se study of a course taught at Georgetown University. Moreover, the genesis of the case study suggests that careful planning must precede a course which successfully interweaves complex technologies and a variety of social science disciplines.
This chapter also can provide insights useful to instructors whose courses have a predominant focus in one discipline but of necessity must incorporate interdisciplinary analyses for full understanding.
The analytical tools described by Joels (future studies) and Snider (debate) encompass several interesting approaches to teaching interdisciplinary topics (exclusively or as a subsection of a course). Moreover, both future studies and debate tools can be adapted successfully for classroom use and can be used to focus discussions of the social science implications of Shuttle, Shuttle-related, and longer-term technology. Appendix Three provides more specific materials: several scenario topics, a brief reading list, and several course descriptions supplement the Joels paper; instructors' observations and guidelines for in-class use of debate complement the Snider paper.
Case Study: The Teaching of an Interdisciplinary Course in the Social Science Aspects of Space and the Course Syllabus
T. Stephen Cheston
I. The Course
In Spring 1978, Georgetown University offered an undergraduate interdisciplinary social science course on space, "The High Frontier: Technology, Diplomacy, and Human Values." A year prior to the course, Georgetown established a faculty coordinating committee comprising professors in physics, history, philosophy, political science, business administration, and theology. Following careful deliberation, the group chose as an integrating theme a space technological system with major economic implications, specifically, an Earth-Moon industrial operation drawing raw materials from the Moon or asteroids parked in Earth orbit and generating energy from solar arrays in space. With the technological integrator in place, the committee decided to provide further focus by emphasizing the impact of the technological system on international relations and fundamental human values (e.g., social justice, freedom).
The committee then devised a specific teaching plan, dividing the course into five major units:
(1) Technological potential and limitations;
(2) Economic constraints and business opportunities;
(3) Literary, historical, and religious analogies and insights;
(4) Diplomatic and political constraints; and
(5) Social organization and experimentation.
Committee members then proposed topics for each lecture, noting two or three issues that the lecture should either address directly or encompass by providing relevant information or analytical techniques to students. Each unit concluded with a discussion session to clarify the lecture materials, stimulate student activity and reflection, and apprise the faculty coordinating committee of student views on issues raised by the course. This built-in feedback system helped the faculty assess the need to modify materials in the latter part of the course and provided general guidance relevant to offering the course in the future.
The committee then considered the question of course staffing. By committee appointment, one of the members assumed the responsibilities of course coordinator and incorporated the course into his regular teaching schedule. The committee members scheduled themselves for many of the lectures. However, the committee felt that certain lecture topics were within the specialties of either Georgetown faculty not on the coordinating committee or, in some cases, professionals not affiliated with the University. The commit:ee decided that guest speakers should be strictly limited‹despite the wealth of qualified professionals in the Washington area‹beause guest speakers would be unfamiliar with the structure and aims of the course and, consequently, would lecture largely on their own terms. After a careful review of available professionals, the committee invited three guest speakers: a physics instructor from Princeton Universi