Undergraduate Council
Subcommittee on
Intellectual Community in the Undergraduate Experience
Report to the Council
May 6, 2002
Committee: Karen Coburn, Pat Gibbons, Ken Goldman (cochair), Gary Hochberg,
Valerie Hoeckstra, Peter Kastor, Elizabeth Lauren, James McLeod, Laura Mendiola,
Mark Rollins, Paul Rothstein (cochair), John Russell, Gerhild Williams
Introduction
In early Spring 2000, the Undergraduate Council asked that a subcommittee be
formed to study and make recommendations regarding Washington University as an
intellectual community. Our task was to define the issues and, as appropriate,
suggest actions. We named ourselves the subcommittee on Intellectual Community
in the Undergraduate Experience and took the acronym "I-CUE." See
Appendix I for a list of members and a meeting outline.
A central function of any university is to create an environment that
nurtures the intellectual curiosity, engagement and growth of students. There is
a great degree of variation across universities, however, in the visibility of
intellectual engagement, the seriousness with which it is pursued, and its
position in campus culture. We know little about how these differences develop
or their connection to resources and selectivity. This suggests that at the very
least we should not be complacent about this vital feature of university life.
The increasingly stiff competition for student time further motivates our
investigation. Focus and reflection cannot be neatly scheduled. An environment
that increasingly rewards tangible external results (the product of
accomplishment) versus intangible personal progress (the process of intellectual
growth) may therefore be expected to alter the balance that students strike
between intellectual engagement and the other important uses of their time. We
also suggest that changes that improve or erode the environment for intellectual
engagement can have significantly magnified effects over time. Just as the
personal satisfaction that each individual finds in intellectual engagement
depends to some extent on the degree to which it is encouraged and valued by the
environment, each student’s choices feed back into the environment. When
students seek intellectual engagement with other students, they expand the
intellectual community and contribute to an environment in which intellectual
engagement is visible and rewarded. The growing demands on student time together
with the potential for large effects on intellectual engagement reinforce the
need for an examination of our intellectual environment at this time.
We began our work with the assumption that intellectual communities should
and probably do play an essential role in sustaining undergraduate intellectual
life. We know from personal experience that intellectual communities play a
central role in challenging, nurturing and deepening one’s understanding of
any subject. Once we agreed upon a definition of intellectual community,
however, we recognized that we knew very little about how communities develop
and thrive on this campus. We spent considerable time investigating this
question. With that work done we developed a series of recommendations for
students, faculty, academic advisors and administrators.
We submit this report in the expectation that making these issues visible and
exploring them openly plays a useful role in sustaining and enhancing the
intellectual environment at Washington University.
Definition of IC
Before pursuing the subject, the committee agreed on the following definition
of intellectual community.
An Intellectual Community is…
·
a group of individuals
·
who spend significant time
·
engaging with each other to expand
their knowledge and understanding
·
of a particular subject
·
and promoting their mutual
intellectual growth and creativity
·
through the open exchange of
ideas.
The definition is intentionally broad. It would include a group of friends
who congregate regularly in dormitory hallways to discuss politics or a group of
artists who regularly meet to discuss each other’s work. We deliberately place
no restrictions on the nature of the engagement or the methods of inquiry.
Intellectual communities can form around nearly any subject.
Information Gathering Process
The committee began its investigation by collecting comments related to
intellectual community from the minutes of Undergraduate Council meetings and
from the I-CUE committee itself (see Appendix II). After reviewing these
comments, we decided to seek significant additional input from students. Various
members of the I-CUE committee conducted a total of 8 focus groups with 67
students combined. The groups were not intended to be a random sample of
students. Each committee member selected the students for his/her own focus
group(s). In some cases, we specifically targeted students who were active
members of student groups in order to better understand how intellectual
communities form.
The focus groups were organized around a series of questions put together by
the committee (see Appendix III). The questions served as a starting point for
the discussions. The questions addressed student expectations for participating
in intellectual communities at WU (on matriculation and now), engagement, pride
in and enthusiasm for academic work, connections outside the classroom,
intellectual discussions with faculty and peers, perception of the WU
environment’s role in fostering intellectual communities, and recommendations
for changes at WU to better promote intellectual communities. We considered
conducting a large survey based on these questions but decided that this was not
necessary to fulfill the mission of the committee.
Summary of Findings
Student engagement and satisfaction with intellectual communities on campus
varies widely. Students at one end of the spectrum had never given the idea of
intellectual communities any thought and seemed not to be aware that
participation in intellectual communities could be a valuable part of their
education. At the other end of the spectrum there were students who were very
active and engaged. We also found that some students had very positive
experiences in intellectual communities in their high schools. Some of those
students had not been able to find similar experiences here.
