In the fall of 2016, we\u2014Drs. Liz Henley from the Department of Computer Information Technology and Susan Cook from the Department of English\u2014co-taught a course titled Industrial Revolution\/Digital Revolution<\/i>. Here we describe our process of creating this co-taught interdisciplinary course.\u00a0 While interdisciplinary research and teaching have received increasing acceptance and institutional support in recent years, our two fields of Information Technology and English are not typical of many interdisciplinary partnerships.\u00a0 Our work developing Industrial Revolution\/Digital Revolution<\/i> demonstrated to us the degree to which inter-school interdisciplinary co-teaching introduces specific challenges, but also specific benefits.\u00a0 While every institution approaches and supports interdisciplinary teaching differently, it is our hope that by serving as a case study, our description of our experiences planning Industrial Revolution\/Digital Revolution <\/i>will introduce useful topics for future consideration, inquiry, and application.\u00a0 As Alison J. Friedow, Erin E. Blankenship, Jennifer L. Green, and Walter W. Stroup note, \u201cDespite claims about the possibilities interdisciplinary learning offers, we have few examples of how faculty from different disciplines work together to create interdisciplinary classroom environments where such outcomes can occur.\u00a0 In short, more examples of how faculty from different disciplines actually develop, engage, and revise interdisciplinary pedagogies <\/i>with one another are needed in interdisciplinary scholarship\u201d (405).\u00a0 This essay offers one such example by describing the development of our course, as well as the structures that made it possible.<\/p>\n
Our class participated in by-now established higher education co-teaching and interdisciplinary teaching trends.\u00a0 Katherine K. Smith and Vanessa G. Winn note that the term \u201cco-teaching\u201d is the more common nomenclature at the K-12 level, arising out of the relationship between the \u201cgeneral educator and the special educator, in the wake of the amendment to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) in 1997\u201d (436).\u00a0 Yet, as Kenneth Tobin writes, \u201cThe central part to coteaching is teaching together\u2014in ways that coordinate and compliment the teaching among co-teachers for the common good of all students\u201d (191).\u00a0 Conversely, \u201cteam-teaching\u201d is understood as a model \u201cin which teachers trade responsibility, dividing up the workload and teaching within the comfort of their own specializations (Smith and Winn 436).\u00a0 This alternating approach to teaching is not favored by students, as noted by Kimberly Dugan and Margaret Letterman, who found that instead \u201cstudents prefer team-taught courses with truly collaborative teaching methods\u201d (14). Studies, such as that conducted by John R. Morelock et al, clearly indicate that true co-teaching provides \u201ca desirable educational experience for students, providing a more in-depth exploration of content knowledge\u201d (187).<\/p>\n
The college co-teaching model is particularly well-suited for the interdisciplinary classroom, in which learning goals include asking students to make connections across different fields of knowledge.\u00a0 Adi Kidron and Yael Kali observe that our century poses \u201cchallenges that demand different ways of thinking and the development of new skills.\u00a0 One of the critical skills is the ability to think and integrate knowledge across disciplines and to understand the relations between fields of knowledge\u201d (1).\u00a0 Indeed, the process of developing interdisciplinary modes of thought \u201crequires a learning process through which learners integrate insights and modes of thinking from a number of disciplines to advance their understanding of a topic which is beyond the scope of a single discipline\u201d (1).\u00a0 Interdisciplinary thinking and the collaborative pedagogies and technologies that support it serve students who must learn to use such modes \u201ceffectively in their personal and professional lives\u201d (Tharp 46).\u00a0 Beyond this, however, Oskar Guenwald argues the future of knowledge itself is at stake: while \u201cmany in academe still consider interdisciplinary studies as a fad or fashion,\u201d this is due to the fact that \u201cacademics are trained overwhelmingly in universities that continue the compartmentalization of knowledge among disciplines and departments\u2026The result is an increasing fragmentation of knowledge and lack of insight concerning the interconnections and the unity underlying the phenomenal world\u201d (23).\u00a0 With these issues and this framework in mind, we set out to make our own contribution to co-taught interdisciplinary studies.<\/p>\n
IT 2ST3: Industrial Revolution\/Digital Revolution <\/i>was a continuation of our teaching collaboration, which began in the fall of 2012 with a reading communities digital project in Susan\u2019s Major Author Studies course on Charles Dickens.\u00a0 Through this earlier project we learned that our research and teaching interests complemented one another\u2019s in unexpected ways, and we decided to develop a course bridging our two fields, in the hopes that we might be able to model interdisciplinary\u00a0modes of thought while teaching an already interdisciplinary topic.\u00a0 This previous collaboration resulted in an article, \u201cReading Communities in the Dickens Classroom,\u201d published in the April 2015 issue of Pedagogy<\/i>.<\/p>\n
