A descriptive assessment of synthesis in an interdisciplinary university course

This dissertation describes research conducted at Ohio University that explores the congruence among the four parts of the curriculum as described by Ewell (1997): the designed curriculum, the expectational curriculum, the delivered curriculum and the experienced curriculum. Assessment literature suggests that students' experience of the curriculum (learning), is most successful when the first three parts of the curriculum are in alignment.; The research followed qualitative methods to examine the four parts of the curriculum for the interdisciplinary general education program called Tier III at Ohio University. Data sources included: (a) the summer faculty development seminar, (b) course proposals from University Curriculum Council files, (c) ten syllabi from courses offered summer or fall 2000, (d) interviews with professors teaching the summer or fall courses, (e) class visits of the ten courses, (f) interviews of 27 students and (g) examination of 43 student papers submitted for the selected courses. Materials were examined for congruence between faculty descriptions of the learning goals (synthesis or critical thinking) for the courses and the students' understanding of their achievement of that goal and demonstration of it through their written products. The Structure of the Observed Learning Outcome (SOLO) by Biggs and Collis (1982) guided the assessment of student products.; Examination of the data reveal several points: (a) That learning goals were not clearly articulated in many syllabi, (b) that assignment descriptions which include “analyze” and “compare and contrast” do not require students to move to the level of synthesis that these courses purport to demand, (c) that in two courses where grading rubrics were part of the syllabus, student products appeared to more closely meet faculty learning objectives, (d) that students in the final quarters of their undergraduate careers appreciate courses which provide the opportunity to interact with diverse groupings of students in a course that values their individual contributions and stimulates their learning. Thus, the findings appear to support assessment literature that suggests that to the degree the three parts of the curriculum under the control of the faculty are congruent, or aligned, students' learning products demonstrate the outcomes we set out to elicit.