CHI TIẾT NGHIÊN CỨU …
Tiêu đề
Undergraduate Perceptions of the Three Branches of the Arts and Sciences: An Empirical Study of Both Stated and Revealed Preferences
Tác giả
Gammon D.E.; Namaste N.; Darby A.; Giovanello S.
Năm xuất bản
2021
Source title
Journal of General Education
Số trích dẫn
0
DOI
10.5325/jgeneeduc.70.1-2.0111
Liên kết
Tóm tắt
Exploration of the breadth of the Arts and Sciences lies at the core of liberal arts education and gets prominently featured in most undergraduate general education programs. The authors of this study investigated student perceptions of the three branches of the Arts and Sciences using cohorts of high-achieving first-year college students enrolled in an innovative 3-week course designed to increase interest, familiarity, and research competency within each of the three branches. Stated and revealed preferences of these students were measured through student surveys and course work. The data often showed a retreat to pre-existing disciplinary preferences, particularly the data on revealed preferences. Students became more familiar with all three branches during the course, but their interest in Arts and Humanities and STEM decreased unless they were majoring in the branch. Also, despite the course’s emphasis on crossdisciplinarity, students informally sorted themselves into two groups: STEM students (who avoided Arts and Humanities), and non-STEM students (who avoided STEM). Faculty and administrators of general education programs will therefore need to think carefully about how to structure disciplinary and interdisciplinary coursework, especially when it comes to bridging the perceived divide between the STEM and non-STEM disciplines. © 2023 The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA.
Từ khóa
Arts and Humanities; assessment; interdisciplinarity; social sciences; STEM
Tài liệu tham khảo
Liberal education and America’s promise, (2005); What works in facilitating interdisciplinary learning in science and mathematics, (2011); Bertrand M., Mullainathan S., Do people mean what they say? Implications for subjective survey data, American Economic Review, 91, 2, pp. 67-72, (2001); Boeije H. B., Analysis in qualitative research, (2010); Brint S. G., Cantwell A. M., Hanneman R. A., The two cultures of undergraduate academic engagement, Research in Higher Education, 49, pp. 383-402, (2008); Brint S. G., Cantwell A. M., Saxena P., Disciplinary categories, majors, and undergraduate academic experiences: Rethinking Bok’s “Underachieving Colleges” thesis, Research in Higher Education, 53, pp. 1-25, (2012); Brint S., Proctor K., Murphy S. P., Turk-Bicakci L., Hanneman R. A., General education models: Continuity and change in the U.S. undergraduate curriculum, 1975–2000, Journal of Higher Education, 80, 6, pp. 605-642, (2009); Brint S., Riddle M., Turk-Bicakci L., Levy C. S., From the liberal to the practical arts in American colleges and universities: Organizational analysis and curricular change, Journal of Higher Education, 76, 2, pp. 151-180, (2005); Brint S. G., Turk-Bicakci L., Proctor K., Murphy S. P., Expanding the social frame of knowledge: Interdisciplinary, degree-granting fields in American colleges and universities, 1975–2000, The Review of Higher Education, 32, 2, pp. 155-183, (2009); Brinthaupt T. M., Hurst J. R., Johnson Q. R., Psychology degree beliefs and stereotypes: differences in the perceptions of majors and non-majors, Psychology Learning and Teaching, 15, 1, pp. 77-93, (2016); Campbell L. M., Overcoming obstacles to interdisciplinary research, Conservation Biology, 19, 2, pp. 574-577, (2005); Carnicom S., Clump M., Assessing learning style differences between honors and non-honors students, Journal of the National Collegiate Honor’s Council, 5, 2, pp. 37-44, (2004); Carpenter R. L., Hamington M., Introduction to a special volume of the Journal of General Education: Portland State University’s University Studies at 25, Journal of General Education, 67, 1–2, pp. 1-9, (2018); Chan H-Y., Lo C-Y., Ng A. K-L., Cheung D. H-C., Kiang K-M., Relation between interactive learning and prior knowledge: Insights from a general education program of science and humanities, Journal of General Education, 66, 3–4, pp. 136-165, (2017); Cognard-Black A. J., Spisak A. L., Creating a profile of an honors student: A comparison of honors and non-honors students at public research universities in the United States, Journal of the National Collegiate Honor’s Council, 20, 1, pp. 123-157, (2019); Dartnall T., Artificial