Overarching cultural themes and systems frame the unit, while these units themselves are more or less in a timeline from the first civilizations to the postmodern era. In each chapter Fiero includes encyclopedic entries on the landmarks which shaped the designated, historical time period. So as you are reading about the Romantic period you will see samples of: art from William Blake and Francisco Goya, the conquests of Napoleon, Darwin’s theory of natural selection, the advent of the Industrial Revolution, critiques of Beethoven’s symphonies, and an analysis of architecture including the Houses of Parliament in London. Each of these entries from various subject matters and disciplines are juxtaposed with one another under the greater context of the chapter theme and chronology. This sort of examination of the human condition and culture demonstrates that all subjects were products of the zeitgeist. Fiero says, “Landmarks in Humanities is interdisciplinary. It builds on a definition of “humanities” not as a collection of disciplines (literature, philosophy, and the arts), but as a discipline in itself: the study of humankind in its creative and communicative dimensions” (Fiero xiii).
Furthermore, she says, “Landmarks in Humanities specifies key ideas that bring focus to both teaching and learning… it reflects the thematic relationships between various works… and explains their significance in their own time, as well as for ours” (Fiero, xiii). We, at Benedictine, use this text because of its integrative and interdisciplinary structure. In these humanities classes, I have found myself discussing mathematics, scientific achievements, philosophy, literature, art and politics all in the same evening. Although we call these courses humanities, they are less like a Western Civilization class and more like a study of the human condition in all aspects of human knowledge and pursuits. I think this is how integrative education will begin. It will start like Fiero’s text, with an overarching theme (say a time period or system) and explore the problems and solutions against this context. When you have a resource like Fiero’s, you can cross-pollinate quite easily. We can ask questions like, “How did the Scientific Revolution give rise to the founding of United States of America?” Under such a framework, we can explore such questions – in fact, I have in my classes. The students start with how Descrates and Newton systematically removed the divine from the foundation of the universe and replaced spirituality with mathematics and a clockwork mechanism. From this we can extrapolate that reason and humankind’s intellect serve as the center of the world, not the divine presence.
From here we understand Jefferson, Madison, Franklin and others were trained in science and Newtonian physics. They were products of the Enlightenment and the emphasis on reason. And when you no longer needed a divine power to govern the cosmos, you no longer needed a divinely chosen monarch to govern the world. A new country and a new system was invented from reason and mechanism. We explored these connections between physics, philosophy, politics and literature by cross-pollinating ideas and investigating unconventional connections. By exploring ideas without the boundaries of subject matters we could travel in all sorts of directions and have natural conversations about a people – putting the human back in humanities. Why can’t all information be taught in the same way? Why is science or math removed from the history and context which helped shape its progress? Why are politics discussed without the backdrop of philosophy and literature? Integrative education simply means blurring the boundaries between disciplines until those boundaries evaporate. Instead of framing knowledge under headings like mathematics, English or social studies, why don’t we use Shoemaker’s model of framing knowledge with society, systems, changes, or power? Or we could use Fiero’s divisions of zeitgeist, where the new products of a generation of people emerged from that people’s culture and societal organization. In ways, this connects integrative education with Palmer and Zajonc, emphasizing the humanness in the studies of knowledge. From this, values, aspirations, altruism and purpose can be developed – by cross-pollinating ideas from within a time period and between the past and present.
We need to stop titling classes World History or American Literature, and we need to start titling them like Arthur Zajonc’s Eros and Insight. When I was at North Central College, completing my Masters degree in Liberal Arts, I had the pleasure of taking some wonderful integrative courses: Creative Thought, The Third World, Public Discourse and Changing Models of the Universe. It’s amazing how much a course title evokes an interdisciplinary framework. We need courses which reflect Pink’s six senses, Csikszentmihalyi’s flow, and Edwards’ discipline of creativity. We need allogamous courses which encourage cross-pollination of ideas and help students find meaning in themselves and in their world. We need to start with questions and big picture frameworks, allowing students to discover their own answers by pulling from resources like Fiero’s Landmarks in Humanities. But above all, for integrative education to work, we need to focus less on a cost-benefits model, and more on the human, the humanness and the humanity of information. The industrial model offers no comfort or support to the twixter.
And if we are going to service the needs of the emerging, twentysomething demographic, we need to start fresh, at the bottom – we need integrative reform at the Kindergarten level all the way through college. This is how we will compete globally and solve the creativity crisis and educational failures plaguing our country. This is how we will implement institutional change.
references
1. Rimer, Sara. "Study: Many College Students Not Learning to Think Critically." The Hechinger Report January 18 (2011). Print. Teachers College, Columbia University
2. Pink, Daniel H. A Whole New Mind: Why Right-brainers Will Rule the Future. New York: Riverhead, 2006. Print.
3. Peat, F. David. From Certainty to Uncertainty: the Story of Science and Ideas in the Twentieth Century. Washington, D.C.: Joseph Henry, 2002. Print.
4. “Grow up? Not so fast,” By Lev Grossman. Time, January 16, 2005.
5. Robbins, Alexandra, and Abby Wilner. Quarterlife Crisis: the Unique Challenges of Life in Your Twenties. New York: J.P. Tarcher/Putnam, 2001. Print.
6. Palmer, Parker J., Arthur Zajonc, and Megan Scribner. The Heart of Higher Education: a Call to Renewal. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2010. Print.
7. Shoemaker, Jean Eklund, and Larry Lewin. "Curriculum and Assessment: Two Sides of the Same Coin." The Changing Curriculum Number 8 50.May 1993 (1993): 55-57. Print.
8. Fiero, Gloria K. Landmarks in Humanities. Boston: McGraw-Hill Higher Education, 2009. Print.
9. Tufte, Edward. "PowerPoint Is Evil; Power Corrupts. PowerPoint Corrupts Absolutely." Wired Sept. 2003. Print. Issue 11.09
10. Reynolds, Garr. Presentation Zen: Simple Ideas on Presentation Design and Delivery. Berkeley, CA: New Riders Pub., 2008. Print.
11. Reynolds, Garr. "Storytelling Lessons from Bill Cosby." Rev. of Keynote Speeches and Comedic Career. Web log post. Presentation Zen. Garr Reynolds, 28 June 2011. Web. 30 June 2011.
No comments:
Post a Comment