Prev: Scaling Up Research-Based Education for Undergraduates: Problem-Based Learning		Next: The Interdisciplinary Laboratory: An Integration of Chemistry, Biology, and Physics
		CUR Home               Printable Version

An Agenda for Institutional Change 

Robert J. Thompson, Jr., Dean of Trinity College
Lee W. Willard, Associate Dean of Trinity College

Duke University
Durham, NC 27708


Duke’s process of enhancing undergraduate education began with the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools self-study undertaken as part of our ten-year reaccreditation. During 1996-1998, faculty throughout the university were engaged in the process of evaluating our current status and future directions with regard to the theme of the self-study option: Balancing the Roles of a Research University: Teaching and Research; Graduate and Undergraduate Education.

Even though we had seen an increase in the quality and esteem of our faculty and an increase in the quality of our undergraduate students during the preceding decade, the critical analyses we had undertaken indicated that change in undergraduate education was needed. Clearly, our students were stretching us – but it was also apparent that we were not stretching them. Our curriculum had been characterized by an emphasis on choice, and students had exercised that choice, often to their disadvantage. For example, a 1996-97 study showed that 47% of our students had completely omitted an area of knowledge, and within this group, 19% had taken no courses in foreign language, 13% had taken no courses in natural science and 10% had taken no courses in mathematics.

However, our analyses also revealed that many among the faculty had already undertaken pedagogical innovations and there was widespread receptivity for change. Using NSF funding we had revised our introductory calculus course, enhanced other introductory science courses and developed magnet laboratories with support of the Howard Hughes Medical Institute. We had used our NSF-RAIRE funds to infuse problem-based learning in the biology, chemistry, and physics curricula and provided a model for TA training in the sciences. Other projects had led to the incorporation of instructional technology and more active student learning in the classroom, and several faculty had incorporated service learning and research-based components into courses. Perhaps most notable, as identified in the Boyer Report, Duke University developed a living-learning experience, entitled FOCUS, for first year students. This program, involving approximately 25% of our first-year class, provides clusters of three interdisciplinary seminars designed around a common theme. FOCUS clusters in science include Exploring The Mind, Biotechnology and Social Change, and Health Care and Society. 

Financial commitments supported our efforts to strengthen undergraduate education. Beginning with the class entering in 1997, Duke instituted a two-step tuition increase that over four years increased available funds by $3 million, of which $2 million was earmarked for faculty development and $1 million was earmarked specifically for enhancements to undergraduate education. Finally, Duke launched a $2 billion capital campaign. These financial commitments at the outset made it clear that funds would be available to support the needed pedagogical and curricular changes that we were ready to undertake. 

Figure 1: Students and their instructor hold class on the lawn.

 
Curriculum Review

In September 1997, William Chafe, Dean of the Faculty of Arts & Sciences, formed a review committee with the broad charge to formulate a curriculum that would ensure that Duke students are exposed to a diversity of world cultures, are familiar with the principles and methods of science, and have the foreign language proficiency necessary to engage another culture in that language. In addition, Dean Chafe requested that we continue the efforts to improve our university writing program and develop methods to enhance the senior year experience. The Committee sought to formulate a curriculum that would provide our students with a quality education that was distinctive and took advantage of the rich resources of a major research university. 

The Review Committee was comprised of respected senior faculty from the humanities, natural sciences, and social sciences and three Trinity College Deans, who brought considerations of cost, implementation, and policy to the committee. The Review Committee met weekly for one and a half years to establish what a liberal education should be for the 21^st century.

The Review Committee first considered how a university curriculum should fit into to the larger context of the institution and relate to a dynamic society. The challenges facing our graduates, the interests and values of our faculty, increased student capabilities, and developments in knowledge and methods, all required a corresponding change in both what is taught and how it is taught. Moreover, curricular and pedagogical change needed to be informed not just by tradition, but also by research about teaching and learning, national and international conversations about education, and analysis of similar efforts at peer institutions. In addition, curricular change would necessitate a rethinking and a restructuring that would reflect the institutional view about what was fundamental for an undergraduate education. The Curriculum Review Committee understood from the beginning that the curriculum change process was not merely modification at the edges; rather, it would be necessary to formulate an intellectual agenda that served as the underlying rationale for an entirely new curriculum.