Many students report significant practical barriers to forming intellectual
communities. The barriers include lack of information about opportunities, lack
of time to participate, inadequate meeting space, and little organizational
support. Transfer students seemed to find the barriers especially high.
Students who participate in intellectual communities report that these groups
are generally closely linked to their social communities. Often a group that
meets socially will later begin to engage in intellectual discussions about
topics of interest to the group. In some cases the existence of a convenient
meeting space where students of similar interests tend to congregate, such as a
department lounge, appears to be instrumental in the formation of the group.
Students also report that course structure and teaching style strongly
influence the formation of intellectual communities.
Recommendations
Based on our findings, the committee has identified some practical steps that
could be taken to strengthen the climate for intellectual communities on campus.
We encourage students to:
·
Accept primary responsibility for their own
intellectual growth.
·
Discover intellectual work that they find
personally compelling, honest, and rich.
·
Develop a plan for intellectual growth
around this work with the expectation that the knowledge, skills and
discipline they develop will serve them in any endeavor.
·
Recognize that intellectual communities
play an important role in promoting intellectual growth by challenging,
nurturing and deepening one’s understanding of a subject.
·
Participate in and create new intellectual
communities within and outside of class.
·
Develop communication skills supporting
interaction in intellectual communities.
We encourage faculty to:
·
Accept primary responsibility for the
intellectual environment.
·
Build intellectual communities with and
among students to foster the highest levels of intellectual engagement by
students.
·
Help students learn how to engage each
other on intellectual matters and work effectively within intellectual
communities.
·
Provide encouragement and incentives for
students to participate in intellectual communities.
·
In large lecture classes, actively
promote both facilitated and unfacilitated study groups and regularly
provide material to be used as starting points for discussions in those
groups.
·
Participate in creating a culture of
debate.
·
Establish and promote undergraduate
student groups within each department that would ensure that a vibrant
social and intellectual community exists.
·
Expand and promote opportunities for
undergraduates to do research and participate in discussions about research.
·
Establish non-traditional courses, such
as 1-credit lunchtime discussion groups or more ambitious group independent
study projects (see Appendix IV for details) that motivate students
to seek meaningful intellectual engagement.
We encourage academic advisors to:
·
Help each student discover intellectual
work that is captivating for them and which evokes the growth of knowledge,
skills and discipline that will serve them well long-term.
·
Help each student develop a written
statement of personal educational goals. These statements are most likely to
be effective if faculty provide some guidance or examples.
·
Help each student find the balance between
developing the knowledge, skills, and discipline that will help them in any
endeavor and the particular skills that are relevant to their current
interests and career plans.
·
Help students find or establish
intellectual communities that are aligned with their goals.
·
Assure that the concerns of assignments,
degree requirements, and grades are kept in proper perspective so that they
support, rather than overshadow, each student’s intellectual growth.
We encourage the central administration, deans, and department heads to:
·
Accept primary responsibility for
supporting faculty and students in building intellectual communities.
·
Raise awareness of intellectual communities
as an important part of the academic experience and each student’s
intellectual growth.
·
Clearly articulate to students, beginning
in the freshman year, an expectation that all undergraduates are responsible
for taking charge of their own intellectual lives.
Evaluate the potential of existing spaces for promoting intellectual
discussion between students and faculty and create new spaces specifically
designated for this purpose. Existing spaces may not function well (for
example, do televisions in lounges promote or inhibit discussion?). New spaces
may function best if near faculty offices (to encourage impromptu discussions)
and near classrooms (to encourage discussions after class).
Identify administrative units and technology to support faculty in (a)
building intellectual communities within and outside of courses, (b)
organizing and scheduling course enhancements like study groups and field
trips, and (c) publicizing meetings, discussions, seminars, and undergraduate
research opportunities.
·
Promote shared experiences among
undergraduates, particularly freshmen, that may include, but are not limited
to, promoting a university-wide undergraduate curriculum based on a shared
consensus of objectives for undergraduate education.
·
Consider a reduction in the standard
student course load to permit time for deeper intellectual engagement.
·
Create a committee to plan an
implementation of the recommendations in this report.
