Content uploaded by Gregory L Simon
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Gregory L Simon on Apr 16, 2014
Content may be subject to copyright.
42
Journal of College Science Teaching
As our understanding of complex
environmental issues increases,
institutions of higher education are
evolving to develop new learning
models that emphasize synthesis
across disciplines, concepts, data,
and methodologies. To this end,
we argue for the implementation of
environmental science education
at the intersection of systems
theory and service learning. A
tight coupling of systems theory
and service learning provides
learners with the knowledge
and skills required to tackle
contemporary social-environmental
challenges. The tangible benets
of a systems theory—service
learning (STSL) curriculum occur
in two principal learning areas:
increased knowledge breadth and
depth. Systems theory requires a
broad assessment of social and
environmental changes, whereas
service learning promotes a brand
of research and teaching resulting in
a deepening of knowledge through
eld immersion. We present the
tangible benets of this deepening
and broadening process along
three axes: appreciation, research
methods, and communication.
Synthesis for the Interdisciplinary
Environmental Sciences:
Integrating Systems Approaches
and Service Learning
By Gregory L. Simon, Bryan Shao-Chang Wee, Anne Chin, Amy Depierre Tindle, Dan Guth, and Hillary Mason
Synthesis is increasingly recog-
nized as an effective mode of
interdisciplinary research and
education for solving complex
environmental problems, as it provides
a mechanism to link diverse ideas,
data, concepts, and methodological
approaches (Carpenter et al., 2009;
Gober, 2000). According to Callison
(1999), synthesis supports compre-
hension, application, and analysis that
are crucial for addressing issues at the
human–environment interface where
different disciplines are involved.
With synthesis, resolving environmen-
tal problems entails comprehending
fundamental interactions across dif-
ferent levels of scale and complexity.
Synthesis therefore raises the possi-
bility for theoreticians, empiricists,
modelers, and practitioners from the
sciences as well as the humanities to
formulate new approaches to existing
questions and to integrate environmen-
tal science with education (Carpenter et
al., 2009; Graybill et al., 2006; Lélé &
Norgaard, 2005). In light of these ben-
ets, funding agencies such as the U.S.
National Science Foundation (NSF)
and European Science Foundation are
increasingly setting research agen-
das to support synthesis (Gutmann,
2011; Simon & Graybill, 2010). This
is evidenced, for example, by the
NSF’s National Socio-Environmental
Synthesis Center established in 2011.
Government agencies have similarly
focused research attention toward
synthesis through, for example, the
establishment of the U.S. Geological
Survey’s John Wesley Powell Center
for Analysis and Synthesis in 2011.
As our understanding of complex
environmental issues increases, in-
stitutions of higher education must
also evolve to meet these challenges
(Fortuin, van Koppen, & Leemans,
2011; Klein, 2005; Rhoten & Parker,
2004; Sung et al., 2005; Tress, Tress,
& Fry, 2003). This paper contributes
to a reformulation of college teaching
and learning in environmental sciences
using synthesis. We view synthesis as
the essence of interdisciplinary scholar-
ship for its ability to coalesce theories,
methods, and worldviews from dif-
ferent disciplines and to enhance our
understanding and appreciation of hu-
man–environment interactions. Speci-
cally, we argue for the implementation
of environmental science education
at the intersection of systems theory
and service learning. This approach
is guided by the notion that attention
to individual components often fails
to explain the behavior of systems
(Werner, 1999) and that comprehending
dynamic interactions between compo-
nents (synthesis) will generate deeper
understandings of the world (Patton,
2002). We suggest that a tight coupling
of systems theory and service learning
in environmental science can provide
learners with the knowledge and skills
required to tackle increasingly complex
environmental challenges.