Philosophy

Duke’s mission statement speaks to elevating the spirit as well as the mind and to promoting a sense of the obligations and rewards of citizenship. Thus, the Curriculum Review Committee reaffirmed Duke’s commitment to fostering students’ intellectual, personal, and social development and to our longstanding tradition of providing a liberal education. This liberal education includes the ability to think critically, rationally, and in historically and ethically informed ways, to analyze and evaluate information and problems, and to communicate persuasively and effectively. Indeed, a strong liberal arts education is essential to ensure that our students have the breadth of knowledge and skills and intellectual flexibility to prepare them to be leaders in their professions and communities, to be lifelong learners, and to have satisfying intellectual and personal lives.

As a research university, Duke is committed to the generation as well as the transmission of knowledge. We want to connect our undergraduates to the rich continuum of scholarship at Duke and thereby broaden and deepen the ways in which our students think about knowledge. We want students to be epistemologically sophisticated, and we want the Duke educational experience to be inquiry-based. We intended to link the discovery and learning processes and have our students participate along with our faculty in the generation of knowledge, thereby experiencing the joys and rewards of discovery.

The Curriculum Review Committee expressed the belief that the Duke educational experience ought to be intellectually rigorous and distinctly formative. Furthermore, the curriculum is not simply the totality of courses offered, but rather an organization of the types and possible sequences of students’ experiences or pathways through the undergraduate course of study that results in a coherent experience. In addition, the curriculum should provide for a commonality of experience – Duke graduates should have had a common set of experiences, expectations, and skills. Because of our long history of curricular choice, the Committee did not plan a core curriculum but instead tried to delineate a core set of learning outcomes to be achieved through requirements that resulted in educational experiences that had both breadth and depth. Thus, the new curriculum would designate requirements within major domains of the Duke education, but allow for multiple ways of traversing these domains.

Core Student Learning Outcomes of a Duke Education

Fundamentally, a quality education enables students to bring meaning to information and discern competing claims based on an understanding of what is involved in formulating the claim and in making judgements. This goal calls for specific student learning outcomes that can be organized as fundamental intellectual skills and broad dispositions/understandings. We defined specific core learning outcomes as follows:

1. Intellectual Skills
   • Critical thinking and reasoning
   • Critical reading
   • Formulating, supporting, and evaluating an argument
   • Problem solving
   • Analyzing, integrating, and synthesizing information and ideas
   • Writing effectively
     
2. Broad Dispositions/Understandings
   • Epistemologically sophisticated
   • Knowledge about knowledge
   • Fluency across the boundaries of knowledge
   • Integration of knowledge across disciplines
   • Cross cultural fluency
   • Scientific and quantitative literacy
   • Civic and social responsibility (active agency for community change)
   • Collaboration
   • Life-long learning

Architecture of Curriculum 2000

The committee adopted a matrix as the organizational structure of the experiences students need in order to develop the intellectual skills and dispositions of the student learning outcomes. The matrix structure accommodates both general education courses and courses required for the major, thus intentionally blurring the distinction. The basic element of Curriculum 2000 is the course - the 34-course graduation requirement was maintained, as was the 10-course requirement for the major. However, a course can accomplish more than one objective: it simultaneously can address a substantive topic, teach ways of knowing specific skills, or address the relationship of a specific topic to a broader, often interdisciplinary, theme. A key characteristic of the new curriculum was the recognition that courses in the major can simultaneously contribute to objectives of general education. 

The Curriculum Review Committee began by formulating the areas of knowledge that provide one axis of the matrix, then focused on the more difficult task of delineating the domains constituting the horizontal axis. The resulting matrix is shown in Table 1. 