Appendix I: Committee Membership and Meeting Outline
Karen Coburn, Associate Vice-Chancellor for Students
Pat Gibbons, Professor of Physics
Ken Goldman, Associate Professor of Computer Science, Co-chair of the
subcommittee
Gary Hochberg, Associate Dean for Undergraduate Programs, Business
Valerie Hoeckstra, Assistant Professor of Political Science
Peter Kastor, Assistant Director of American Culture Studies
Elizabeth Lauren, Undergraduate
James McLeod, Vice Chancellor for Students
Laura Mendiola, Undergraduate
Mark Rollins, Associate Professor of Philosophy
Paul Rothstein, Associate Professor of Economics, Co-chair of the
subcommittee
John Russell, Vice-Dean of Academic Affairs, Engineering
Gerhild Williams, Associate Vice-Chancellor for Academic Affairs
Spring 2000 (2 meetings): Formulated a working definition of intellectual
community and decided on an investigative process.
Fall 2000 (3 meetings): Formulated survey questions and began information
gathering through focus groups with students.
Spring 2001 (3 meetings): Reported and discussed input gained from focus
groups.
Fall 2001 (1 meeting): Discussed a draft of this report.
Appendix II: Collected Comments
Below are a legacy of ideas from the minutes of the undergraduate council
steering committee, the undergraduate council members, and the I-CUE committee.
The comments are organized into four general categories. They are not in any
particular order within categories. Please note that each comment listed
below was simply made by one or more individuals and does not necessarily
reflect consensus (or even majority opinion) on the part of the committee.
·
Defining Characteristics:
Although not necessarily directly observable, the following items are salient
characteristics of an intellectual community.
o
Students identify with the community.
o
Students have a personal understanding
of what is important, beyond what is present and immediate.
o
Students enjoy the freedom to engage in
intellectual pursuits in areas that they consider important.
o
Students enjoy the freedom to express
opinions and ask questions without fear of reproach.
o
Students immerse themselves in the
subject, continually and over an extended period, in order to gain deep
and profound understanding.
o
Students perceive intellectual growth to
be their primary motivation for pursuing undergraduate education.
o
Students explore diverse areas of study
in order to gain context and a breadth of understanding
o
Students sustain a high level of
motivation and excitement about learning.
o
Frequent, productive exchange of ideas
occurs among students, as well as among students and faculty, both within
and across disciplines.
o
Individuals tolerate, respect, and
embrace diverse cultures, backgrounds, and opinions.
o
The spirit of intellectual activity
pervades the campus in both place and time. It exists not just in
classrooms and offices, but also in the hallways, open spaces, and the
residence halls. It lives not just 9-5, but at all hours.
o
Intellectual community exists as a
process characterized by an approach or method of interaction and is not
confined to only particular material or subject matter.
·
Positive Indicators:
These are items we can observe that provide evidence of a healthy intellectual
community. We expect to see an increase in these indicators as an intellectual
community broadens and deepens.
+ Students have positive things to say about their undergraduate
intellectual experience.
+ A high profile for academic work exists on the campus.
+ Students attend and participate in classes, seminars, assembly
series, etc.
+ Students arrive to classes prepared to learn.
+ Students ask thoughtful, probing questions.
+ Students are involved in faculty research.
+ Thoughtful and spontaneous discussions occur among students (and
faculty).
+ Students take advantage of faculty office hours.
+ Students seek out faculty for discussions (after class, faculty
fellows, etc.).
+ Homework is well done and turned in on time.
+ Grades serve a constructive and informative purpose.
+ Students choose to write undergraduate theses.
+ Students choose to go on to graduate programs.
+ Library resources are used intensively.
·
Negative Indicators: These
are items we can observe that suggest a need for improvement in aspects of an
intellectual community. We expect to see a decrease in these indicators as an
intellectual community broadens and deepens.
–
Students have negative things to say
about their undergraduate intellectual experience.
–
Freshmen (and other students) express
dissatisfaction about a lack of opportunity for discussion.
–
Students exhibit grade-centric
thinking in their approach to learning.
–
Concerns about how one will look
"on paper" take priority over real educational goals.
–
Minimalist behavior (students ask,
"What do I have to know for the test?")
–
Violations of the academic integrity
policy.
–
Faculty members are unavailable or
avoid students.
–
Students arrive late to class and/or
pack up to leave (or leave) before class ends.
–
Students "waste" significant
amounts of time on things that could be done just as well if they weren’t
at the university.
–
Exclusion, hatred among groups.
–
Vulgar language.
–
Disrespect for people and property.
–
Intellectual domination on the part of
faculty, an unwillingness to give up the podium.
·
Influential Factors:
Positive factors help foster an intellectual community while negative factors
detract from it. Some factors may contribute either positively or negatively
depending upon the particular context and circumstances.
+ Ensuring that students and faculty understand baseline expectations
(see the statement by the Teaching Committee of the Undergraduate
Council).
+ Faculty use the classroom, office hours, debates, e-mail, and other
means to "set the tone" and stimulate student discussions.
