Advancing Talent Development

Steps Toward a T-Model Infused Undergraduate Education

Philip Gardner, Heather N. Maietta, Heather N. Maietta

• Publisher: Business Expert Press
• Year: 2020
• ISBN:
  9781951527075
• Topic: Business
• Subtopic: Service Industry
• Index: Business

Talent development is key to organizations keeping pace with the rapidly changing social and technological developments of today's workplace. Companies are calling for talent that possesses a mastery of discipline and systems, combined with an ability to handle cross-functional, multicultural teams, projects, and assignments. Colleges and universities face challenges in preparing students across all the competency dimensions employers demand.

The T-model configures academic and professional development in a way that allows institutions to provide students with a solid foundation, one built through rich academic and co-curricular experiences that allow them to grow and adapt to the evolving workplace. The T-model comprises five key elements: mastery of academic discipline, system understanding (systems thinking), boundary spanning competencies, interdisciplinary understanding, and a strong sense of self (the ME of the T). In this volume, readers are introduced to the dynamics of the workplace that generate the need for T-professionals, followed by discussion of each of the five key elements of the T-model. Readers are then introduced to and shown how representatives from different segments of higher education infuse the T-model across the curriculum. The book's final section offers insights from industry professionals on the necessity to grow as a T, once a new graduate enters the workforce.

PART I

CHAPTER 1

Disciplinary, Deep Disciplinary, and Interdisciplinary Knowledge: The Stem of the T

Douglas W. Estry

The T-professional integrates depth, defined in terms of disciplinary knowledge and the ability to understand how individuals with that knowledge function and interact to accomplish a desired outcome within or across a system(s), and breadth, defined as the professional abilities that allow someone with deep disciplinary knowledge to engage meaningfully with others who possess different disciplinary knowledge in order to affect an outcome that might not otherwise be possible (Gardner and Estry 2017). The T draws on existing scholarly work that (1) underscores the importance of deep disciplinary knowledge; (2) emphasizes professional abilities essential to success in a rapidly changing digital, knowledge-based global community; (3) stresses the importance of systems thinking and deep disciplinary knowledge as an essential foundation for boundary-spanning abilities; and (4) highlights the importance of understanding self as the ability to articulate what the individual wants to accomplish (purpose), comprehend how that fits in the world (awareness), and reach outside of themselves to act (confidence). The T affirms the need for collaborative learning opportunities that foster a student’s ability to understand the complexities of working within and across the boundaries of disciplines and systems while acting on and maintaining a set of core values inclusive of integrity, empathy, and a commitment to excellence.

While the T-model lacks a common language, it is understood across the diverse disciplines it is designed to connect. Establishing this language requires time and places to foster mutual understanding by spanning differences, discussing ideas, and building common meaning (Gorman 2011). Gorman refers to these as trading zones, or places to exchange ideas, knowledge, and negotiate compromises, all challenging pieces of bridging differences in ways of knowing and creating a common understanding and a new paradigm.

Disciplinary Knowledge

Mastery of a discipline requires the acquisition of a body of knowledge commonly used to define a specific field of study in higher education inclusive of the attitudes, abilities, ways of knowing and communicating knowledge, and attributes of an expert in a disciplinary field. The breadth and depth of disciplinary knowledge is subject to change as new knowledge is generated, often as an outcome of research and the need to address challenging new problems, problems frequently occurring at the intersection of two or more existing disciplines. These changes are inclusive of new terminology, the establishment of shared meaning, and alternative ways of communicating new ideas occasionally leading to new subdisciplines or newly defined areas of disciplinary study.

The breadth and depth of knowledge defining a discipline is determined by individuals considered experts in the field. Therefore, mastery of a disciplinary body of knowledge is essential to effective practice. This process inevitably yields implications for curriculum design (what must be taught and learned) and the assessment of that learning (what learners must know and be able to do). No matter the degree of specificity, articulation of a disciplinary body of knowledge inevitably positions prerequisite learning as an essential component.

An important goal of a discipline is to frame professional responsibility and characterize both foundational knowledge and discipline-specific content knowledge essential to professional practice (Eraut 1994; Newman, Sime, and Corcoran-Perry 1991; Blais, Hayes, Kozier, and Erb 2015; Streveler et al. 2006). Hill, Rowan, and Ball (2005), in their work on disciplinary knowledge on mathematics education, refer to this as common knowledge of content recognizing, as first laid out by Shulman (1986), that more than knowledge of mathematics was important to supporting mathematics learning. Mansilla (2005) noted, “A student begins to exhibit disciplinary understanding when he or she has mastered a certain disciplinary content base (for example, being able to move flexibly among theories, examples, concepts, and findings stemming from disciplinary practice)” (p. 19). Mansilla’s observation aligns with the ability to apply higher order thinking skills as characterized by Bloom et al. (1956) and expanded by Airasian et al. (2001) recognizing that knowledge is inclusive of factual, conceptual, procedural, and metacognitive abilities. Again, focusing on mathematics education, Ferrini-Mundy, Floden, and McCrory (2005) defined disciplinary core content knowledge for teaching algebra as “the main ideas and concepts of the domain, the commonly applied algorithms or procedures, the organizing structures and frameworks that undergird the mathematical domain” (p. 25).

In the context of the T, core content knowledge of the discipline references an individual’s understanding of foundational ideas and concepts as well as how their interrelatedness forms the larger professional body of knowledge and how this shapes professional interactions within the discipline. Specialized disciplinary knowledge often refers to the main ideas and concepts that are central to subdisciplines (e.g., biomedical or chemical engineering as a subdiscipline of engineering).

Deep Disciplinary Learning

Deep learning is a construct that reflects the learners’ ability to remember, understand, and apply disciplinary concepts using this knowledge to analyze data, think critically, and develop new hypotheses. Deep disciplinary learning goes beyond a set of accumulated facts to encompass the ability to apply disciplinary concepts and ways of knowing, as well how this knowledge is produced, communicated, and used. It is evidenced by:

1. demonstrating the capacity to gather, analyze, synthesize, and communicate data;
2. seeking new meaning;
3. reflecting on learning; and
4. creating new disciplinary knowledge and concepts.

Mansilla (2005) sees this as being able to draw on disciplinary knowledge and ways of knowing (as opposed to using naive or commonsense explanations) as a critical hallmark of both deep disciplinary knowledge as well as the capacity to work across disciplines. The learner is able to develop, validate, alter, or dismiss existing models based on evidence. It requires active listening, understanding, and considering the perspective of others (empathy) in and outside the discipline. Deep disciplinary learning facilitates communication across disciplinary and system boundaries as well as appreciating and acting on the value and application of diverse ways of knowing and generating new conceptual knowledge to propose and implement innovative and creative new solutions.

The body of knowledge defined to encompass a discipline is more than simply an accumulated set of facts. Deep knowledge embodies a unique set of ideas about what it means to know something, and how that knowledge is produced, communicated, and used. For example, in science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) fields, the scientific method is the established way of understanding the natural world. It is based on empirical observations grounded in facts, laws, and theories, and driven by a hypothesis. Other bodies of knowledge have identified ways of knowing grounded in lived experiences, observation, faith, or philosophic reasoning. We use the term disciplinary ways...