Table 1: Curriculum 2000

The matrix captures four inter-related components of the curriculum: areas of knowledge, modes of inquiry, focused inquiries, and competencies. The interrelatedness of these dimensions is an essential element in the development of students’ skills of integration and synthesis. All courses carry an area of knowledge designation, and they also provide educational experiences with up to two modes of inquiry, focused inquiries, or competencies.

Areas of Knowledge: The ways in which knowledge has been organized reflect differences in both subject matter and methods of discovery. Duke has grouped disciplines within the broad areas of natural science and mathematics, social sciences and humanities, which we further sub-divide into arts and literatures and civilizations. All students are required to take three courses in each of the four areas of knowledge.

Modes of Inquiry: Modes of inquiry refer to the ways in which knowledge and understanding are generated along a broad spectrum anchored, at one end with reasoning rooted in logic and mathematics and, on the other end, with approaches to knowledge which emphasize interpretation and aesthetic sensibility. All students are required to take two courses that provide exposure to quantitative, inductive, and deductive reasoning (data acquisition and description, quantitative methods, and concepts of deductive and inductive reasoning) and two courses that expose them to interpretative and aesthetic approaches (ranging from theatre, dance, music, the visual arts, to creative writing, literary and cultural studies, the history of art, philosophy, and religious studies). 

Focused Inquiries: Complementing areas of knowledge and modes of inquiry, are important cross-cutting intellectual themes representing enduring focal points of inquiry and application of knowledge to which many disciplines contribute. Three themes were selected, based on the expectation that Duke students will need to address these issues and because our faculty is particularly well poised to address them. All students are required to take two courses that provide exposure to each of these three themes:

Cross-Cultural Inquiry: The ability to identify culture and cultural differences across time and place is essential if students are to explore, understand, and analyze differences among peoples and social systems within national and international contexts. Cross-Cultural Inquiry employs a comparative or analytical perspective to study the dynamics and interactions of political, economic, aesthetic, social and cultural differences, with particular attention to issues of identity, diversity, globalization, and power.

Science Technology and Society: To critically analyze and evaluate scientific and technological issues, students must understand how science and technology have influenced the direction and development of society and conversely how the needs of society have influenced the direction of science and technology. 

Ethical Inquiry: Ethical Inquiry allows students to critically assess the consequences of actions, both individual and social, and to sharpen their understanding of the ethical and political implications of public and personal decision-making. 

Competencies: Competencies represent specific fluencies, expertise, and skills that students will need to live and work successful in a rapidly changing and complex world. The new curriculum delineates three specific competencies with varying required exposures:

Foreign Language: Proficiency in a foreign language is essential for students to engage with other cultures and to be exposed to ways of thinking other then their own. Students need to be aware of how language frames and structures understanding and effective communication. 

Writing: Effective writing is essential to thinking, learning and communicating. The writing requirement comprises a first year writing course and two subsequent courses on writing in the disciplines. The first-year course provides students with the opportunity to develop the essential skills of academic writing, including critical reading, analysis, argument, and dialectical thinking. In addition, students learn to compose, draft, and revise clear prose and work with primary and secondary sources. Writing in the discipline courses further develops students’ skills with integration, synthesis and arguments within the conventions of specific academic disciplines. 

Research: As a research university, Duke tries to engage undergraduates in the learning and discovery process. Students acquire basic competence through research courses where they learn the procedures and methods for analyzing materials, and produce a research paper or project appropriate to a specific discipline. At the next level, students participate in mentored projects, planning a project in conjunction with a faculty member, implementing the study, and analyzing results as is typical of an independent study, lab project, or capstone experience. Further along the continuum, students generate problems and projects themselves, plan the design of the study, and are actively involved in discovery, analysis, and presentation, as is typical of an honors project. At each of these levels, research develops in students an understanding of the processes by which new knowledge is generated, organized, accessed, and synthesized. Such experiences foster a capacity for the critical evaluation of knowledge and the methods of discovery.

