Educational programmes across higher education incorporate knowledge from multiple disciplines. This can be multidisciplinary, interdisciplinary, or transdisciplinary education. In multidisciplinary education the disciplines are juxtaposed, whereas in interdisciplinary education knowledge from the different disciplines is integrated to create new solutions to problems that could not be solved by separate disciplines. Conversely, in transdisciplinary education, the boundaries between disciplines are transcended, and often stakeholders from outside academia are involved as well (Ashby & Exter, 2019; Klein, 2017).
According to van Goch (2023) interdisciplinary education should meet three conditions: there’s a complex problem, multiple disciplines provide insights into this problem, and the different disciplinary insights are integrated. In educational settings, students usually integrate these insights themselves, but teachers can also provide knowledge integration. Knowledge integration strategies should be an explicit part of instruction during interdisciplinary education, since students will not acquire integrative skills merely through learning by doing (van Goch, 2023; van Lambalgen & van der Tuin, 2024).
Interdisciplinary education can help students develop skills needed for their future careers (van den Beemt et al., 2020). However, knowledge about the design and outcomes of interdisciplinary education is often only shared locally (Lindvig & Ulriksen, 2019). This post presents a shot overview of current knowledge about the design, learning outcomes and assessment of interdisciplinary education. The full literature overview it is based on (in Dutch) is available upon request.
Designing Interdisciplinary Education
There is no single specific effective pedagogy for interdisciplinary education (Ashby & Exter, 2019), and similar pedagogies are used in mono- and interdisciplinary education. Just as in monodisciplinary education, constructive alignment (Biggs, 1996) is important in interdisciplinary education (Ashby & Exter, 2019). Additionally, Davies and Devlin (2007) emphasise the need for a balance between disciplinary and interdisciplinary knowledge. Only when students have robust disciplinary knowledge will they see the added benefit of interdisciplinary collaboration.
Pedagogies that are prevalent in interdisciplinary education are often focused on active learning and student collaboration such as project- or problem-based learning (van den Beemt et al., 2020). However, more traditional forms of education, such as lectures taught by a team of lecturers with different disciplinary backgrounds, are also utilised (Lindvig & Ulriksen, 2019).
Learning Outcomes of Interdisciplinary Education
Empirical studies and literature reviews have identified several learning outcomes of interdisciplinary education. First of all, this type of education leads to an increase in interdisciplinary abilities, conceptualised as interdisciplinary thinking, interdisciplinary understanding, interdisciplinary competence, or interdisciplinary skills by different authors (Richter & Paretti, 2009; Spelt et al. 2009; Ashby & Exter, 2019; Oudenampsen et al., 2024).
Additionally, interdisciplinary education can lead to an increase in academic and disciplinary engagement, (meta)cognitive skills, and perspective taking (Oudenampsen et al., 2024). Academic and disciplinary engagement focuses on students’ grounding in their discipline and their career orientations. The (meta)cognitive skills that develop during interdisciplinary education are, for example critical thinking, team work, problem solving skills, and dealing with ambiguity. Perspective taking relates to seeing your discipline as one within a field of equals, or changed perspectives about other disciplines. (Oudenampsen et al, 2024; Repko & Szostak, 2021; Richter & Paretti, 2009).
Assessing Interdisciplinary Education
There is a lack of validated instruments to assess the outcomes of interdisciplinary education (Oudenampsen et al., 2024). Lattuca and colleagues (2013) developed an instrument for students to self-assess their interdisciplinary competence, measuring interdisciplinary skills, recognising disciplinary perspectives, and reflective behaviour. Conversely, researchers at Utrecht University developed a rubric that teachers can use to assess interdisciplinary education, consisting of the following seven categories: (1) disciplinary grounding, (2) perspective taking, (3) common ground & integration, (4) critical reflection, (5) collaboration, (6) communication, (7) adaptability and creativity (Team interdisciplinary and community engaged learning & Wiegant, 2020). Learning outcomes that are more generic, such as collaboration, can also be assessed using the instruments that are used in traditional education as well (van den Beemt et al, 2020).
Often, interdisciplinary projects will result in products that need to be assessed, which can cause problems when different disciplines evaluate the merit of a product coming from different epistemologies and standards (van den Beemt et al., 2020). To evaluate interdisciplinary insights in products, Repko and Szostak (2021) have formulated seven indicators: usefulness, disciplinary grounding, integration, process, comparison, self-reflection, and communication.
Relation between the Design and Learning Outcomes of Interdisciplinary Education
Previous literature reviews usually focused on either the design or the outcomes of interdisciplinary education, therefore there is a lack of knowledge about the relation between the two (Lindvig & Ulriksen, 2019; Oudenampsen et al., 2024). In their review, Huang and colleagues (in preparation) have collected the pedagogical approaches and achieved learning outcomes from 42 articles. Their results revealed nine different approaches, with project-based learning being the most prevalent. Other approaches were problem-based learning, experiential learning, inquiry-based learning, simulation-based learning, case-based learning, team teaching, and peer learning. A measure of students’ skills was included most often in articles, and approaches usually led to improved skills. Changes in knowledge and attitudes were studied less often. Specific approaches were associated with specific skills. For example, project based learning increased students’ cooperation skills, whereas problem based learning increased problem solving skills.
