Yet Another Good STEM Idea: Integrated Curriculum

Higher ed reporting suffers from the same weaknesses as does higher education itself: too little understanding of and attention paid to the scholarship of higher education. As a result, the latest idea is too often promoted as a new or first idea, and there's little sense of history or connection. Example? We're in trouble in STEM education. Do we take a scholarly approach to the analysis and solution of the trouble? Not often. And especially when it comes to teaching problems and solutions, we are susceptible (or resistant) to the latest decent-sounding idea as an idea--not as evidence. This morning's "latest idea" for improving STEM education comes from Princeton president Shirley Tilghman's speech yesterday to the Council of Independent Colleges. Tilghman, a molecular biologist, recommends more interdisciplinarity in introductory science courses, and cites positive results from experiments at Princeton involving seminars and a two-year Integrated Science Curriculum, as developed by David Botstein and colleagues. Sounds good. Now how do those ideas, how do the Princeton results, fit in the body of research on effective science instruction, and how can we encourage more of it, more carefully planned and applied? For instance, how can we predict whether ideas that work at private liberal arts colleges will be a good fit for students, classrooms and departments at our two-year colleges and comprehensive universities?
scienceed / 06 - Inside Higher Ed