Curriculum 2000 emphasizes various dimensions to learning - the direct substantive knowledge one receives in a disciplinary area, the ways of learning and knowing how to express new knowledge, and the thematic connections of knowledge across disciplines. The curriculum underlies the integrative, rather than disparate, features of an education appropriate for the 21st century. This interrelated structure has several specific advantages. First, it explicitly recognizes that courses in many departments and divisions may offer exposures to similar competencies. Quantitative skills are not just taught in mathematics courses, nor is comparative knowledge about different cultures only taught in social science departments. This provides students with considerable choice in the ways in which they accomplish the curricular requirements. Second, the structure encourages faculty to develop courses that match their disciplinary interests in ways that also meet common, general education, curricular priorities. Thus, while fostering student and faculty choice, the curriculum provides a common framework for the Duke educational experience.

Process

With any major initiative, such as a curriculum revision, attention must be given to processes that are institutionally specific and appropriate. Many initiatives yield proposals that are not adopted or that do not result in the intended impact. How do we assist faculty and departments in coalescing around new approaches? Our experiences in formulating and implementing a new curriculum have given us experience with this larger question.

Whereas the primary goal was to revise the undergraduate curriculum, there was a corresponding goal of assuring faculty ownership of the new curriculum. Although changes in the curriculum need to be adopted through faculty governing bodies, faculty ownership means more than the technical aspects of governance, although these are obviously essential when proposals can be voted in or out. More fundamental is faculty support of both the outcome and the process that produced it. While it may not be reasonable to expect that all faculty will embrace all of the details of the new curriculum, we would argue that it is essential that the faculty embrace the open, responsive, and respectful processes that produced it.

If faculty ownership is essential, what obstacles can get in the way of this process? One obstacle is inertia: the reality is that it is much easier to maintain the status quo than to undertake any new initiative. To overcome inertia, a compelling case must be made, and cogent rationale provided, for the need for change and for the receptivity to change. A second obstacle is vested interests. These interests represent a more active level of resistance to change if change is perceived to threaten the existing status of an individual faculty member, a department, or an entire division. A third general obstacle is value risk. Value risk means that proposed changes could serve to threaten the existing values or serve to realign the value hierarchy in an institution. The fourth obstacle is that of the perceived risk to resources. Members of the community need to be assured that there will be sufficient resources to implement any new initiative, and the question of the possibility of redistribution of resources needs to be addressed from the outset. Obviously, if the new approach needs to be funded through a redistribution of existing resources, this exacerbates the potential for resistance from those who might lose resources in the process. However, if there are sufficient new resources coming into play, then resistance can turn into competition for new resources. Whatever the actual situation, clear communication is necessary so that there is a common understanding across the community of what is, and what is not, at stake.

If faculty ownership is the goal, and typical obstacles are discernible, what are the primary methods to successfully accomplish the goal? Faculty ownership cannot occur unless there is faculty involvement in every significant stage of the process. Moreover, faculty leadership (in contrast to involvement and participation) is also essential. In our curriculum review process, particular care was taken to ensure appropriate faculty leadership and to enable broad faculty participation. For example, the accreditation self-study was led by an overall faculty steering committee and two sub-committees, one focused on undergraduate education and another focused on graduate education. These faculty were invited to participate based on the high regard with which they were held in the community for their scholarship but also because of their ability to serve as a statespersons in representing interests larger than their own disciplinary perspective. Similarly, the Curriculum Review Committee was comprised of individuals who had either participated in the self-study committees or were strong and respected faculty leaders across the Humanities, Social Sciences, and Natural Sciences. Finally, when specific faculty task forces were launched to address specific sub-components of the overall curriculum, participants were chosen because of their interests and expertise in the area and their ability to be articulate statespersons.

Beyond faculty involvement, it is also necessary to have transactional processes. That is, committees need to interact with the larger community in ways that actively solicit input and respond to criticisms and suggestions. This step is critical in eliciting faculty ownership of the process. It also allows the committee to see what objections might arise and how these might be substantively addressed. We solicited both faculty and student participation through numerous open forums during which preliminary drafts were presented and input was solicited. The responsiveness of the Committee is reflected in the numbers of revised proposals; the final version of the matrix presented above was, in fact, matrix #22. This intentionally open process broadened the base of participation and resulted in a better and more acceptable proposal than the Committee itself would have been able to generate.

