Introducing Disciplinary Thinking
Through the Development of an On-Line Tutorial

Daniel J. Pfeifer
Web Site Office
(765) 658-6268
DJP@DEPAUW.EDU
Bruce S. Serlin
Department of Biology
(765) 658-4770
DANCE@DEPAUW.EDU
DePauw University
Greencastle, IN 46135

An instructor of an introductory level course faces a number of challenges. Obviously, there is a need to cover an increasing amount of information in a very limited amount of time. Coupled with this, students must be introduced to a new vocabulary set that is on par with a foreign language class. The topic that receives little if any attention but is probably of greater importance is an introduction to the way of thinking in the discipline. It is an understanding of the disciplinary approach, more than mastery of facts that is important in motivating students to continue studying in the discipline. Toward this end, a set of interactive computer tutorials was produced that allows students to acquire this needed perspective at their own pace. The foundation of the tutorials was a set of module templates from which all of the disciplinary exercises were developed. The project goal was based on a statement made by Charles K. West in his work, Instructional Design: Implications from Cognitive Science, "...learning best begins with a big picture, a schema, a holistic cognitive structure."

The development of what has come to be called "The Scholar's Way of Thinking" began with the simple goal of helping students to write better research papers or lab reports. The concrete implementation of this vision began with the exploration of the questions experts ask in given disciplines.  The working premise was that with an introduction to underlying disciplinary questions, students would achieve a higher level of disciplinary reasoning and better writing. In the end, our goal was to conceive student historians or student biologists or student sociologists and at some point to give birth to disciplinary contributors.  For this educational process to impact a large number of students with minimal time expenditure for instructors, the tutorials were developed for online distribution and interactivity.

In the process of considering the fundamental questions that underpin inquiry in any discipline, it became apparent that an initiation to the discipline required the prerequisite knowledge of what the discipline is.   This disciplinary definition was a necessary foundation from which to work. While the complexity of a discipline can hardly be considered in a one or two sentence definition, students need a starting point from which to build their disciplinary research model.  To illustrate with history, the definition has three components. First, history includes what happened in the past. Second, on a more practical level for students of the present, history consists of the evidence of the past that people can study. Third, it is the story of the past that people write.

After developing a working disciplinary definition, important research questions of the discipline were considered.  These questions, in turn, form the basis of the discipline's research method, i.e. the historical method, the scientific method, etc. Using history as a model again, historians begin with a broad knowledge of a topic by reading relevant books, articles, or manuscripts. They then develop a general question to investigate. The general question leads to more specific areas of investigation that the historian describes as either statements or further questions. After addressing the more detailed queries, the historian is ready to present a conclusion to the general question. With this introduction, a student is given a perspective to start working on a historical research project. Since the exposure to this foundation is fundamental, the first module in the Scholar's Way of Thinking and the first component of the template was "The Scholar's Method," introducing the student to the disciplinary process of research in a given field.

Once aware of the questions raised in the process of using a given discipline's method, students need to be shown how to identify and analyze these tools of the trade. For the historian, primary sources, first hand accounts such as letters, government documents, music, etc. are the basic research materials. While historians use multiple forms of quantitative and qualitative analysis, investigation of a source always includes an evaluation of the creator's perspective and the historical context in which the account was produced. This overview of the scholar's tools developed into the second module in the Scholar's Way of Thinking. The second module, "The Scholar's Tools," introduces students to the analysis and materials scholars use to do research.

It became apparent that to write a good paper or laboratory report one more step was required in addition to learning the process of asking introductory questions and learning to analyze evidence. Students must be able to present their conclusions in a logical, cohesive manner. For history, the book review is a model. A book review gives an overview of the thesis, themes, and conclusion of a historical work. In addition, reviewers point out any bias or shortcomings in the selected materials or the analysis. The evaluation also includes references to the author's argument and logic, whether reasonable or flawed. This process was intended to provide students with the skill to do a critique of their own work. If students understand the structures used in a book review and can apply them to their own writing, then they can write better papers. The review of disciplinary writing formed the basis for the third module in the Scholar's Way of Thinking.  The third component of the tutorial, "The Scholar's Discussion" introduced the student to the way scholars actively read and evaluate materials in their discipline.

As the history modules developed, so did the template. It seemed that the three major divisions -- research methods, tools, and writing ­ could apply to all disciplines. A brief overview of many disciplines revealed a well-developed set of research methodologies, a preference for certain types of data, and often very specific details concerning how to write a research report. Introductions to methodology and writing were often found in textbooks or on personal web sites. The goal for "The Scholar's Way of Thinking" template was to take the next step and engage the students ­ to allow the student to do history or biology rather than read about it.