Other Perspectives on Interdisciplinary Education
Vereijken and colleagues (2023) warn against routinisation of practices in multi-, inter-, and transdisciplinary education. They argue that this could lead to students automatically choosing for a multi-, inter- or transdisciplinary approach, instead of considering which approach would be most fitting for the problem at hand. As an alternative, Vereijken and colleagues suggest that educational programmes should focus on a boundary crossing approach (Akkerman & Bakker, 2011). Boundary crossing focuses on the learning potential of boundaries, in this case the boundaries between disciplines. A full description of boundary crossing is beyond the scope of this overview, but is discussed in Akkerman and Bakker (2011) in general, or in Vereijken et al. (2023) with a focus on the context of multi-, inter-, or transdisciplinary education.
Conclusion
Higher education institutions offer interdisciplinary education for a variety of reasons, such as helping to solve complex problems that cannot be solved by single disciplines. The current overview of literature does not present clear guidelines for the design of interdisciplinary education. However, results from the literature show the use of activating pedagogies, and student group work as being especially prevalent in interdisciplinary education. To be able to incorporate outcome based design into interdisciplinary education, further research into the relation between the design and learning outcomes should be conducted. Preliminary results from Huang et al. (in preparation), show connections between different pedagogical designs and specific learning outcomes.
References
Akkerman, S. F., & Bakker, A. (2011). Boundary crossing and boundary objects. Review of
Educational Research, 81(2), 132–169. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654311404435
Ashby, I., & Exter, M. (2019). Designing for Interdisciplinarity in Higher Education: Considerations for Instructional Designers. Techtrends, 63(2), 202-208. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-018-0352-z
Biggs, J. (1996). Enhancing teaching through constructive alignment. Higher Education, 32(3), 347-364. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00138871
Davies, M., & Devlin, M. T. (2007). Interdisciplinary higher education: Implications for teaching and learning. University of Melbourne Centre for the study of Higher Education.
Huang, L., Day, I.N.Z., van der Rijst, R.M., & Admiraal, W.F. (in preparation). Pedagogical Approaches and Students’ Competences in Interdisciplinary Teaching: A Systematic Literature Review.
Klein, J. T. (2017). Typologies of Interdisciplinarity: The Boundary Work of Definition. In R. Frodeman (Ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Interdisciplinarity (2nd ed., pp. 21-34). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198733522.013.3
Lattuca, L. R., Knight, D. B., & Bergom, I. M. (2013). Developing a measure of interdisciplinary competence for engineers. International Journal of Engineering Education, 29(3), 726-739.
Lindvig, K., & Ulriksen, L. (2019). Different, difficult, and local: A review of interdisciplinary teaching activities. The Review of Higher Education, 43(2), 697-725. https://doi.org/10.1353/rhe.2019.0115
Oudenampsen, J., Das, E., Blijlevens, N., & van de Pol, M. H. (2024). The State of the Empirical Evidence for Interdisciplinary Learning Outcomes in Higher Education: A Systematic Review. The Review of Higher Education, 47(4), 467-518. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1353/rhe.0.a920416
Repko, A. F., & Szostak, R. (2021). Interdisciplinary research : process and theory (Fourth edition). SAGE.
Richter, D. M., & Paretti, M. C. (2009). Identifying barriers to and outcomes of interdisciplinarity in the engineering classroom. European Journal of Engineering Education, 34(1), 29-45. https://doi.org/10.1080/03043790802710185
Spelt, E. J. H., Biemans, H. J. A., Tobi, H., Luning, P. A., & Mulder, M. (2009). Teaching and Learning in Interdisciplinary Higher Education: A Systematic Review. Educational Psychology Review, 21(4), 365-378. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-009-9113-z
Team Interdisciplinary and community engaged learning, Onderwijsadvies en Training & Wiegant, F. (2020). Matrix with assessment rubrics of interdisciplinary learning goals & competencies. https://www.uu.nl/en/education/educational-development-training/knowledge-dossier/how-do-you-assess-interdisciplinary-skills
Van den Beemt, A., MacLeod, M., Van der Veen, J., Van de Ven, A., van Baalen, S., Klaassen, R., & Boon, M. (2020). Interdisciplinary engineering education: A review of vision, teaching, and support. Journal of Engineering Education, 109(3), 508-555. https://doi.org/10.1002/jee.20347
van Goch, M. M. (2023). Naar een raamwerk voor het identificeren, classificeren en inventariseren van interdisciplinair onderwijs. Tijdschrift voor Hoger Onderwijs, 41(3), 161-173. https://doi.org/10.59532/tvho.v41i3.15633
van Lambalgen, R. M., & van der Tuin, I. (2024). Teaching Integration. In R. Szostak (Ed.), Handbook of Interdisciplinary Teaching and Administration (pp. 114-135). Edward Elgar Publishing. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781035309870.00016
Vereijken, M. W. C., Akkerman, S. F., te Pas, S. F., van der Tuin, I., & Kluijtmans, M. (2023). ‘Undisciplining’ higher education without losing disciplines: furthering transformative potential for students. Higher Education Research & Development, 42(7), 1762-1775. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2022.2156482
0
0
0