In any such endeavor, it is also important to connect specifically with customary structures and processes. Although new approaches such as a curriculum revision are typically undertaken by a committee or task force formulated for the specific task, changes must connect with existing structures as functions turn over, and, as soon as feasible, the ad hoc structures should be eliminated. For example, once the new Duke curriculum was passed, some 3,000 existing courses had to be coded in terms of the new curricular designations. Typically, course designations are handled through the Arts & Sciences Committee on Courses. However, this faculty committee would not have been able to handle such a bolus of courses in a very short period of time. Thus, we adopted the strategy of having the academic deans of the College accomplish this function during the summer. The first part of the function was the same as it had always been, with faculty requesting course designations that were subsequently approved by the department. However, at that point the request went to the Ad Hoc Committee of Deans, not to the Committee on Courses. After the initial bolus of courses was processed, the Ad Hoc Committee of Deans was eliminated and subsequent requests were directed to the Committee on Courses in the usual way.

Another essential component is effective management. Just as faculty and departments are going to be concerned about whether there are sufficient resources to implement a new approach, there will be a corresponding level of concern about competency to affect the new approach. A clearly identified locus of responsibility and support mechanisms must be identified to provide a convincing case that the new approach can be implemented effectively. Management and implementation should include consideration of assessment. How will it be determined whether the new approach is successful? Assessment should be designed to determine both the status of implementation and the extent to which specific objectives are being realized. The plan and infrastructure of assessment need to be formulated at the same time that the new approach is being formulated, not something that is thought about at the end of the process. 

Finally, a procedure and timeline for review helps to assure faculty ownership. That is, when and in what way will the new approach be open for review? In our case, the Arts & Sciences Council included a stipulation that a review be conducted in the fourth year. Specifying the time of the review in a very public way regularizes the process and enables the formulation of a coherent and timely approach to providing the data and analyses necessary for such a review.

Implementation of Curriculum 2000

To implement Curriculum 2000, it was first necessary to undertake the formidable task of coding the nearly 3,000 courses currently offered at Duke in terms of the new curricular designations. This process began in the spring of 1999 when faculty were asked to submit course designation requests for each course they taught. To facilitate this process, we developed a web-based procedure that enabled faculty to indicate the specific criteria that their course was intended to meet in order to warrant each designation. In summer 1999 the Trinity College Deans, serving as the College Implementation Committee, processed faculty requests after these were reviewed at the departmental level. These reviews were based on an analysis of the course syllabus and synopsis to confirm that the specific learning objectives associated with each requested designation was addressed. For example, the objectives and criteria for the Research (R) course designation are as follows:
 
Research Competency

• Objectives: We seek for students to: 
  • formulate a question, analyze material, and integrate their findings.
  • engage research resources, both through libraries and electronic means, to understand how information is accessed.
  • participate in a mentoring relationship with faculty through the interplay of independent and collaborative work.
  • develop a product that describes or exemplifies their research, whether it be in written form or presentation in a public setting.
• Requirement: Students must complete two Research-Intensive (R) exposures.
• Criteria: A course offering a Research-Intensive exposure meets all of the following criteria: R courses will encompass a broad engagement with the ways in which research is undertaken within a given field, with some attention to competing methodologies within a discipline. An R course should impart an understanding of how knowledge in the discipline is generated, organized, presented, and accessed. 
• Students can pursue research-intensive work in a variety of ways, including:
  • general education courses requiring a research paper, project, or product.
  • research-intensive courses, such as preceptorships, project-oriented laboratories, and departmental courses focusing on disciplinary research methodologies.
  • a structured series of small projects which convey disciplinary procedures and cumulatively fit the student to work in a field. These may include written critiques of original research or written assignments designed to convey disciplinary research procedures.
  • independent studies, preceptorials, and capstone experiences.
• Courses designated R must yield a major document such as a research paper, a series of reports that build upon each other, poster session, or performance, as deemed appropriate.

