Engaging the Global Community and Exploring the Human Experience:
Shared Learning Outcomes
Just as the measure of a human brain is not its number of neurons but rather the
density of the interconnections between them, so is the long-term value of an
education to be found not merely in the accumulation of knowledge or skills but in the
capacity to forge fresh connections between them, to integrate different elements from
one’s education and experience and bring them to bear on new challenges and
problems
--The Study of Undergraduate Education at Stanford (2012), in
“Principles and Practices of Integrative Liberal Learning”1
A. Integrative knowledge:
1. Students draw conclusions by connecting examples, facts, or theories from more than one
field of study or perspective
2. Students apply skills, abilities, theories, or methodologies gained in one situation to
contribute to their understanding of a problem or issue2
From the Human Experience CFP: Evidence of integration of courses should include:
1) Coordination of syllabi and
2) A shared or paired assignment (for future assessment), but may also include a shared text or
opportunities outside the classroom
B. Effective Communication, Global Version (writing):
1. Students can articulate a defensible thesis;
2. Students can support an argument using evidence provided through course materials
B. Effective Communication, Human Experience Version (writing):
1. Students can support a thesis with appropriate, credible evidence
2. Students can identify and evaluate appropriate primary and secondary sources (both print
and online)
1http://www.aacu.org/meetings/annualmeeting/AM14/documents/PrinciplesandPracticesof
IntegrativeLearning.pdf
2
AAC&U Value Rubric
Integrative Learning: Scope and Claims
One of the oddest things about the university is that it calls itself a “community of
scholars” yet it organizes itself in a way that conceals the intellectual links of that
community from those who don’t already see them. I trace this oddity to . . . the
assumption that the natural unit of instruction is the autonomous course, one not in
direct dialogue with other courses. The classes being taught at any moment on campus
represent rich potential conversations between scholars and across disciplines. But
since these conversations are experienced as a series of monologues, the possible links
are apparent only to the minority of students who can connect disparate ideas on their
own.
--Gerald Graff, “Colleges are Depriving Students of a Connected
View of Scholarship” Chronicle of Higher Education February 13,
1991
Elements of integration:
 Connects across disciplines
 Coheres around thematic, problem- and inquiry-centered courses
 Builds over course of undergraduate experience
 Develops ‘whole person’
 Connects curriculum, co-curriculum, experiential; service
 Prepares students to tackle complex and unscripted problems
 Promotes adaptability and creativity
 Incorporates and reiterates foundational skills (written and oral communication)
Groundbreakers and Advocacy:
Ernest Boyer and Arthur Levine, A Quest for Common Learning: The Aims of General
Education (Princeton, NJ: Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, 1981).
Ernest Boyer, College: The Undergraduate Experience in America, Carnegie Foundation for
the Advancement of Teaching (New York: Harper and Row, 1987).
Gerald Graff, Clueless in Academe: How Schooling Obscures the Life of the Mind (New
Haven: Yale University Press, 2003).
American Association of Colleges and Universities Greater Expectations: A New Vision for
Learning as a Nation Goes to College (Washington, DC: AAC&U 2002).
Emphasizes:
 Intentional learning and reflection (metacognition and portfolios)
 Intentional teaching (scholarship of teaching and learning)
 Integrative assessment (correlating with developmental stage)3
3
See also: https://www.aacu.org/resources/curriculum/index.cfm
Review and Next Steps:
Mary Taylor Huber and Pat Hutchings, “Integrative Learning: Mapping the Terrain” Academy
in Transition Series; Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching (Washington DC:
AAC&U, 2004).
Defining and Diagrammed (Public Education and Professions):
Robin Fogarty, “Ten Ways to Integrate The Curriculum” Educational Leadership 49:2 (1991).
Ronald Harden, “The Integration Ladder: A Tool for Curriculum Planning and Evaluation”
Medical Education 34 (2000).
One way to describe integration levels (the Exploring the Natural World CFP uses it):
 Shared teaching: “The shared planning and teaching takes place in two disciplines
in which overlapping concepts or ideas emerge as organizing elements.”
 Correlation: Subject-based courses take up most of the curriculum time but
integrated teaching sessions bring together areas of interest common to both
subjects.
 Complementary: Focus is a common theme or topic. While there is still subjectbased teaching, the integrated sessions are the major feature of the course.
 Webbed: Common theme (the focus of student learning) is viewed through lens of
subjects or disciplines that still demonstrate how their subject contributes to
student understanding of the theme or problem.
Marcella Kysilka, “Understanding the Integrated Curriculum” The Curriculum Journal 9:2
(1998).
Recounting Experience:
Kathryn Blanchard, “Modeling Lifelong Learning: Collaborative Teaching Across Disciplinary
Lines” Teaching Theology and Religion 15:4 (2012).