The course that eventually became Industrial Revolution\/Digital Revolution<\/i> not only pulled in information from our disciplines of information technology and literature, but also drew on additional related disciplines within our respective schools, such as economics and history. The course description reads:<\/p>\n This course examines the history, impact, and contemporary legacy of the Industrial Revolution through literature and cultural studies. Students will learn about the major cultural, literary, economic, and technological influences that led to and sustained the Industrial Revolution, and will study the 21st-century digital revolution in terms of this earlier cultural movement. The course will begin with readings, lectures, and discussions focused on the Industrial Revolution and its prehistory, and will conclude with readings, lectures, and discussions focused on 21st-century technological developments in the age of globalization. The middle third of the class will center around a Reacting to the Past game titled \u201cRage Against the Machine: Technology, Rebellion, and the Industrial Revolution.\u201d This elaborate role playing game gives students the opportunity to learn about this subject in a uniquely engaged manner. The course will blend literature, history, economics, and information technology to provide students with a truly interdisciplinary experience.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n As noted in the description, the course was essentially divided into thirds, with the first third covering the Industrial Revolution, the middle third consisting of the Reacting to the Past Game, and the final third applying this earlier framework to the Digital Revolution. The course included readings, discussions, and lectures about both the Industrial Revolution and its prehistory, as well as complementary readings, discussions, and lectures about 21st<\/sup>-century technological developments in the age of globalization. We assigned the novel North and South<\/i>, by Elizabeth Gaskell, to give students an idea of some of the issues that were current at the time of the Industrial Revolution. In the final third of the course, we assigned The World is Flat<\/i>, by Thomas Freedman, to cover the events leading up to and the current impact of the Digital Revolution.<\/p>\n Our selected Reacting to the Past game, \u201cRage Against the Machine: Technology, Rebellion, and the Industrial Revolution,\u201d gave students the opportunity to learn about the Industrial Revolution by adopting the positions and arguments of nineteenth-century archetypes, such as mill owners, mill workers, shop keepers, and gentry. The game included readings to help provide context for the issues students were asked to grapple with as part of game play, and we used these readings to help students make connections to the rest of the course material. For example, we returned to Adam Smith\u2019s theorization of the invisible hand throughout our Reacting game as well as in the final section of the course as we discussed globalization and different views on trade regulations.\u00a0 Similarly, David Ricardo\u2019s discussion of the natural price of labor and Robert Owen\u2019s position on how employees should be treated reemerged as discussion points throughout the course\u2019s historical trajectory.<\/p>\n We are fortunate that our institution encourages interdepartmental and inter-school collaboration and supports interdisciplinary teaching. Whereas Kathryn D. Blanchard observes, \u201cAsk any provost or academic dean why most professors teach alone most of the time, and you will hear the most persuasive of all reasons: money,\u201d our institution has nevertheless made interdisciplinary programming a priority (339). Industrial Revolution\/Digital Revolution<\/i> was created with the support of the Center for Teaching and Learning (CTL) at Southern New Hampshire University (SNHU). Through the CTL, SNHU has developed many initiatives, and currently supports multiple types of programming around interdisciplinary work. One such initiative that particularly helped us came in the form of a Reacting to the Past workshop hosted by the CTL during the summer of 2015. Reacting to the Past is the name given to a set of historically situated role playing games designed for students, originally developed by Barnard College in the 1990s.\u00a0 There are now over thirty Reacting games either in development or fully peer-reviewed and published.\u00a0 The workshop we attended introduced participants to the Reacting game structure, and gave us an opportunity to play a truncated version of Patriots, Loyalists & Revolution in New York City, 1775-76<\/i> with our colleagues.\u00a0 Reacting to the Past is an excellent conduit through which to approach interdisciplinary teaching, for as developers state on their website, \u201cPart of the intellectual appeal of RTTP is that it transcends disciplinary structures\u201d (Reacting<\/i>).