The tables below show that in the first round, designations for 2,197 courses were proposed. There were 675 courses for which no new codes other than area of knowledge were proposed. This was also an opportunity to drop 97 existing courses. In some cases, faculty requested new designations based on revisions they had made to address specific learning objectives. In other cases, it was simply a matter of requesting designations that corresponded to course learning objectives that were already in place. Fifty percent of the 4,706 designations proposed were approved in round one (recall, that a course can have several designations other than the area of knowledge). No proposals were rejected at this stage. Instead, faculty members were told that in terms of the course synopsis or syllabi, a good case had not yet been made for the requested designations. Faculty members were invited to resubmit their proposals to the second round. By the end of round two, 94% of all the proposed designations had been accepted.
 
Curriculum 2000 Courses

Curriculum 2000 Designations

From the outset, it was clear that there was a need to develop additional language and writing courses. However, we had to assess the field of proposed courses in terms of the requirements of the new curriculum in order to identify other specific needs. The analysis showed a need for science courses for non-science majors and for courses that met the requirements for the Science, Technology, and Society (STS) designation. A Natural Science Task Force, formed to address the issue of science education within the context of the new curriculum, outlined learning objectives and specific recommendations for the department and college. To address the need for STS courses, the Dean of Trinity College issued a Request for Proposals that offered summer salary support to faculty who would undertake the development of courses meeting STS criteria and learning objectives. 

Assessment 

The Dean of Trinity College was charged with planning and conducting the assessment of the new curriculum. This assessment has been facilitated by the concurrent implementation of a new student information system that compiles a comprehensive student database. The assessment plan for Curriculum 2000 includes components at three research levels. At the descriptive level, we are able to track the curricular choices that students make over time, the sequence of courses, and the frequencies of student participation in special programs such as the FOCUS clusters. At the analytic level, we are able to relate student-learning outcome to student variables, experience patterns, and course and faculty characteristics. The work is guided by the formulation and testing of specific hypotheses about the relationship of variables to student learning outcomes. At the experimental level, specific hypotheses about the comparative impact of specific programs can be tested through quasi-experimental designs with appropriate statistical controls. 

The assessment procedure is being conducted at multiple levels. At the overall level, the student course evaluation has been extended to include a new section in which students appraise the extent to which a specific course contributes to their progress with regard to learning objectives such as “gaining factual knowledge,” “understanding fundamental concepts, principles, or theories,” “learning to synthesize and integrate information,” and “learning to evaluate the merits or value of ideas and competing claims.” Every semester students evaluate each of their four courses. Thus we typically have more than 16,000 evaluations from over 1,000 courses each semester. This permits an evaluation of learning outcomes relative to Curriculum 2000 course designations. For example, student ratings of progress can be compared for courses designated with or without a research competency. Comparisons can also be made of courses with a research designation and, for example, those that do or do not have a writing requirement.

In addition to this assessment at the overall level, specific targeted assessments can be made of particular courses. For example, the degree to which specific learning objectives (understanding fundamental concepts, learning to analyze, or developing oral communication) are associated with research-designated courses can be determined and compared to courses with other curricular designations. Moreover, at the quasi-experimental level, matched samples of students can be generated based on demographic and other experiential characteristics, and student-learning outcomes can be compared as a function of student participation in special programs such as the FOCUS Program. The system also has the capacity to link self-appraisal of learning outcomes with actual grades. The consistent focus on delineating student-learning objectives that has characterized our approach to the new curriculum provides a rich context for assessment of our various curricular and pedagogical initiatives.

Programs and Pedagogies of Engagement

One of the most exciting aspects of the new curriculum is the prospect of innovation. There are innumerable ways in which the requirements of this new curriculum can be traversed. This flexibility allows for innovation at the level of course, combinations or clusters of courses, and specific programs. Concurrent with developing and implementing the new curriculum, Duke has been engaged in an intensive period of pedagogical and programmatic innovation. The following are representative examples.