Systems and systems theory
Systems theory has emerged as a uni-
fying theoretical framework that en-
43Vol. 42, No. 5, 2013
Synthesis for the Interdisciplinary Environmental Sciences
courages synthetic interdisciplinary
solutions to complex environmental
problems. Originally developed as
general systems theory in the mid-
20th century by Bertalanffy (1968),
systems theory was initially viewed
as a way to unify disciplines in the
sciences that had become fragmented
and also to increase the efciency by
which scientic principles could be
transferred and applied in different
elds of study. We use the notion of
“system” to connote an ensemble of
interacting parts and emerging phe-
nomena that is more than just the sum
of its components (Chen & Stroup,
1993). Applied in the environmental
sciences, a system is comprised by el-
ements and characteristics of human–
environmental landscapes and the
dynamic forces and processes that in-
uence it (Chorley & Kennedy, 1971).
The role of systems theory in
environmental science research and
teaching has expanded over time to
facilitate a broader understanding of
complex environmental interactions
and challenges facing society (Capra,
1996; Meadows, 2008). At its heart,
systems theory is useful for identifying
the causes and consequences of social-
environmental problems as it avoids
compartmentalized explanations. In-
stead, systems theory considers issues
of directionality, feedback loops, and
other active processes within systems.
Explanations of systems theory co-
alesce around a common and enduring
maxim—systems emphasize holism
and networks of relationships, not re-
ductionism, where one constituent part
is isolated and examined independent
from its context. Indeed, early in the
conceptual development of systems
theory, Laszlo (1972) commented
that, “Some knowledge of connected
complexity is preferable even to a
more detailed knowledge of atomized
simplicity, if it is connected complex-
ity with which we are surrounded in
nature and of which we ourselves are
a part” (p. 10).
It is now widely accepted that an era
of interdisciplinary studies is upon us
(Harrison, Massey, & Richards, 2008;
Ivanitskaya, Clark, Montgomery, &
Primeau, 2002; Lélé & Norgaard,
2005; Leshner, 2004; Sung et al.,
2003). Scientists across diverse elds
agreed that single disciplines are no
longer able to offer adequate under-
standings of multifaceted problems
that are comprised by biophysical
and human systems (Fortuin et al.,
2011; Graybill et al., 2006; National
Research Council, 2004; Newell,
1994). For example, understanding
and appreciating the signicant and
wide-ranging impacts of managed
European honeybee decline in the
United States requires using knowl-
edge in entomology (e.g., species
characteristics and behavior), botany
(e.g., plant-pollinator dynamics), agri-
cultural economics (e.g., management
costs and crop yields), natural resource
policy and planning (e.g., land-use de-
cision making) and psychology (e.g.,
public perceptions), to name but a few
relevant areas of study. The practice
of managing on-farm honeybee bee
populations is itself a system, which
is embedded within local systems of
interacting laws, social organizations,
and biophysical processes. These
subsystems are embedded within still
larger systems comprised of state and
federal policies, scientic research and
dissemination networks, and national
environmental regulatory structures.
FIGURE 1
Mapping managed European honeybee decline as a system with multiple, interacting feedback loops.
44
Journal of College Science Teaching
Accordingly, the study of honeybee
decline requires more than just aggre-
gating disciplines; it also necessitates
synthesizing diverse knowledge do-
mains across multiple scales.
The higher order system inuencing
honeybee populations is comprised
of an array of subsystems driven by
a multiplicity of feedback loops and
a combination of linear and nonlinear
relationships that travel in many differ-
ent directions simultaneously (Figure
1). Unsolicited responses, or feedbacks,
are of particular importance when
studying systems. Feedbacks determine
how a system will progress and when
or where changes and outcomes will
materialize. A feedback loop is formed
when modications to a component of
a system affect the ows into and out
of that component (Meadows, 2008).
Positive or reinforcing feedback loops
(+) enhance the direction of change that
is imposed on a system component.