+ Promoting awareness among students of what it means to participate in
an intellectual community.
+ Promoting awareness among the faculty of the importance of being
involved outside the classroom in the intellectual growth of students.
+ Setting clear expectations freshman year.
+ Helping students learn how to prioritize their time.
+ Helping students understand that sometimes "less is
better," that doing more may result in less depth, and that two
co-curricular activities may be better than ten.
+ Promoting small discussion groups in dorms and raising awareness
about them.
+ Providing ways to involve students as participants in the
intellectual community from the first moment they set foot on campus, so
this involvement is not delayed until they become sophomores or juniors.
+ Encouraging students to provide faculty with constructive ongoing
feedback on courses (regarding course content, delivery, and
administration).
+ Facilitating awareness of and access to resources supporting
intellectual activities.
+ There is leisure time for pause, reflection, and the exchange of
ideas.
+ Faculty make an ongoing effort to forge relationships with students.
+ Students are taught communication skills, specifically how to engage
other students and faculty in discussions.
+ Administrative resources are available to faculty to help with
activity details, such as transportation, meeting space, food, etc.
+ Physical spaces are conducive to impromptu discussions, presentations
of student work and comments from faculty.
+ Students are encouraged to take risks in learning.
+ Faculty are willing to take risks and talk about issues not
necessarily strictly on the agenda of the course.
+ There is positive publicity in university publications about
intellectual achievement by students.
+ Residential colleges that create a more intellectual environment.
+ Small group housing based on intellectual interests.
+ Intellectual exchanges take place on campus in many different venues.
+ Many student organizations that are involved in intellectual
activities.
+ Departmental clubs and honorary societies.
+ Scheduling lectures with time for discussion afterwards.
+ Scheduling "brown bag lunches" following the assembly
series to promote discussion.
+ Film groups.
+ Establishing traditions designed to stimulate intellectual
interaction (e.g., "campus-wide tea and cookies at 3:30")
+ An undergraduate seminar series.
+ Encouraging participation in the political election process.
+ The use of Student Life as a debate forum for students and
faculty.
+ Chairs encourage faculty and students to participate in and/or
organize one or two outside opportunities directly related to classes
(such as an art or film exhibit, debate, or attending a lecture and then
having a follow-up discussion).
+ Developing better connections to St. Louis organizations such as the
Art Museum and Science Center.
+ Art/cultural activities (WUSA).
+ Literary magazines.
+ Theater (all students).
+ Alliances with on/off campus cultural groups/institutions.
+ Departments seek ways of incorporating students into their
programming.
+ All students (should) read the same text at the same time in E. Comp.
+ Readings for orientation.
+ A centralized calendar of events.
+ Availability of intellectual opportunities, and ready availability of
information about opportunities.
+ Maximizing the flow of information among students, advisors, and
faculty about intellectual opportunities.
+ Personal encouragement of individual students.
+ Maximizing freedom of students to pursue intellectual topics of
importance to them.
+ Minimization of bureaucracy and artificial barriers.
Appendix III: Student Survey Questions
Please take a moment to read the following definition.
An intellectual community is...
a group of individuals
who spend significant time
engaging with each other to expand their knowledge and understanding
of a particular subject
and promoting their mutual intellectual growth and creativity
through the open exchange of ideas.
1. Describe your expectations for participating in intellectual
communities at
Washington University....
(a) ...before you first arrived.
Very high. High. Moderate. Low. Very low.
(b) ...now.
Very high. High. Moderate. Low. Very low.
2. How often do you feel proud of the work that you do for your most
interesting
classes?
Very often. Often. Sometimes. Rarely. Never.
3. How often do you feel energized about ideas, in or out of class?
Very often. Often. Sometimes. Rarely. Never.
4. How often do you make connections between your personal values and the
choices you make, on the one hand, and the ideas you develop in
discussions on
the other?
Very often. Often. Sometimes. Rarely. Never.
5. Over the course of your college career, how much has your confidence
grown in
your ability to initiate and participate in discussions of complicated
subjects?
A great deal. Somewhat. A little. Not at all.
For purposes of the following questions, "the Washington University
environment"
means everything that affects you on campus: students, faculty, staff,
courses, programs, services, administrative structure, and physical
facilities.
1. How supportive is the Washington University environment in providing
you
with opportunities for spontaneous discussions with students or faculty?
Very supportive. Mildly supportive. Neither supportive nor unsupportive.
Mildly unsupportive. Very unsupportive.
2. How supportive is the Washington University environment in providing
you
with opportunities for sustained discussions of particular subjects that
interest
you?
Very supportive. Mildly supportive. Neither supportive nor unsupportive.