intelligence and creativity, (1994); Doucleff M., Aubrey A., Alexa, are you safe for my kids? National Public Radio Morning Edition, (2017); Elmore D. E., Prentice J. C., Trosset C., Do students understand liberal arts disciplines?, Liberal Education, pp. 48-55, (2006); Fuchsman K., Rethinking integration in interdisciplinary studies, Issues in Integrative Studies, 27, pp. 70-85, (2009); Harris M. S., Out out, damned spot: general education in a market-driven institution, Journal of General Education, 55, 3–4, pp. 186-200, (2006); Heuzenroeder L., Donnelly M., Haby M. M., Mihalopoulos C., Rossell R., Carter R., Andrews G., Vos T., Cost-effectiveness of psychological and pharmacological interventions for generalized anxiety disorder and panic disorder, Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, 38, pp. 602-612, (2004); Holland J. L., Making vocational choices: A theory of vocational personalities and work environments, (1997); Howard R., A beautiful mind, (2001); Ivanitskaya L., Clark D., Montgomery G., Primeau R., Interdisciplinary learning: process and outcomes, Innovative Higher Education, 27, pp. 95-111, (2002); Jacobs J. A., Frickel S., Interdisciplinarity: A critical assessment, Annual Review of Sociology, 35, pp. 43-65, (2009); Jacobsen T. E., Mark B. L., Separating wheat from chaff: Helping first-year students become information savvy, Journal of General Education, 49, 4, pp. 256-278, (2000); Kirk-Kuwaye M., Sano-Franchini D., “Why do I have to take this course?”: How academic advisers can help students find personal meaning and purpose in general education, Journal of General Education, 64, 2, pp. 99-105, (2015); Knight D. B., Lattuca L. R., Kimball E. W., Reason R. D., Understanding interdisciplinar-ity: Curricular and organizational features of undergraduate interdisciplinary programs, Innovative Higher Education, 38, pp. 143-158, (2013); Knight J. K., Smith M. K., Different but equal? How nonmajors and majors approach and learn genetics, CBE – Life Science Education, 9, 1, pp. 34-44, (2010); Madsen C. K., Geringer J. M., Differential patterns of music listening: Focus of attention of musicians versus nonmusicians, Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 105, pp. 45-57, (1990); Mallow J. V., Science anxiety: Research and action, Handbook of college science teaching, pp. 3-14, (2006); Messer M., Schroeder R., Wodak R., Migrations: Interdisciplinary perspectives, (2012); The integration of the humanities and arts with sciences, engineering, and medicine in higher education: Branches from the same tree, (2018); Newton R. R., Tensions and models in general education planning, Journal of General Education, 49, 3, pp. 165-181, (2000); Orillion M-F., Interdisciplinary curriculum and student outcomes: the case of a general education course at a research university, Journal of General Education, 58, 1, pp. 1-18, (2009); Pellmar T. C., Eisenberg L., Bridging disciplines in the brain, behavioral, and clinical sciences, (2000); Pitt R., Pirtle W. N. L., Metzger A. N., Academic specialization, double majoring, and the threat to breadth in academic knowledge, Journal of General Education, 66, 3-4, pp. 166-191, (2017); Repko A. F., Szostak R., Buchberger M. P., Introduction to interdisciplinary studies, (2020); Smart J. C., Umbach P. D., Faculty and academic environments: Using Holland’s theory to explore differences in how faculty structure undergraduate courses, Journal of College Student Development, 48, 2, pp. 183-195, (2007); Smith V., New dimensions for general education, Higher learning in America 1980–2000, pp. 243-258, (1993); Snow C. P., The two cultures, (1959); Stember M., Advancing the social sciences through the interdisciplinary enterprise, The Social Science Journal, 28, 1, pp. 1-14, (1991); Tilton J. E., Exhaustible resources and sustainable development: Two different paradigms, Resources Policy, 22, 1–2, pp. 91-97, (1996); Train T. L., Gammon D. E., The structure and assessment of a unique and popular interdisciplinary science course for non-majors, Journal of College Science Teaching, 42, 1, pp. 50-57, (2012); Zhu Z., Zhang L., Jiang J., Li W., Cao. X., Zhou Z., Zhang T., Li C., Comparison of psychological placebo and waiting list control conditions in the assessment of cognitive behavioral therapy for the treatment of generalized anxiety disorder: A meta-analysis, Shanghai Archives of Psychiatry, 26, 6, pp. 319-331, (2014)
Nơi xuất bản
Penn State University Press
Hình thức xuất bản
Article
Open Access
Nguồn
Scopus