This chapter identifies academic disciplines that are more likely to embrace approaches instrumental to the improvement of undergraduale education.

.

Disciplines with an Affinity for the Improvement of Undergraduate Education John M. Byaxton

Variations among academic disciplines are significant and far-reaching (Brax- ton and Hargens, in press), involving a wide range of phenomena and matters of the disciplinary community, the university, the academic department, and the individual academic professional. At the level of the individual academic professional, variations among academic disciplines in different facets associ- ated with teaching role performance are quite evident (Braxton and Hargens, in press). Such differences strongly suggest that individual faculty members, faculty developers, and academic affairs officers cannot generalize about teach- ing role performance in other disciplines from the limited perspective of their own academic discipline. Both faculty and administrators can improve their work through understanding how academic disciplines vary.

This chapter has two purposes: to summarize empirical research on aspects of teaching role performance in which disciplinary differences have been observed (teaching goals, teaching practices, course examination ques- tions, and the relationship between teaching and research), and to present some implications of these disciplinary differences for the professional prac- tice of college and university administrators in general and for efforts designed to improve undergraduate education in particular.

Differences Between Hard and Soft Disciplines The Biglan typology of academic disciplines (1973) and Lodahl and Gordon’s (1 972) notion of paradigmatic development are two analytical frameworks,

NEW DIRECTIONS FOR T€ACWNC A M ) LEARNING. no. M, Winter 1995 0 JosKy-Bus publish^ 59

60 DISCIPLINARY DIFFERENCES IN TEACHING AND LEARNING

with robust empirical support, for viewing variation among academic disci- plines (Braxton and Hargens, in press). Common to both frameworks is the notion of the degree of paradigmatic development evident in an academic dis- cipline. Biglan refers to this differentiating construct as the “hard-soft” dimm- sion, whereas Lodahl and Gordon call it paradigmatic development. High and low paradigmatic development is interchangeable with Biglan’s hard-soft dimension. Both Biglan and Lodahl and Gordon derive paradigmatic develop- ment from Kuhn’s (1962, 1970) notion of the extent to which members of a discipline share beliefs about theory, methods, techniques, and pertinent prob- lems for the discipline to pursue. Examples of hard paradigmatic disciplines are chemistry, physics, and biology, whereas political science, sociology, psy- chology, history, English, and economics are examples of disciplines exhibit- ing soft paradigmatic development. The distinction between disciplines exhibiting hard and soft paradigmatic development is used as an organizing framework for the research findings summarized below. (Although the studies reviewed may not have categorized the academic disciplines included as being either hard or soft, Biglan’s typology was used to classify them as hard or soft.)

Teaching Goals. The importance attached to various teaching goals dif- fers between disciplines of hard and soft paradigmatic development. Faculty in soft fields gwe greater importance to such goals as providing a broad general education and knowledge of oneself (Gaff and Wilson, 1971). Student charac- ter development is also more highly endorsed by faculty in soft fields (Smart and Elton, 1982). However, faculty in hard disciplines accord greater impor- tance to student career preparation as a teaching goal (Gaff and Wilson, 1971).

The goals faculty espouse for academic majors also differ. Lattuca and Stark (1995) observe that hard disciplines emphasize cognitive concerns- learning of facts, principles, and concepts-whereas soft fields underscore these same goals but also attach importance to effective thinking slulls such as critical thinking. These goals are registered in reports developed by faculty on the academic major, commissioned by the American Association of Colleges.

Classroom Teaching Practices. Course planning, approaches to teach- ing, pedagogical methods, and the use of scholarly based course activities vary between hard and soft dsciplines. Stark, Lowther, Bentley, and Martens (1990) found that course planning by faculty tends to focus more on students- growth and development, preparation and needs-in soft disciplines than in hard fields. Consistent with their stress on effective thinlung as the goal of the academic major, faculty in soft fields also tend to favor a more “discursive” approach to their classroom teaching than do their counterparts in hard fields. A discursive approach includes such faculty classroom behaviors as discussion of points of view other than one’s own, discussion of issues beyond those cov- ered in course readings, and the relating of course topics to other fields of study (Gaff and Wilson, 1971).