Negative or balancing feedback loops
(–) oppose the direction of change in
a system to maintain stability. These
feedback loops are exemplied in Fig-
ure 1, which describes the drivers and
consequences of a decline in managed
honeybee colonies. There are social
drivers in the form of public percep-
tion, environmental stewardship, and
pesticide application practices; there
are political drivers intended to man-
age rates of pollination, agricultural
production and food security; and there
are ecological drivers in the form of
degraded habitat, nutrition availability
and parasite and pest outbreaks—each
of which inuences transformations
across the system.
Service learning
Service learning allows participants
to apply knowledge acquired in the
classroom to realistic events and situ-
ations, often in the form of local en-
vironmental problems. As Seifer and
Connors (2007) noted, service learn-
ing is a “structured learning experi-
ence that combines community ser-
vice with preparation and reection”
(p. 5, emphasis in original). Service
learning reects a student-centered
and problem-based approach to teach-
ing and learning about environmental
science. Specically, students develop
ownership for the problems that they
are attempting to understand and re-
solve (Blumenfeld et al., 1991). Fur-
thermore, the problem is authentic, in
so far as student thinking and behav-
ior in learning environments prepares
them for real-world situations (Hon-
ebein, Duffy, & Fishman, 1993). Fi-
nally, students are self-directed in their
learning, that is, they are responsible
for information gathering and the ap-
plication of this knowledge in differ-
ent contexts, such that learning is “not
knowledge driven, rather, it is focused
on metacognitive processes” (Slavery
& Duffy, 1996, p. 146).
Systems learning is theoretically
grounded in experiential education,
which provides students with direct,
rst-person experiences in real-world
settings in order to move learning be-
yond content (McLain, 2012). Kolb’s
(1984) cycle of experiential education
(Figure 2) outlines how “knowledge
is created through the transformation
of experience” (p. 38), where concrete
experiences and observations promote
reflections that encourage learners
“to confront their basic assumptions
about the world . . . to integrate new
and more complex ways of thinking”
(Kezar & Rhoades, 2001, p. 155). It
is important that learning can begin at
any point in this cycle and is part of a
continuous process of constructing and
reconstructing individual, group, and
collective (interdisciplinary) knowledge
(McLain, 2012).
The application of Kolb’s learning
model to real-world service learning
projects can generate profound learn-
ing benets—including an increase in
environmental awareness and sense of
civic duty among project participants,
a strengthening of community ties, an
expansion of disciplinary perspectives
made possible through real-world expe-
riences, and exposure to both concep-
tual and experiential learning. Because
service learning is collaborative with
shared goals that are jointly derived
from learners and communities, it is not
surprising to nd that it has been applied
as an instructional tool in environmental
science (Brubaker & Ostroff, 2000),
health (Seifer & Connors, 2007), and
education (Fitzgerald, 2009).
From a pedagogical perspective,
service learning is frequently mistaken
for community-centered curriculum
and instruction (e.g., eld-based intern-
ships). Although considerable overlap
exists, a key difference between service
learning and these other approaches
lies in the levels of reciprocity between
participants. In service learning, both
learners and community members have
specic needs met as a result of their
sustained interactions. Hence, teach-
ing and learning typically occurs over
a longer time, nurturing relationships
and building trust that is pivotal to the
success of service learning projects.
Integrated model of systems
theory and service learning
to achieve synthesis
Efforts to understand and resolve
complex environmental problems
require synthesis across different dis-
ciplines and will thus benet from
learning environments that encourage
collaboration between disciplines,
and academic and public/private en-
tities (Tress et al., 2003). We argue
in this paper that the benets of in-
tegration are greater than simply the
sum of its parts. In other words, new
FIGURE 2
Kolb’s experiential learning
model, by McLain (2012).
Concrete Experience (1)
Forming Abstract Concepts (3)
Observation
& Reection (2)
Testing in New
Situations (4)
45Vol. 42, No. 5, 2013
Synthesis for the Interdisciplinary Environmental Sciences
ideas, experiences, and skills emerge
out of an integrated systems theory—
service learning (STSL) curriculum.