<\/p>\n We were further supported in our development of Industrial Revolution\/Digital Revolution<\/i> by a grant program offered through the CTL called the Innovative Teaching Partnership Program (ITPP). This program encourages faculty from two different disciplines to apply for and create a new course that merges their fields. Faculty engage in a year-long partnership, where they typically develop their course together in the spring semester and then teach the course the following fall semester. Only three partnerships are funded each year, and the program allows each of these courses to count as part of each faculty\u2019s regular teaching load. In addition, the program provides a stipend for each faculty member to compensate the partnership for the time spent developing the new course. One requirement of the program is to give a presentation about the planning process and then another on the experience, which allows other faculty to learn more about the program. Another requirement of the program is that both faculty members must truly co-teach the course\u2014not just divide up the content and assignments and essentially divide the class in half.\u00a0 ITPP courses are truly interdisciplinary.\u00a0 Susan previously received an ITPP grant in 2012, and designed a course on book banning in partnership with a library faculty member.\u00a0 Faculty have been funded for work bridging fields such as English and Graphic Design, Math and Chemistry, Organizational Leadership and Psychology, and Sociology and Marketing.<\/p>\n While faculty applying for an ITPP grant can be from any two different disciplines, priority is given to partnerships representing two different schools.\u00a0 At SNHU, our two programs fall under the School of Business and the School of Arts and Sciences.\u00a0 We wanted to create a course that would bring together two disciplines that are not typically taught together.\u00a0 Our aim was to show students how two different disciplines address a given topic, in order to demonstrate the methodologies and discourses that differentiate us, as well as the approaches that we share.<\/p>\n As part of our process for developing the course, we both started with a selection of books: Susan for the earlier section of the course, and Liz for the later section. However, when we looked through the additional readings integrated into the Reacting to the Past game and the rest of the course timeline, we narrowed our additional readings down to one book per section. We used the game readings to help shape key connections to each of the two books. The game readings, which we both read, helped provide a common language for the focus of course discussions.\u00a0 The reading selection process was time-intensive, as we reviewed not only primary sources in our own fields, but also those suggested by one another.\u00a0 As part of our effort to make this a truly co-taught course, we took responsibility for learning about one another\u2019s selected readings. This involved sharing summaries of the readings with each other during the planning phase and then reading those books in full, before the class periods when they would be discussed.<\/p>\n Once we had the rough outline for the course, our next step was to create the rest of the structure. We developed a reading schedule and determined what types of assignments might best allow students to demonstrate they had formed the connections we were asking them to make. We spent considerable time discussing the number of assignments and general guidelines for each, as well as determining the weighting for each category. We quickly learned that our preferences for certain types of assignments highlighted our disciplinary differences: Susan was used to more qualitative essay assignments, while Liz was more familiar with application assignments.\u00a0 We ended up incorporating both types of assessments into the syllabus. We determined when we would schedule shared office hours and agreed on other class policies.<\/p>\n We agreed that we would run each class together (except for the middle third when we would be moderating the Reacting to the Past game) as a combination of lecture and discussion. We agreed to trade off taking the lead in generating the class discussion points and overarching class-by-class trajectory for different major sections of the course\u2014Susan for the Industrial Revolution material in the first third of the course, and Liz for the Digital Revolution topics in the final third. However, we both made sure to read all of the course materials and shared responsibility for the discussion topics, so that we were each able to jump in and contribute to lectures and discussions each class period, utilizing the co-teaching model as described by Tobin and Morelock et al, over the team teaching model as described by Smith and Winn.\u00a0 We coordinated this by creating a shared folder in Dropbox to hold all of our class documents. One of the files was a lesson plan document, where discussion questions and topics for each section of the readings were listed with notes identifying the main points to be covered each class period and how we wanted those covered: for example, whole class discussion, small groups reporting back, debates, etc. This document gave us a rough guideline, and we kept it open-ended so as to make adjustments throughout the semester depending on student progress, school weather closures, or other extenuating circumstances.