Pedagogical methods preferred in courses designed for undergraduate majors also vary between hard and soft fields. In comparison to soft fields, hard disciplines put more stress on student research experiences as a method for

IMPROVEMENT OF UNDERGRADUATE EDUCATION 6 1

training undergraduate students in the discipline (Lattuca and Stark, 1995). Soft fields prefer an emphasis on oral and written communication skills, crit- ical reading skills, and active learning as methods of pedagogy (Lattuca and Stark, 1995). In addition, faculty in soft disciplines are more likely to enact scholarly based course activities than their hard-discipline colleagues (Brax- ton, 1983). These scholarly based course activities, which fit BoyerS scholar- ship of teaching domain (1990). include lecturing on topics derived from current scholarly books, assigning research activities, and assigning current journal articles as required course reading.

Student Assessment. Disciplines vary in the kinds of examination ques- tions faculty members use. Braxton and Nordvall(1988) observed that liberal arts college faculty in soft fields are more likely to ask examination questions requiring an analysis or synthesis of course content, whereas faculty in hard disciplines tend to ask more questions which require memorization and appli- cation of course material. Braxton (1993) confirmed a parallel pattern of ques- tioning in research universities, with faculty in soft fields asking more questions which require critical thinking-analysis and synthesis-than do faculty in hard disciplines.

Hard and soft fields also differ in their attention to program review and student assessment. Lattuca and Stark (1995) observe that limited attention is paid to program review and student assessment by hard fields, whereas soft fields are more likely to view program review and student assessment as instru- ments for the improvement of teachng and learning (Lattuca and Stark, 1995).

Relationship Between Teaching and Research. An important issue is whether the roles of teaching and research complement or detract from one another (Faia, 1976; Fox, 1992). Complementarity is evident in soft fields, whereas neither complementarity nor conflict is apparent in hard disciplines. From a review of studies that examined the relationship between teaching per- formance and research productivity in various fields, Feldman (1987) found that teaching and research performance have a moderate (r =‘ .2 1) relationship in soft disciplines, but an insignificant relationship (T = .05) in hard fields.

Soft Fields as “Affinity Disciplines” The differences between hard and soft disciplines summarized above suggest that efforts to improve undergraduate education are more likely to be suc- cessful in soft disciplines than in hard ones. Soft discipline faculty tend to value student character development, emphasize the development of critical think- ing skills (analysis and synthesis), use discursive or student-centered teaching practices, and favor the use of program review and student assessment to improve teaching and learning. Thus, soft academic disciplines tend to have an affinity for embracing practices designed to improve college teaching whereas such efforts are not as likely to be successful in hard academic fields. As a result, I have labeled soft fields as “affinity disciplines,” denoting their affinity for attention to the quality of teaching. The implications of the notion

62 DISCIPLINARY DIFFERENCES IN TEACHING AND LEARNING

of affinity disciplines for faculty development and academic affairs adminis- trators are discussed below.

Implications for Faculty Development. Weimer (1991) contends that the success of seminars and workshops depends on the presenter and the topic. The notion of affinity disciplines, however;is a mediating factor in the success of a faculty development workshop or seminar. Success or failure of workshops and seminars may hinge on whether the topics chosen match the teaching needs of hard and soft discipline faculty members. Faculty develop- ment officers may want to target some workshops or seminars for hard disci- pline faculty, whereas other workshops or seminars would be designed for soft discipline faculty. For example, a workshop or seminar focusing on lecturing skills would be more likely to meet the needs of hard discipline faculty, whereas one focusing on course activities which develop critical thinking skills would more likely match the needs of soft discipline faculty

Faculty discussion groups should also be formulated with the distinctions between faculty in hard and soft disciplines in mind. Matching topics with the needs of faculty from hard and soft fields is important to the success of dis- cussion groups.

Implications for Academic Affairs Administrators. Specific recom- mendations to improve undergraduate education often focus on improving undergraduate teaching through “student-centered” approaches (Chickering and Gamson, 1987; Katz, 1985). According to my analysis, affinity disciplines are more likely to implement such recommendations. Efforts to improve undergraduate education might thus be piloted in affinity disciplines before full implementation. If efforts falter in affinity disciplines, then failure in hard disciplines is also likely

Academic program review and student outcomes assessment are among the primary activities. of statewide boards of higher education (Hines, 19881, and they also are the concerns of academic administrators in many state-sup- ported colleges and universities. Because affinity disciplines are more likely to use the findings of program review and student outcomes assessments, aca- demic administrators may have to develop mechanisms for encouraging hard discipline departments to consider the implementation of recomnqndations derived from these assessments.

