Running Header: Evaluation of the Madison Collaborative Program within Integration of 1

Learning

Evaluation of the Madison Collaborative Program within Integration of Learning

Logan Reed

William & Mary

Evaluation of the Madison Collaborative Program within Integration of Learning 2

Abstract:

This article presents an evaluation of the Madison Collaborative Programs based on its

effectiveness to produce integration of learning among traditional aged college students,

which is characterized by the demonstrated ability to link various skills and knowledge learned

in a variety of contexts (Barber, 2012). The author analyzed several reports and interviewed key

administrators to investigate the ways undergraduates integrate knowledge and experiences

through the study of ethics in the Madison Collaborative. The findings show that the Madison

Collaborative integrates learning on a basic level, however, it is not reaching its full potential.

This paper contains three recommendations for the program.

Introduction:

The Madison Collaborative (MC) is a program designed at the undergraduate institution,

James Madison University (JMU), to provide students a mechanism for ethical reasoning

(Warner, 2017). The process for students to learn information, internalize it, and use it for their

life is the goal of every educational program or class. This practice has been defined by Dr.

James Barber as the integration of learning (Barber, 2012). Does the Madison Collaborative

effectively integrate their ethical reasoning skills for the students?

Background
Evaluation of the Madison Collaborative Program within Integration of Learning 3

The Madison Collaborative idea began in 2011 as part of James Madison Universitys

(JMU) Quality Enhancement Plan (QEP) for reaccreditation (Smith, 2017). The MC originated

within the institution (Holzman, Ames, & Pyburn, 2016-2017). The administrations goal was to

create an initiative to teach ethical reasoning skills through an eight key question (KQ) critical

thinking approach. The eight key questions revolved around eight vital ethical values: fairness,

outcomes, responsibilities, character, liberty, empathy, authority, and rights (Smith, 2017). The

MC program evaluated itself based on five cognitive and two attitudinal Student Learning

Outcomes (SLO). The three learning outcomes that are relative to the integration of learning are

the following:

3. Given a specific scenario, students will identify appropriate considerations for each of the

eight Key Questions. Alternate approach: Students will be able to provide the specific

considerations raised or rationale implied when applying every Key Question to an ethical

situation or dilemma.

4. For a specific ethical situation or dilemma, students will evaluate courses of action by

applying (weighing and, if necessary, balancing) the considerations raised by Key Questions.

5. Students will apply SLO 4 to their own personal, professional, and civic ethical cases. NOTE:

Implied within this SLO is the students ability to identify an ethical situation, based on the

belief that the process of ethical reasoning increases discriminatory capacities. This will be

addressed via the assessment rubric. (James Madison University, 2017, p. 5)

One of the MCs biggest programs is called Its Complicated (IC) (Holzman, Ames, &

Pyburn, 2016-2017). All first-year students experience Its Complicated during 1787
Evaluation of the Madison Collaborative Program within Integration of Learning 4

Orientation, prior to taking the Madison Collaborative assessments. There are no other required

interventions for students, though students may have experienced ethical reasoning training in

coursework and/or co-curricular experiences. The program shows first year students a video of

an ethical dilemma (Smith, 2017). Prior to fall 2016, students were trained in Its Complicated

using the Hurricane Sharon scenario (Holzman, Ames, & Pyburn, 2016-2017). The Hurricane

Sharon disaster scenario had multiple people groups in need of assistance with limited resources

(Smith, 2017). In fall 2016, a new scenario called Contagion replaced the Hurricane Sharon

scenario (Holzman, Ames, & Pyburn, 2016-2017). This scenario contains a recent outbreak of a

virus. Certain people groups need the antidote and you have limited resources and must choose

what actions you will complete first (James Madison University, 2017). In both plots, the student

is placed in the decision maker position. After showing the video, a trained facilitator leads a

discussion with the students about ethics using the eight KQs. The goal of the discussion is to

help integrate the answers to the scenario with everyday life.

The conception of integration of learning (IOL) draws from Jim Barber (2012). The

definition of IOL as developed by Barber (2012) intentionally focuses on the ability to integrate

learning as an educational outcome; that is, the process for integrating learning. Barber (2012)

defined IOL as:

The demonstrated ability to connect, apply, and/or synthesize information coherently

from disparate contexts and perspectives, and make use of these new insights in multiple

contexts. This includes the ability to connect the domain of ideas and philosophies to the

everyday experience, from one field of study or discipline to another, from the past to the
Evaluation of the Madison Collaborative Program within Integration of Learning 5

present, between campus and community life, from one part to the whole, from the abstract to

the concrete, among multiple identity rolesand vice versa. (p. 593)

Barber (2012) found three ways that students integrate learning in his study: connecting,

applying, and synthesizing information across different contexts. The Madison Collaborative

SLOs have similar language within the integration of learning. Does it complete it goals

successfully? How can Barbers definition of IOL help guide the MC towards completing its

desired goal?