These new outcomes together serve
to achieve synthesis. By synthesis
we mean the complete integration of
disciplinary activities within a single
stream of research and/or learning.
Synthesis thus entails the comprehen-
sive enmeshment of data, methodolo-
gies, concepts, theories, and subject
matter from diverse elds of inquiry
(Figure 3).
The tangible benets of STSL cur-
riculum occur in two principal learning
areas: increased knowledge breadth
and depth. Systems theory—through
its analytic commitment to dynamic
processes, feedback loops, nonlinear
systems, and other complex system
features—requires a holistic assess-
ment of the drivers, patterns, and
outcomes of social and environmental
changes (Chen & Stroup, 1993; Guly-
aev & Stonyer, 2002). This broadening
of knowledge and analysis is a hall-
mark feature of systems theory.
If systems theory encourages work-
ing and learning between disciplinary
elds, then service learning promotes
a brand of research and teaching
premised on immersion within a eld
location or suite of sites. Effective
service learning requires close and
recurring exposure to human and
environmental eld subjects (Kezar
& Rhoades, 2001; Seifer & Connors,
2007; Ward, 1999; Wiese & Sherman,
2011). These onsite research and learn-
ing experiences deepen knowledge
through interactive and interpersonal
engagement with course materials.
It is important to note that we are
not suggesting service learning is
inherently void of interdisciplinary
thinking or that systems theory neces-
sarily obviates in-depth analysis. What
we are suggesting is that each approach
to education has its strengths and that,
when combined, an integrated STSL
framework can signicantly improve
our ability to teach, understand, and
respond to complex social-environ-
mental issues. In short, we suggest
that faculty in higher education lever-
age synthesis in STSL curriculum to
generate pedagogical frameworks and
methods that encourage both broad-
ening and deepening of knowledge
and skills in environmental sciences
and therefore advance synthesis. This
process occurs along three axes: ap-
preciation, research methods, and
communication (Table 1).
Appreciation: In order to be suc-
cessful, interdisciplinary programs of
study will need to cultivate a research
and learning environment that promotes
appreciation of various academic
viewpoints, research questions, cultural
norms, geographic contexts, and system
processes. Through their involve-
ment in STSL projects, participants
will better appreciate the theoretical
perspectives, scholarly pursuits, and
practical realities of other disciplines
and stakeholders. Similarly, group
members will develop greater appre-
ciation for the everyday practices and
experiences of their peers. Finally, par-
ticipants involved in such projects will
gain deeper appreciation for the many
dynamic and interconnected processes
comprising human–environmental
systems. Broadening one’s perspectives
and practices will open pathways for
collaboration and appreciative enquiry
between multiple research participants
and subjects. Project members who
deepen their appreciation will gain a
thorough understanding of system at-
tributes embedded in a specic location
or set of activities.
FIGURE 3
Systems Theory—Service Learning (STSL) benets for interdisciplinary environmental science.
46
Journal of College Science Teaching
Research methods: To gain detailed
understanding of complex social-
environmental issues, STSL programs
must use quantitative, qualitative, and
mixed-method approaches to research,
teaching, and learning. Through a pro-
cess of broadening, interdisciplinary
educational programs provide oppor-
tunities for participants to learn from
a diverse suite of research methods. It
is important to note that participants
do not learn and apply these methods
separately. Rather, the goal of STSL
programs is to integrate different re-
search approaches to understanding
different environmental processes and
questions. Deepening occurs as project
members’ focus on, and begin to mas-
ter, a research method that examines a
particular location or system process.
These methods can apply to data col-
lection and interpretation occurring in
classroom, laboratory, and eld-based
settings. They may involve the use of
eld equipment, software programs,
and survey/interview techniques. The
development of research methods in
STSL programs thus involves sharpen-
ing analytic tools while simultaneously
constructing a larger and more diversi-
ed research toolkit.
Communication: Interdisciplinary
environmental science programs in-
volve dening, examining, and solving
complex environmental problems.