\u00a0 The shared lesson plan document was extremely useful, although we also supplemented this with face-to-face check-ins before and after class, as well as during our shared office hours.<\/p>\n As we were developing the course we explored possible field trips, because there were local opportunities to show students what eighteenth- and nineteenth-century mills were like beyond just using images and descriptions in the course readings. We toured two nearby mill museums: the Millyard Museum in Manchester, NH, and the Boott Cotton Mills Museum in Lowell, MA.\u00a0 We are fortunate to teach in a part of the country where this American Industrial Revolution history is preserved quite literally just down the road from us, and while there are important distinctions between American and British industrial development in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, these points of difference become talking points in and of themselves, and the similarities help students connect to the course material in ways readings and lectures\u2014and even role playing games\u2014cannot.\u00a0 Simply touring these museums as we developed our course allowed us to enrich our approaches to the material.\u00a0 Each mill presented its history very differently, which is explained in part by the fact that the Manchester Millyard Museum, while operated by the Manchester Historic Society, is owned by the Amoskeag Company\u2014the successor to the mill company whose history the museum recounts.\u00a0 The Boott Museum, on the other hand, forms part of the Lowell National Historical Park.\u00a0 We decided to dedicate a class period to taking the students to the museum near the campus and, due to time constraints, to make the Boott Museum visit optional for extra credit.\u00a0 We felt that it was important to visit at least one of the museums with the students so that they could put the earlier course readings and game in perspective, as well as being able to see the technologies that were being described.<\/p>\n While much of the process of developing this co-taught interdisciplinary course was similar to the process of developing any new course, we each noted specific differences.<\/p>\n The most obvious difference I found in developing a co-taught course from developing a course on my own was the amount of compromise needed.\u00a0 Susan and I had worked together before, so I knew that we would not be extreme opposites, but there were still differences that popped up in our classroom policies, such as how we would break down grade weights, and even the number or type of assignments we would give.<\/p>\n With the interesting setup of our class, it allowed for us to still keep a variety of assignment types.\u00a0 For example, I tend to have a lot of assignments that have a heavy application piece, with students creating websites, mobile apps, physical items created with technology, or even reports to present to a business with technology recommendations.\u00a0 As part of many of these assignments, I also have several assignments that also incorporate a reflection component, about what went well, why certain decisions were made, etc.\u00a0 This meant that the Reacting to the Past game fit in well with that, as students were doing something with the material they were learning and also reflecting in journal assignments about why they had made different decisions within the game and what their overall strategy was.\u00a0 Understandably, literary analysis does not typically come up in my information technology courses.\u00a0 This meant that for some assignments, such as the game, we were able to combine both of our assignment preferences.\u00a0 Students needed to work with their readings to decide how their particular character would use that information or how to debate opposing viewpoints, applying the readings to their game strategy and reflecting throughout the process.\u00a0 With any assignments or policies where we were not in complete alignment and needed to make a compromise, I feel like we were both heard.\u00a0 If it was a situation where there was no middle ground, like whether or not to accept late work or if grades should be rounded, then the decision tended to go towards whoever felt more strongly about something.\u00a0 Overall, I think the course ended up being a good mix of both of us at the end.\u00a0 Going through the process also made me think more about my own methods because I had to be able to explain why I had things set up the way I did.\u00a0 It also gave me different ideas to try out in my other courses.<\/p>\n There was also more of a time commitment involved in developing a course with someone else.\u00a0 We would meet regularly, starting with our initial proposal for the ITPP grant, then as we developed a firmer structure and syllabus for the course, and finally as we worked on the specific lesson plans.\u00a0 I was developing another course at the same time on my own, and it had a very different timeline, as I could make decisions based on what I wanted to do with the class without needing to talk it through with anyone else.