Mildly unsupportive. Very unsupportive.
3. Are there factors in the Washington University environment that make
it
difficult for you to take advantage of these opportunities?
4. Are there factors in the Washington University environment that
support you
in taking advantage of these opportunities?
5. If you could change anything about Washington University to improve
the intellectual
environment, what would you change?
Appendix IV: Think Tanks
Traditional university courses encourage student learning and intellectual
growth, but are not necessarily focused on building intellectual communities.
A variety of non-traditional courses have been developed with the aim of
building intellectual communities. In general, these courses have been
initiated and led by faculty. In this appendix, we suggest an idea for
non-traditional courses that build on student-initiated intellectual
communities.
We envision a Washington University Think Tank as an academic
pursuit initiated by a community of several students around a particular topic
of common interest. The essential academic model of a Think Tank is similar to
an independent study: The students first discuss the topic and find a faculty
member willing to supervise the study. Then, together with the faculty member,
the students would write a specific description of the pursuit, including
perhaps a list of readings, discussion topics, outcomes, and the number of
credit units carried by this effort. We envision that students would both
pursue the topic individually and convene regularly for group discussions,
including a meeting with the faculty member (perhaps over lunch) at least once
per week.
Although a Think Tank could be organized around almost any intellectual
pursuit, we expect that the most successful will be energized around a
particular problem statement (social problem, environmental problem, technical
problem, etc.) and that the goal of the Think Tank would be to investigate the
origins of the problem, understand its context, and consider possible
solutions and their ramifications. Such a Think Tank would culminate in an
oral presentation and written report on the students’ findings. Possible
additional outcomes might include proposals for new legislation or other
practical action, exhibits, designs or prototypes, consciousness-raising
activities, or community service. Some Think Tanks could be linked to an
academic department or research group, co-curricular activity, established
academic contest, or entrepreneurial effort.
We expect that although supervision of each Think Tank is likely to come
from only one faculty member in a particular department, the student make-up
of the group is likely to be interdisciplinary. Several students with
backgrounds in different fields would bring their own expertise to bear on the
problem at hand. This would serve not only to deepen the discussion, but also
widen the range of possible outcomes and increase the probability of success.
Administratively, registration and credit would be handled through the
supervising faculty member’s department. However, support from the central
administration will be required to promote the concept. We envision social
events where students can meet to form Think Tank groups, spaces where Think
Tanks can meet, student-run conferences or exhibits at which findings are
presented, and press releases for particularly successful groups.
We expect that the establishment and the promotion of Think Tanks will be
successful in cultivating intellectual communities on campus, particularly
among sophomores and juniors who may have already experienced a strong
intellectual community in their freshman year (through FOCUS or freshman
seminars) but are not yet ready to participate in capstone experiences offered
by individual departments. The awarding of academic credit will free up time
in the students schedules for intellectual community, the problem-driven
nature of the pursuit will attract and energize students interested in
applying their knowledge to achieve practical goals, the potential and
motivation for interdisciplinary groups will provide a basis for intellectual
discussion among students of diverse academic backgrounds, and the close
interaction between students and faculty on a topic of common interest will
give students an academic experience not often found in the traditional
classroom.
Suggestions for the Implementation of the I-CUE Committee’s
Recommendations
(Report May 6, 2002)
I-CUE Implementation Committee: Jill Carnaghi, Annie Chao, Jim Davis, Ken
Goldman (cochair), Rob Henke, Ryan Lawson, Kimberly Lempfert, Karen
Levin-Coburn, James McLeod, Katie Platt, Paul Rothstein (cochair), Stephan
Schindler, Sarah Spurr, Sharon Stall, Jill Stratton, Gerhild Williams, Bill
Woodward
Goldman, Rothstein, and Williams met to discuss implementation strategies.
Following are our suggestions for discussion by the Steering Committee and
subsequently by the Undergraduate Council. Please review the Report from May 6,
2002.
Suggestions:
1. That the Council consider the establishment of an Action Committee
consisting of a faculty representative from each school (5 persons) and several
students. This Committee should be supported by a staff person with excellent
knowledge of the university whose task it would be (and whose budget would
allow) to support and facilitate activities (prioritized by Council) intended to
support, encourage, and create Intellectual Communities on campus.
2. That the Council prioritize the Report’s list of suggested actions to
help the Action Committee to get started.
3. Council publicize the Report on Intellectual Communities and the Action
Committee’s activities by talking to deans and assemblies of department chairs
of UG schools in an effort to gain their active support.
4. Council (through Action Committee) review within in a year actions taken
and strategies for future activities.
O9.17.02