By moving through these stages of
inquiry, collaborators will be exposed
to, and thus increase their awareness
of, multiple disciplinary and profes-
sional discourses. A discourse is a set
of values and expectations reected
in a unique language (conversations,
writing, and other forms of commu-
nication) that generate and reinforce
disciplinary ideals and perspectives.
Through a process of broadening,
participants will increase their ability
to effectively communicate within
and across disciplinary, public, and
professional elds. Through a pro-
cess of deepening, individuals will
improve their ability to communicate
effectively between a small number of
stakeholders and scientists associated
with service learning activities. Gen-
erally speaking, group members will
increase their capacity to communicate
effectively with individuals both inside
and outside the academy.
We recognize that interdisciplinary
projects will vary across institutions
and programs. Projects may differ
in their commitment to both systems
theory and service learning because of
institutional constraints, funding limi-
tations, resource availability, preexist-
ing curriculum, and scholarly commit-
ments. It is thus reasonable to expect
that some projects will endeavor to
deepen or broaden more than others.
Application of STSL model
to University of Colorado
Denver Five Fridges Farm
In the following section we describe
a proposed application of the STSL
model to an interdisciplinary envi-
ronmental sciences project for both
TABLE 1
Overview of three broadening and deepening axes.
Interdisciplinary STSL
environmental
science learning model
Broadening
Systems theory demands holistic assess-
ment of drivers and outcomes of social-
environmental changes. Full-spectrum
analysis requires paying attention to
diverse entities, processes, and feedbacks
across temporal and geographical scales.
Deepening
Service learning is premised on intimate
and recurring exposure to human and
environmental eld subjects. Onsite ex-
periences result in a focusing of knowl-
edge within system subarea through
hands-on engagement with material.
Appreciation
Programs should cultivate research
and learning environments that
promote understanding of diverse
perspectives, practices, and system
processes.
Group members better able to under-
stand diverse elements of system and
complex system interactions, thus gain-
ing appreciation for diverse viewpoints
and subject materials.
Individuals gain a thorough under-
standing of the perspectives, practices,
and processes embedded within a
specic location or node in the social-
environmental system.
Research methods
Programs should utilize quantitative,
qualitative and mixed-method ap-
proaches during data collection and
interpretation activities in classroom,
lab and eld settings.
Participants are provided with opportu-
nities to learn a broad array of research
methods, including the use of diverse
equipment, geo-spatial techniques,
statistical software, and survey/interview
techniques.
Project members focus in on, and begin
to master, a small number of relevant
research methods that closely examine
a particular geographical location, a
localized subsystem, or a specic system
process.
Communication
Programs should increase ability of
group members to communicate ef-
fectively inside the academy and out-
side the academy, and also between
those inside and outside.
Participants increase ability to commu-
nicate eectively with diverse audiences
within and across disciplinary, public, and
professional elds.
Individuals improve capacity to com-
municate eectively between a small
group of stakeholders and/or scientists
involved in area of research/learning
focus.
Note: STSL = systems theory—service learning.
47Vol. 42, No. 5, 2013
Synthesis for the Interdisciplinary Environmental Sciences
undergraduate and graduate students.
Our goal is not to describe the specic
impacts, challenges and/or benets of
implementing an STSL model. Sev-
eral years of implementation at the
University of Colorado Denver will
ultimately be needed to diagnose the
precise implications of our proposed
learning model. (Our long-term goal
is to report and analyze specic in-
stances, challenges, and benets of
teaching and learning in a subsequent
manuscript; after the STSL model is
applied through several iterations in a
new environmental science / sustain-
ability course scheduled to begin in
spring 2013.)
Rather, our objective at this juncture
is to leverage scientic and pedagogi-
cal theories to articulate and justify the
need to bridge traditionally disparate
learning models. Indeed, one need
not look beyond our own university
to see how systems theory and sys-
tem learning approaches are highly
compartmentalized modes of inquiry,
neatly delineated between courses and
rarely overlapping in their presenta-
tion to students. On its own merit, our
theoretically informed proposal for
curriculum integration represents an
innovative and valuable contribution
to the eld of environmental science
education.