ADVANCE: In 2000, Duke University developed a successful application to the National Science Foundation’s Program for Gender Equity in Science, Mathematics, Engineering, and Technology for “Project Advance: Developing a Resilient Cohort of Women In Quantitative Sciences.” Duke attracts women undergraduates with high self-esteem and demonstrated excellence in science and mathematics. To help this talented cohort successfully navigate our program of science and mathematics, we developed an experimental project that linked pedagogical components of the first year curriculum, introduced an innovative interdisciplinary half-credit seminar designed to develop students’ self perceptions and identity as scientists, and established a structure for guided mentorship. 

Alcohol Cluster: To help students navigate the requirements of the new curriculum and frame an intellectually coherent course of study, the University is pursuing a “cluster” model, linking areas of knowledge, inquiries and competencies through related and sequential courses. One such thematic cluster of courses has been developed around the foundational course Alcohol: Brain, Individual and Society (PSY 102). This course addresses issues of alcohol, drinking, and abuse from a variety of perspectives, including biomedical science, clinical treatment, history, and culture. The cluster course is team-taught by faculty from neurobiology, history and public policy. It provides opportunities for field trips and research projects based upon areas of interest and feeds students into upper-level departmental seminars, internships, and programs in a variety of departments.

Applied Science Certificate: Interdisciplinary certificate programs that supplement students’ experiences in their major have existed at Duke for a number of years. Two years ago, we developed the Applied Science Certificate program, which is designed to increase students’ awareness of the multidisciplinary nature of technical problems and to increase their ability to function productively in a diverse team with a common goal. The program incorporates course experiences and a capstone course, providing direct experience in team problem solving approaches to design problems associated with local industries such as IBM, Lucent Technologies and the Research Triangle Institute. 

FOCUS: FOCUS is a first semester interdisciplinary program of study that provides students with a living-learning community. FOCUS students live together as a group and work intensively with faculty members on topics of mutual interest and concern through clusters of three seminars that share common themes. The first-year writing course is specific to the theme of the FOCUS program. Each program can enroll up to 30 students with each seminar having no more than 15 participants. For Fall 2002 there were 11specific FOCUS programs: Biotechnology and Social Change, Changing Faces of Russia: Redefining Boundaries, Evolution and Humankind, Exploring the Mind, Forging Social Ideals, Health Care and Society, Humanitarian Challenges at Home and Abroad, International Pop Culture, Modern America, Origins, and Visions of Freedom. 

Research Service Learning: As a research university, Duke has a responsibility to educate students for leadership and service in a diverse democracy. Pedagogies of civic engagement such as service learning have been demonstrated to be effective but are pursued only infrequently at research universities. The primacy of the research agenda and skepticism about the intellectual rigor of service learning are powerful institutional disincentives. Duke University has been addressing the question of how service learning can be adapted to accommodate the scholarship priority of a research university. Research service learning combines features of research and service learning, enabling students to frame and pursue questions relevant to both academic inquiry and community needs and interest. Research produces knowledge and, through application, contributes to the solution of pressing issues and problems. Service learning involves structured reflection and analysis that connects social and public issues with personal experiences and development. When research is joined with service learning, there are opportunities for deeper level of inquiry-based field research which not only builds leadership and life skills, but also helps foster students’ identities as agents for change and activism in the community. The outcomes of research service learning are designed to be of tangible benefit to communities. Opportunities for research service learning are not only complementing courses in public policy and ethics, but also courses in environmental science and policy, where students apply the methodologies of field research and laboratory-based research to environmental hazards.

Infrastructure

The major thrusts of the undergraduate innovations at Duke University have been structural. The primary manifestation is the design and implementation of a new curriculum through Trinity College of Arts and Sciences. While this is the primary manifestation, it is by no means the only manifestation. Several other important structural changes enable these undergraduate innovations to be sustained and further developed.

Duke University intends to remain a premier research university and the primacy of research is a given. However, specific structural changes have been made in accordance with our goals and mission to remain a premier teaching institution as well. Faculty teaching is now given formal consideration in appointments, promotion and tenure. Students complete faculty evaluation forms in each course and these data are summarized as part of the file for promotion reviews. Department chairs are required to communicate these assessments to faculty and to work with faculty where necessary to improve their undergraduate instruction. In addition, Trinity College has established a teaching award to formally recognize outstanding teachers. Each recipient of a teaching award has an additional 1.5% increase in his or her base salary, which makes a substantial difference over the course of a faculty member’s academic career. 