Critique

The biggest critique to the program would be that the MC doesnt have specified,

consistent programming throughout the students four years. This is a crucial aspect of the

success of integrative programs in the undergraduate setting, not only for students to retain the

information, but also for them to apply the material in multiple aspects of their lives. During an

interview with Dr. Mark Warner, Vice President of Student Affairs at JMU, he stated that the

program needs to be executed in some capacity during each year to be more effective (2017).

According to the MCs annual report, On average, students scored 0.11 points lower on the

importance subscale in their second-year year compared to their first year. MC stakeholders may

consider whether this is a meaningful decrease in importance scores. (Holzman, Ames, &

Pyburn, 2016-2017). The report goes on to say that the slightly lower scores from first year to

second year may be related to whether or not students are exposed to ethical reasoning

curriculum in classes and/or co-curricular activities (Holzman, Ames, & Pyburn, 2016-2017).
Evaluation of the Madison Collaborative Program within Integration of Learning 6

The university should require the eight Key Questions Ethical Reasoning in every curriculum.

According to Dr. Warner, the administration has highly encouraged the use of MC eight KQs in

curriculum, but it has not been made a requirement yet (2017). This would include requiring

faculty to become trained in the program, and demonstrate their ability to effectively facilitate a

discussion on ethics. Finally, JMU must engrain the MC across various facets of campus other

than simply within the Orientation Program. According to ethicalsystems.org, An ethics class

on its own, with no support from or integration with other courses or communications from the

faculty, is unlikely to have an impact on future behavior, for most students (Haidt & Trevio,

2017). It could be woven into the study aboard, residence life, internships, and Greek life.

The MC does not create realistic scenarios that encourage students to apply their ethical

tools to the daily lives of first year college students. According to the Association to Advance

Collegiate Schools of Business accreditation agency, Ethics should focus on real-life experiences

that students are likely to find themselves in (Weybrecht, 2016). The Contagion and Hurricane

Sharon are good scenarios for presenting different options that consider the different eight Key

Questions but it is excessively removed from the perspective of a first year college student.

Cheating, alcohol consumption, and sexual assault are all topics that are relevant to the everyday

lives of the traditionally aged college first year. Workplace ethics is another topic that is a

realistic situation that college students could relate.

The Madison Collaborative program does not encourage students to synthesize or create

their own ideas. Jim Barber states, synthesis is an evolution into something new, the students

creation of a new insight; this construction of a novel concept entails an even deeper

involvement with the information, experiences, or skills (2012, p. 600). The Student Learning

Outcomes mention that student should be able to identify appropriate considerations for each
Evaluation of the Madison Collaborative Program within Integration of Learning 7

of the eight Key Questions (James Madison University, 2017, p. 5). This is directly related to

the connecting part of the integration of learning. The last two and most complex SLOs have

language relating to the application of their ethics to the situation and their daily life. The

Madison Collaborative should create an additional learning outcome related to the synthesis of

new ethical insights. Students could be given the chance to come up with their own ethical

scenarios or dilemmas to work through.

Conclusion

The Madison Collaborative is a great program with the highest potential. The MC has

been widely accepted across campus as the way to teach a tool of ethics. Some classes use the

eight Key Questions in their ethics class. However, the data shows that students need to be taught

ethics throughout their college experience if you want students to hold on to it. If James Madison

University, or any other universities wishing to utilize this program, want to teach a tool for

integrated ethical reasoning, the administration must make it a continuous, relatable, and across-

campus experience.
Evaluation of the Madison Collaborative Program within Integration of Learning 8

Bibliography

Barber, J. P. (2012). Integration of learning: a grounded theory analysis of college students

learning. American Educational Research Journal, 49(3), 590-617.
Haidt, J., & Trevio, L. (2017). Teaching ethics. Retrieved from Ethical systems:
http://www.ethicalsystems.org/content/teaching-ethics
Holzman, M., Ames, A., & Pyburn, L. (2016-2017). Madison collaborative 2016-2017 annual
assessment report. James Madison University, Center for assessment and research
studies, Harrisonburg.
James Madison University. (2017). The madison collaborative: ethical reasoning in action.
Retrieved from Madison collaborative home: https://www.jmu.edu/mc/index.shtml
Smith, K. (2017, May). Integrating implementation fidelity and learning improvement to
enhance students ethical reasoning abilities. James Madison University.
Warner, M. (2017). Interview about the madison collaborative. (L. Reed, Interviewer)
Weybrecht, G. (2016, December 6). How to teach students to be 'ethical'. Retrieved 2017, from
AACSB Blog: http://www.aacsb.edu/blog/2016/december/how-to-teach-students-to-
be-ethical