.Academic administrators should recognize the distinctions between hard and soft academic disciplines in evaluating teaching for reappointment, pro- motion, and tenure. Although student course ratings may be common to the assessment of both groups of disciplines, other materials should be different. Because soft discipline faculty are more likely to take student needs into account in planning their courses, materials that manifest such concern should be provided. These materials might address such questions as: how is course content affected by student needs? How are course activities designed to address student needs? Soft discipline faculty are also more likely to emphasize critical thinking in their courses. Course examination questions and other materials that reflect the ways this emphasis is manifested in day-

IMPROVEMENT OF UNDERGRADUATE EDUCATION 63

to-day course activities could also be provided to assess teaching of soft dis- cipline faculty

In conclusion, these implications for practice suggest both limitations and possibilities for faculty and administrative practice. These implications also suggest obstacles to college or universityide change in teaching-related prac- tices. Knowledge and understanding of such obstacles can build a foundation for change. Without that foundation, attempts to improve undergraduate edu- cation are likely to have only limited success. .

References .

Biglan, A. "The Characteristics of Subject Matter in Different Academic Areas." Journal of Applied Psychology, 1973.57 (31, 195-203.

Boyer, E. L. Scholarship Reconsidered. Princeton, N.J.: Camegie Foundation for the Advance- ment of Teaching, 1990.

Braxton, J. M. "Teaching as Performance of Scholarly Based Course Activities: A Perspec- tive on the Relationship Between Teaching and Research." Review of Higher Education,

Braxton, J. M. "Selectivity and Rigor in Research Universities."JournaI of Higher Educatidn, 1993,64, 657-675.

Braxton, J. M., and Hargens, L. L. "Variation Among Academic Disciplines: Analytical Frameworks and, Research." In J. C. Smart (ed.), Higher Education: Handbook of Theory and Research. New York Agathon Press, in press.

Braxton, J. M., and Nordvall, R. C. "Quality of Graduate Department Origin of Faculty and Its Relationship to Undergraduate Course Examination Questions." Research in Higher Education, 1988,28, 145-159.

Chickering, A. W., and Gamson, Z. E. "Seven Principles for Good Practice in Undergradu- ate Education." AAHE Bulletin, 1987,39, 3-7.

Faia, M. A. "Teaching and Research: Rapport or Mesalliance." Research in Higher Education,

Feldman, K. A. "Research Productivity and Scholarly Accomplishment of College Teachers as Related to Their Instructional Effectiveness: A Review and Exploration." Research in Higher Education, 1987,26, 227-298.

Fox, M. F. "Research, Teaching, and Publication Productivity: Mutuality Versus Competi- tion in Academia." Sociology of Education, 1992,65, 293-305.

Gaff, J. G., and Wilson, R. C. "Faculty Cultures and Interdisciplinary Studies."Journal of Higher Education, 1971,42, 186-201.

Hines, E. R. Higher Education and State Governments. ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report, no. 5. Washington, D.C.: Association for the Study of Higher Education, 1988.

Katz, J. "Teaching Based on Knowledge of Students." In J. Katz (ed.), Teaching& Though Students Mattered. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, no. 21. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1985.

Kuhn, T. S. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1970. Lattuca, L. R., and Stark, J. 5. "Modifymg the Major: Discretionary Tlioughts from Ten Dis-

ciplines." Review of Higher Education, 1995,18 (31,315-344. Lodahl, J. B., and Gordon, G. G. "The Structure of Scientific Fields and the Functioning of

University Graduate Departments." American Sociological Review, 1972,37 (11, 57-72. Smart, J. C., and Elton, C. F. "Validation of the Biglan Model." Research in Higher Education,

1982,17,213-229. Stark, J. S., Lowther, M. A., Bentley, R. J., and Martens, G. G. "Disciplinary Differences in

Course Planning." The Review ofHigher Education, 1990, 13, 141-165. Weimer, M. Improving College Teaching. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1991.

1983, 7,21-33.

1976,4,235-246.

64 DISCIPLINARY DIFFERENCES IN TEACHING AND LEARNING

John M. Braxton is associate professor in the Department of Educational Leadership at Peabody College, Vanderbilt Universiy.