and student schedules for new initiatives
- Staffing limitations at small schools, small departments have less inherit flexibility.
- Disciplines sometimes speak different "languages"
- Students often like to compartmentalize their education
C. Strategies and tactics for overcoming the barriers
- Regular face-to-face meetings and lots of electronic communication
- Creativity and adaptability of faculty
- Common presentation material or guest presentations of material for courses and research
- Shared field work, shared meals
D. Assessment
- External evaluation, on-site visits
- Internal surveys
- Personal analysis and reflections by faculty each year
- Exam questions (criterion referenced assessment)
E. Sustainability of multidisciplinary work
- Course module vs. separate course
- Service learning - outside of a course or built into course
- Involving pre-tenure faculty