In order to present a discipline's research methods, tools or writing, the authors had to transform abstract descriptions into a concrete process. The template consisted of up to five distinct sections or pages, corresponding to disciplinary processes of four or five steps. Tabs at the top of each page held the section titles and served as navigation buttons. Each page included two columns. The left column contained an introduction to an important concept and space for questions, answers, and hints. The right column contained research material that students would analyze. The hints did not give the answer but were general points to remember about disciplinary thinking. See Figure 2 below to view an example of the template.

The biology tutorial illustrates how applicable this format is for any discipline. It demonstrates that this architecture is sufficiently flexible to handle requirements in Biology without necessitating changes of such magnitude that a student could not move easily between different disciplines' modules.  For Biology, like in History, it was necessary to articulate a disciplinary definition and description. The science of biology is the study of living things. What this really means is researchers are constantly investigating the mechanisms that permit organisms to function. This is true regardless of whether one is studying how insulin triggers an increase in blood sugar at the cellular level or how salmon find their way back to the stream in which they were born. But researchers are not just interested in understanding functional mechanisms. They are also interested in discovering the factors that influenced the evolution for the mechanism in question. So they also ask broader questions like, "Why is sickle cell amenia a disease that persists in Africa?"

Since biology presents a viewpoint of the world based on a set of facts, acquisition of these facts ­ data ­ is essential. Data is obtained through a process called the scientific method. There are four phases to this methodology. Phase one is observation. A researcher becomes aware of some phenomenon, such as an environmentally triggered response, and wonders, "How is this phenomenon accomplished?" Phase two is the generation of a hypothesis. A hypothesis pertains to observations in phase one and is posed in such a way that its validity can be tested. The formulation of a hypothesis begins with an educated guess about the factor(s) that produced the observed phenomenon. It is through the identification of these factor(s) that tests can be designed. Phase three is experimentation. Through the execution of carefully designed experiments, data acquisition occurs and hypotheses are tested. Phase four is the conclusion. Conclusions, based on the interpretation of the data, validate or invalidate the original hypothesis. It is this continual testing of hypotheses pertaining to living systems that distinguishes a biologist from other scientists. The scientific method forms the basis of "The Scholar's Method," and living systems and data acquisition were of fundamental importance as "The Scholar's Tools" in Biology.

A well-written lab report is a vital part of a successful experiment. By constructing such a document, the researcher is forced ­ one more time ­ to assess her conclusions. Furthermore, the lab report is the device that will be used by the researcher or a colleague to extend the knowledge base in the area. For the report to be of use, it must contain all of the information that the researcher possessed as the experiment occurred. This information includes the preparation steps, regardless of how minute they might seem; all raw data, presented in a clear and concise manner with accurate labels and appropriate units; and clearly stated conclusions with supportive information. Reference to information previously available in scholarly literature should also be cited to enable the reader to judge the experiment in light of the knowledge of the particular field. Lastly, the report should be free of grammatical and spelling errors. The lab report formed the bases of "The Scholar's Discussion" in Biology.

The structural layout of the three modules facilitated the development of instructional materials as well as the processing of the materials by students. The question-answer format was fairly easy to adapt to the needs of disciplinary authors. Some authors required more than text boxes for input. Drag and drop features in the Physics module allowed for new ways of analyzing word problems. In Philosophy, mouseovers highlighted sentences and pop-up windows included instructor commentary making textual analysis more immediate. Students noted the consistent format and the combination of navigational features and keywords in the tabs across the top of the module windows. Since intuition is really prior experience that one takes for granted, the consistency of the graphic design and interactive practices used in the modules allowed students to focus on content rather than where to click. In all cases of special interactivity, specific directions were provided.

The contributors to "The Scholar's Way of Thinking," including the authors to this paper, experienced the painstaking iterative process as well as the intellectual rewards involved in producing the tutorials. The first major hurdle that the scholars had to overcome was the complexity of their disciplines. The fundamental topics available for an introductory study in any discipline were vast. Deciding where to impose limits on a discipline in order to write a simple definition or a single methodology was also very difficult. The explanation of the template itself ­ including descriptions of the method, tools, and discussion sections ­ required many pages of text and graphics as well as discussions via email and phone. The construction of each template was an iterative process as the authors attempted to reduce complexity to the manageable form of the template. Upon completion of the project several scholars mentioned that the reflective process actually improved their teaching. They mentioned that their research methods and teaching were so instinctive and effective that they seldom had to reconsider the "how." One professor commented, "Quite enjoyed this challenging exercise. It reminded me once more of how little time and effort professors spend thinking about teaching." Time to "think about teaching" ­ the focus on communicating methodology as well as information ­ was the greatest reward of "The Scholar's Way of Thinking" project.