\u00a0 This also meant that at times that I was not in a much of a rush if I was thinking through how I wanted to handle or structure a component of the course, as I did not need to be checking in with someone or have anything finalized until syllabi were due at the start of the semester.\u00a0 I could work in spurts on the course, as I had ideas about how I wanted to frame different parts of it.\u00a0 For the co-taught course, we had meetings where we would talk about different parts of the process, make a list of what each of us was going to work on, and create deadlines as to when we would either send the other person something or meet again.\u00a0 It keeps you more accountable on a stricter timeline because you know someone else is relying on you, so you cannot procrastinate, while at the same time it takes longer because you do want to make sure that both people have input.<\/p>\n Co-teaching is something I enjoy, but which I also find challenging.\u00a0 As a literary studies scholar, I am accustomed to researching and teaching more or less alone, and since teaching my first class in the fall of 2003, I would say I have been largely left to my own devices to develop my syllabi and teach my classes.\u00a0 Even while teaching interdisciplinary material\u2014which I frequently find myself doing in my composition, literature, or gender studies courses\u2014I typically cover that material myself.<\/p>\n As Liz indicates above, one of the challenges of co-teaching is that it forces you to be able to articulate various aspects of your teaching methods or class policies.\u00a0 It also forced me to consider the extent to which my interdisciplinary teaching is framed by my literary studies disciplinary background.\u00a0 When I teach about photography in my Victorian literature course, for instance, I am doing so from the perspective of literary interpretation and cultural studies.\u00a0 The way I teach about the development of technologies changes when I am teaching alongside a colleague from IT, and a big part of this change is in the degree to which I am aware that the history I am teaching students is one narrative among several, inflected by my own focus in literary culture.\u00a0 Being able to confront the limitations of my own approaches to interdisciplinary work has been extremely valuable.<\/p>\n One of the other challenges of this kind of teaching is the way I approach time management\u2014not only in terms of class prep, but in terms of how I think about time within the classroom.\u00a0 My classes tend to be heavily discussion-based, and I incorporate mini-lectures throughout.\u00a0 This more fluid style is harder to achieve successfully while coordinating with another faculty member, and the dynamic of class discussions changes when there are two faculty in the room rather than one.\u00a0 To account for this, we modified our lesson plans throughout the semester in response to the evolving classroom dynamic, though this was very time-intensive.<\/p>\n Finally, I think one of the more banal but very real challenges we faced had to do more with the extent to which interdisciplinary coursework is understood by the student body, and how it is incorporated into the curriculum.\u00a0 To attract a diverse student body to our course, we designated it as an IT course, but entered it into General Education for the School of Arts and Sciences (SAS).\u00a0 This, we hoped, would attract both IT students as well as SAS students who were required to take an IT course for Gen Ed.\u00a0 This worked to a limited degree, but I think we both felt that the development of interdisciplinary courses such as ours is potentially limited by the extent to which students perceive such a course as essential to their majors, or even whether they are aware of such courses.\u00a0 The virtue of the ITPP courses is that each is new and unique; the downside to such courses is that they are unable to capitalize on word of mouth.\u00a0 It feels a bit like the drive to create new interdisciplinary educational opportunities sometimes outpaces our means of creating an environment where those opportunities are able to be fully realized.<\/p>\n Co-teaching interdisciplinary courses is extremely rewarding, challenging, and\u2014in our experience\u2014requires substantial institutional support. While we were able to work together on a project for Susan\u2019s previous literature course, and could have continued thus by guest lecturing in one another\u2019s classes, teaching a more cohesive course together was only possible because of university support\u2014in particular, the ITPP, which shows commitment to bringing together faculty to teach a new course. Without this course counting towards our regular teaching loads, the substantial work involved would have made running the course much more challenging, particularly as we work in different schools within our university.