As we talk to staff from across the sector about capstones, and what they need in the way of support, consistent themes are appearing. One of those themes is the difficulty people have interpreting the literature on capstones, particularly key terms that can be found in almost every discussion, but are used differently or are not unpacked. One of those terms is ‘integration’.
Healey et al (2013, p.15) argue that: ‘Integrative learning is about making connections within a programme or major, between fields, across curriculum and co-curriculum, and between academic knowledge and practice’. Across the sector, we have to date found four broad approaches to integration that reflect this definition in different ways:
• Integration of prior learning – in which students are effectively asked to synthesise, make connections between, or reformulate knowledge and skills that they have already gathered within their course
• Meta-topic integration – in which students are asked to synthesise knowledge and skills that they have gathered with knowledge and skills being gathered during the capstone, in order to demonstrate both links between topics and capacity to make new links during a learning experience or task
• Selective contextual integration – in which students are asked to select and use prior learning in a realistic scenario, which itself provides a new frame of reference for existing knowledge and skills
• Re-orientation to transition – in which students are not explicitly expected to integrate knowledge and skills but were given opportunities to develop new capabilities and awareness that may or may not build on prior learning
The first of these, the integration of prior learning, is effectively a backward or inward looking approach, in which the focus is on prior learning within the program. One way of thinking about this is as a ‘protective’ capstone – the experience is intended to ensure that the program content is revisited, integrated and protected. This approach seems to be relatively prevalent across the sector. For example, Van Acker et al (2013, p.16) found that more than half of business capstones emphasised ‘backward looking functions’, and argued that this was due to a focus ‘on integrating ‘students’ previously learned knowledge and skills’. They also argued that this was problematic, resulting in ‘a limited transitional function’ and as a result, did not fulfil the ‘conventional definition of a capstone’ (p.16).
The second of the approaches, in which a new lens or point of view is added, has a stronger focus on ‘building on’ prior learning by adding something new to the mix. Students may have some choice about topics and be able to select prior learning that is useful to their own questions or interests. This approach, though, still remains problematic from the perspective of van Acker et al if the ‘meta-topic’ does not also fulfil the need for a transitional focus.
The third approach, in which students work within a realistic context or scenario (simulated or otherwise), is generally more practical and applied in nature. That is, the curriculum is open to students selecting for themselves the knowledge and skills that are most appropriate to a problem or situation. These capstones are more likely to be outward and forward looking (in terms of students’ future careers) in that the issues, activities and contexts were more likely to be related to industry, community and post-graduate study expectations.
The fourth approach, in which the orientation is toward transition, has a more limited academic integrative component. Activities may not refer to past learning at all and the integration in this case is less likely to be explicit or substantial. This does not mean that integration is not occurring for students, but that integration is more likely to be unconscious and employment-oriented than academic and in-depth, or the subject of assessment.
To visualise this, we might say that these four styles of integration operate along a continuum, with an increasing degree of outward and forward focus, while the capacity to explicitly extend prior learning is strongest in the middle of the continuum.
Figure: A continuum of integrative learning approaches
What does this mean? In practical terms, staff choose their approach to meet the needs of their program, discipline and cohorts. However, if we examine the approaches within the framework of the wide-ranging and future-oriented role ascribed to capstones, then it is important that students build on prior knowledge in ways that support their transition out of undergraduate study. Doing so means moving beyond the protective and into the meta and applied domains, but not so far into the future that they do not have the opportunity to explicitly make use of prior learning and develop a deep sense of its relevance to their professional and personal futures.
References:
Healey, Mick, Lannin, Laura, Stibbe, Arran, & Derounian, James. (2013). Developing and enhancing undergraduate final-year projects and dissertations. National Teaching Fellowship Scheme. York: The Higher Education Academy.
van Acker, Elizabeth, Fraser, Lorelle, Hibbins, Ray, Wilson, Keithia, French, Erica, Psaros, Jim, . . . Bailey, Janis. (2013). Capstone courses in undergraduate business degrees: Better course design, better learning activities, better assessment. Sydney: Office of Learning and Teaching.