The Center for Teaching, Learning, and Writing was established to support pedagogical and curricular innovations in undergraduate education. The Center has three specific functions: to develop and implement the writing program, to be a resource for graduate students and faculty for pedagogical development and innovation, and to foster scholarship on teaching and research.

Duke University has a long history of involving undergraduates in the research process, primarily through independent study courses and work-study employment. In addition, Duke has been successful in securing funding through NSF and foundations to develop a number of innovative individual and group academic year and summer research programs. However, involvement in the research process has not been as normative as we would like for Duke students. The research requirement of the new curriculum insures that all Duke students will take two research-designated courses that can prepare them for deeper involvement in research experiences. The explicit goal is to increase the number of Duke students who participate in a mentored research project from the current 25% to 50%. We have established an Office of Undergraduate Research Support to organize, coordinate, and monitor the participation of undergraduates in the university research enterprise. This office will continue to have responsibility for all existing undergraduate research programs and for the development of additional programs and necessary funding. In Spring 2001, Trinity College instituted Visible Thinking, a two-day presentation and celebration of undergraduate participation in research. Some 62 students presented in that inaugural year, and in Spring 2002 that number increased nearly 50%.

To facilitate and coordinate the process of securing external funding for pedagogical and curricular initiatives, Trinity College established the Undergraduate Education Development Group. Membership consists of the Associate Dean of Trinity College for Academic Planning, the Associate Dean of Trinity College responsible for undergraduate research support, and representatives of the Offices of Research Support, which provides information on federal and state competitive grant prospects, Corporate and Foundation Development, and Arts & Sciences Development, which identifies individual donors. This group meets bi-monthly to discuss pedagogical and curricular priorities and corresponding opportunities for funding across the three domains. This group has proven to be an effective mechanism for matching priorities with appropriate funding opportunities, and it facilitates coordination of the various grant proposals. 

Summary

Over the past decade, Duke University has pursued a series of comprehensive initiatives designed to strengthen the educational experience for its undergraduates and to infuse the undergraduate program of study with the rich resources of a major national research university. It has systematically built upon individual faculty and departmental initiatives for the development of new courses and programs and upon projects funded from such sources as NSF’s RAIRE award to create a new inquiry-based liberal arts curriculum. This new curriculum focuses on the pedagogies of engagement and the processes of inquiry, thereby systematically reinforcing the integration of research and education. The University has also put into place assessment mechanisms to evaluate on descriptive, analytical and experimental levels, the learning outcomes and intellectual development of its undergraduates. The University has also established an infrastructure to sustain this curricular reform and make the process of institutional change transparent. We feel that we have not only significantly enhanced the quality of the undergraduate education we provide, but have also provided a model for other colleges and universities to follow.
 
 
The Institution
 
Duke University is a research university with seven schools: Trinity College of Arts & Sciences, the Pratt School of Engineering, the Nicholas School of the Environment and Earth Sciences, the Divinity School, the Fuqua School of Business, the Medical School, and the Law School. Undergraduate education is provided through Trinity College of Arts & Sciences and the Pratt School of Engineering. The total Fall 2002 undergraduate enrollment is 6,200 students, with 5,300 of these in Trinity College which has 584 faculty. Duke University has a need-blind admission process and approximately 40% of students receive financial aid. Duke is a residential university that requires that all students live on campus in the first and second years. On-campus housing is guaranteed for all four years, and overall, approximately 90% of students reside on campus. The class that entered in the fall of 2002 includes 33% students of color.
 
 
Acknowledgements
 
Duke University expresses appreciation to the National Science Foundation, the Howard Hughes Medical Institute, and donors to the Campaign for Duke for support of programs described in this chapter.

Prev     Top     Next

Table of Contents

Copyright © 2003 Council on Undergraduate Research. All rights reserved.