<\/p>\n The process of developing a co-taught interdisciplinary course has many advantages for both students and faculty. Faculty are able to work more broadly on a topic and see how different disciplines look at that topic. In addition, working so closely with another faculty member allows you to explore different pedagogical choices and learn more about your colleagues. Students are able to see that all academic content does not exist in silos and are more likely to continue to realize that what they learn in one class does not only exist in that specific class or discipline. This models an approach to learning that we sorely need in order to solve twenty-first century problems. While challenging to support and facilitate, the benefits of this type of class are numerous, and we feel strongly that more faculty and students should have access to such opportunities.\u00a0 Guenwald offers a bleak view of a university without such support for interdisciplinary work, writing that \u201cDepartmental compartmentalization of knowledge hinders new discoveries in the natural sciences and \u2018connecting-the-dots\u2019 in the social and behavioral sciences, while humanities are relegated to irrelevance\u201d (1). A true redemption of higher education and its relevance for both the future careers of our students as well as our culture at large, writes Guenwald, \u201crequires re-envisioning the university\u201d (22).\u00a0 As we see it, this process includes the funding of co-teaching partnerships\u00a0and other institutional support for interdisciplinary research and teaching.<\/p>\n Blanchard, Kathryn D. \u201cModeling lifelong learning: Collaborative teaching across disciplinary lines.\u201d Teaching Theology and Religion<\/i> 15.4 (October 2012): 338-54.<\/p>\n Cook, Susan and Liz Henley. \u201cReading Communities in the Dickens Classroom.\u201d Pedagogy<\/i> 15.2 (April 2015): 331-51.<\/p>\n Dugan, Kimberly and Margaret Letterman. \u201cStudent Appraisals of Collaborative Teaching.\u201d College Teaching <\/i>56 (2008): 11-15.<\/p>\n Friedow, Alison J., Erin E. Blankenship, Jennifer L. Green, and Walter W. Stroup, \u201cLearning Interdisciplinary Pedagogies.\u201d Pedagogy: Critical Approaches to Teaching Literature, Language, Composition, and Culture<\/i> 12.3 (2012): 405-24.<\/p>\n Guenwald, Oskar. \u201cThe Promise of Interdisciplinary Studies: Re-Imagining the University.\u201d Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies<\/i> 26.1-2 (2014): 1-28.<\/p>\n Kidron, Adi and Yael Kali, \u201cBoundary breaking for interdisciplinary learning,\u201d Research in Learning Technology <\/i>23 (2015): 1-17.<\/p>\n Morelock, John R., Marlena McGlothlin Lester, Michelle D. Klpfer, Alex M. Jardon, Ricky D. Mullins, Erika L. Nicholas, and Ahmed S. Alfaydi, \u201cPower, Perceptions, and Relationships: A Model for Co-Teaching in Higher Education,\u201d College Teaching<\/i> 65.4\u00a0 (2017): 182-91.<\/p>\n Reacting to the Past<\/i>. Barnard College. 2017. Web. https:\/\/reacting.barnard.edu.<\/p>\n Smith, Katherine K. and Vanessa G. Winn. \u201cCo-teaching in the college classroom,\u201d Teaching Education <\/i>28.4 (2017): 435-48.<\/p>\n Squire, Megan and John Burney. Rage Against the Machine: Technology, Rebellion, and the Industrial Revolution, version 1.2<\/i>.<\/p>\n Tara Tharp, \u201c\u2018Wiki, Wiki, Wiki\u2014WHAT?\u2019 Assessing Online Collaborative Writing,\u201d English Journal <\/i>99.5 (2010): 40-46.<\/p>\n Tobin, Kenneth \u201cTwenty Questions about Co-Teaching,\u201d in Transforming Urban Education<\/i>, ed. Tobin and Shady. Rotterdam, Sense, 2014: 190-204.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" By Elizabeth M. Henley and Susan E. Cook, Southern New Hampshire University Introduction In the fall of 2016, we\u2014Drs. Liz Henley from the Department of Computer Information Technology and Susan Cook from the Department of English\u2014co-taught a course titled Industrial Revolution\/Digital Revolution. Here we describe our process of creating this co-taught interdisciplinary course.\u00a0 While interdisciplinary […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":9762,"featured_media":0,"parent":1528,"menu_order":6,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","template":"","meta":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/sites.bu.edu\/impact\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/1570"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/sites.bu.edu\/impact\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/sites.bu.edu\/impact\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/page"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/sites.bu.edu\/impact\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/9762"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/sites.bu.edu\/impact\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1570"}],"version-history":[{"count":5,"href":"https:\/\/sites.bu.edu\/impact\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/1570\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1575,"href":"https:\/\/sites.bu.edu\/impact\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/1570\/revisions\/1575"}],"up":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/sites.bu.edu\/impact\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/1528"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/sites.bu.edu\/impact\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1570"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}University Support<\/b><\/h5>\n
Course Development<\/b><\/h5>\n
Liz\u2019s Reflection<\/b><\/h5>\n
Susan\u2019s Reflection<\/b><\/h5>\n
Conclusion<\/b><\/h5>\n
Works Cited<\/b><\/h5>\n