In early 2012, the opportunity arose
to develop STSL-based projects with
the establishment of the Five Fridges
Farm as a Field Research Station at
the University of Colorado Denver, a
TABLE 2
Illustration of broadening and deepening process using the activity of poultry husbandry at the University of
Colorado, Denver, aliated Five Fridges Farm.
Note: The deepening and broadening occurs along three learning axes: appreciation, research methods, and communication.
Deepening takes place as learners engage with recurring, hands-on activities in ve system subareas—ecology, soil, water, food,
and community. Signied by the horizontal arrows, broadening occurs as project participants connect subareas and link them
to wider systems comprised of complex processes, interactions, and feedbacks. The broadening process may be carried out
using a wide range of analytic tools such as agent-based modeling, Bayesian data fusion, cellular automata, concept mapping,
ethnography, etc. STSL = systems theory—service learning.
48
Journal of College Science Teaching
medium-size, public university located
in downtown Denver. Although pri-
vately owned, the farm is administered
by the Department of Geography and
Environmental Sciences. Consisting of
13 acres in nearby Wheat Ridge, the
Five Fridges Farm is ecologically and
topographically varied with a stream,
irrigation ditch, pond, natural habitats,
livestock, and areas under agricultural
production. The Five Fridges Farm
presents an ideal setting for develop-
ing (and ultimately implementing)
STSL curriculum, as the farm provides
opportunities for students to engage
in farm design, land-use decision
making, conservation planning, and
landscape restoration as well as a full
range of tasks associated with produce
marketing. Moreover, as the Five
Fridges Farm continues to develop,
students and faculty will encounter an
evolving set of environmental issues
and dynamics, which will generate
new research questions and learning
opportunities. In this way, an STSL
curriculum provides the opportunity
for a longitudinal study of urban farm
development and associated interact-
ing processes, with successive cohorts
of students beneting from and build-
ing on the work of previous students.
We use the activity of poultry
husbandry—one of many pursuits
taking place at Five Fridges Farm—to
illustrate how an STSL learning model
can potentially unfold in practice and
to describe anticipated benets and
challenges of implementing an STSL-
based project. Poultry husbandry is a
particularly compelling example as it
links to many processes and activi-
ties that are concurrently internal and
external to the farm. Students are thus
introduced to systems theory as a
method for learning about the diverse
and interconnected social and biophysi-
cal characteristics that support and
inuence farm activities (broadening
process). Students then identify specic
areas of interest where they can gain
expertise and acquire new and in-depth
knowledge (deepening process). Table
2 describes five subsystem areas—
ecology, water, soil, community, and
food—that are linked to poultry hus-
bandry and that serve as useful topical
areas for in-depth research.
Conclusion
We suggest that systems theory and
system learning are not only com-
plementary but that they can oper-
ate symbiotically within a single,
interdisciplinary learning program.
For the STSL model to be effective,
educators in higher education need to
provide students with opportunities
to engage in meaningful learning that
broadens and deepens their research
and communication skills as well as
their appreciation for project sub-
ject matter. For example, following
Kolb’s (1984) learning model (Figure
2), we can see that students investi-
gating processes related to poultry
husbandry at Five Fridges Farm have
the potential to understand the farm as
a system that is itself embedded with-
in other systems. Then, through close
and recurring engagement, students
get hands-on interactions with topics
related to ecology, soil, water, food,
and community in the context of the
farm system. Following this immer-
sion experience, students are able
to reect on their prior assumptions
about environmental actions and con-
sequences (i.e., to recognize social-
environmental feedback loops). Stu-
dents may then apply their newfound
knowledge to other activities at the
farm or in different environmental
settings. We have suggested that ac-
tualizing these achievements neces-
sitates the acceptance and application
of a learning model—offered here as
an STSL model—that nurtures inter-
disciplinary teaching, learning, and
research environments.
Although the STSL model proposed
in this paper has not yet been imple-
mented at the Five Fridges Farm, this
essay performs an equally important
task: articulating the pedagogical and
scientic theories that support the in-
tegration of formerly distinct learning
models (systems theory and service
learning) within a single innovative
curriculum framework. Given our own
experiences, we view the integration of
systems theory and service learning as
a departure from traditional concepts
of scientic objectivity with discrete
facts as the building blocks of fun-
damental laws. Embracing a systems
lens to natural/social phenomena while
concurrently seeking opportunities to
engage in community-based activi-
ties involves critically analyzing the
networks and connections inherent
between parts of a system—local
and global, enduring and ephemeral,
linear and nonlinear. We contend that
the path toward synthesis must begin
by accepting that the transformation
away from disciplinary knowledge and
its rigid applications is both inevitable
and benecial. n
References
Bertalanffy, L. V. (1968). General system
theory: Foundations, development,
applications. New York, NY:
Braziller.
Blumenfeld, P. C., Soloway, E., Marx,
R. W., Krajcik, J. S., Guzdial, M.,
& Palincsar, A. (1991). Motivating
project-based learning: Sustaining
the doing, supporting the learning.
Educational Psychologist, 26, 369–
398.
Brubaker, D. C., & Ostroff, J. H. (2000).
Life, learning and community.
Washington, DC: American
Association for Higher Education.
Callison, D. (1999). Synthesis. School
Library Media Activities Monthly,
15(10), 39–41, 46.
Capra, F. (1996). The web of life. New
York, NY: Anchor Books.
Carpenter, S. R., Armbrust, E. V.,
Arzberger, P. W., Chapin, F. S.,
III, Elser, J. J., Hackett, E. J.,
. . . Zimmerman, A. S. (2009).
Accelerate synthesis in ecology and
environmental sciences. Bioscience,
59, 699–701.
Chen, C., & Stroup, W. (1993). General
system theory: Toward a conceptual
framework for science and technology
education for all. Journal of Science
49Vol. 42, No. 5, 2013
Synthesis for the Interdisciplinary Environmental Sciences
Education & Technology, 2, 447–459.
Chorley, R. J., & Kennedy, B. A. (1971).
Physical geography: A systems
approach. London, England: Prentice-
Hall International.
Fitzgerald, C. M. (2009). Language and
community: Using service learning
to recongure the multicultural
classroom. Language and Education,
23, 217–231.
Fortuin, K. P. J., van Koppen, C. S. A.,
& Leemans, R. (2011). The value of
conceptual models in coping with
complexity and interdisciplinarity in
environmental sciences education.
Bioscience, 61, 802–814.
Gober, P. (2000). In search of synthesis.
Annals of the Association of American
Geographers, 90, 1–11.
Graybill, J., Dooling, S., Greve, A.,
Shandas, V., Withey, J., & Simon,
G. (2006). A rough guide to
interdisciplinarity: Graduate student
perspectives. Bioscience, 56, 757–763.
Gulyaev, S. A., & Stonyer H. R. (2002).
Making a map of science: General
system theory as a conceptual
framework for tertiary science
education. International Journal of
Science Education, 24, 753–769.
Gutmann, M. (2011, April). NSF SBE
2020 Initiative: Next generation
research challenges at NSF.
Presentation at the 2011 annual
meeting of the Association of
American Geographers, Seattle,
Washington.
Harrison, S., Massey, D., & Richards,
K. (2008). Conversations across the
divide. Geoforum, 39, 549–551.
Honebein, B., Duffy, T. M., & Fishman,
B.J. (1993). Constructivism and the
design of learning environments:
Context and authentic activities for
learning. In T. M. Duffy, J. Lowyck,
& D. H. Jonassen (Eds.), Designing
environments for constructivist
learning (pp. 87–108). Berlin,
Germany: Springer-Verlag.
Ivanitskaya, L., Clark, D., Montgomery,
D., & Primeau, R. (2002).
Interdisciplinary learning: process
and outcomes. Innovative Higher
Education, 27, 95–111.
Kezar, A., & Rhoades, R. (2001). The
dynamic tensions of service learning
in higher education: A philosophical
perspective. The Journal of Higher
Education, 72, 144–171.
Klein, J. T. (2005). Interdisciplinary
teamwork: The dynamics of
collaboration and integration. In S.
J. Derry, C. D. Schunn, & M. A.
Gernsbacher (Eds.), Interdisciplinary
collaboration: An emerging cognitive
science (pp. 23–50). Mahwah, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Kolb, D. (1984). Experiential learning:
Experience as the source of learning
and development. Englewood Cliffs,
NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Laszlo E. (1972). Introduction to systems
philosophy: Toward a new paradigm
of contemporary thought. New York,
NY: Gordon & Breach.
Lélé, S., & Norgaard, R. B. (2005).
Practicing interdisciplinarity.
Bioscience 55, 967–975.
Leshner, A. (2004, February). Science at
the leading edge. Science, 303, 729.
Meadows, D. H. (2008). Thinking in
systems. White River Junction, VT:
Chelsea Green Publishing.
McLain, B. (2012). Science identity
construction through extraordinary
professional development experiences.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation,
University of Colorado, Denver.
National Research Council. (2004).
Facilitating interdisciplinary research.
Washington, DC: National Academies
Press.
Newell, W. H. (1994). Designing
interdisciplinary courses. New
Directions for Teaching and Learning,
58, 35–51.
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative
research and evaluation methods.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Rhoten, D., & Parker, A. (2004,
December). Risks and rewards of
an interdisciplinary research path.
Science, 306, 2046.
Seifer, S. D., & Connors, K. (2007).
Community campus partnerships for
health: Faculty toolkit for service-
learning in higher education. Scotts
Valley, CA: National Service-
Learning Clearinghouse.
Simon, G., & Graybill, J. (2010).
Geography in interdisciplinarity:
Towards a third conversation.
Geoforum, 41, 356–363.
Slavery, J. R., & Duffy, T. M.
(1996). Problem-based learning:
An instructional model and its
constructivist framework. In B.
G. Wilson (Ed.), Constructivist
learning environments: Case studies
in instructional design (135–148).
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational
Technology Publications.
Sung, N., Gordon, J. I., Rose, G. D.,
Getzoff, E. D., Kron, S. J., Mumford,
D, . . . Kopell N. J. (2003, September).
Educating future scientists. Science,
301, 1485.
Tress, B., Tress, G., & Fry, G. (2003).
Potentials and limitations of
interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary
landscape studies. In B. Tress,
G. Tress, A. van der Walk, & G.
Fry (Eds.), Interdisciplinary and
transdisciplinary landscape studies:
Potential and limitations (pp. 182–
191). Wageningen, the Netherlands:
Delta Program.
Ward, H. (1999). Acting locally:
Concepts and models for service
learning in environmental studies.
Washington DC: American
Association for Higher Education.
Werner, B. T. (1999). Complexity in
natural landform patterns. Science,
284(5411), 102–104.
Wiese, N. M., & Sherman, D. J.
(2011). Integrating marketing and
environmental studies through
an interdisciplinary, experiential,
service-learning approach. Journal of
Marketing Education, 33, 41–56.
Gregory L. Simon (gregory.simon@
ucdenver.edu) is an assistant professor,
Bryan Shao-Chang Wee is an assistant
professor, Anne Chin is a professor, Amy
Depierre Tindle is a student, Dan Guth
is a student, and Hillary Mason is a stu-
dent, all in the Geography and Environ-
mental Sciences Department at the Uni-
versity of Colorado, Denver.
