Targeted Assessment of Students' Interdisciplinary Work: An Empirically Grounded Framework Proposed

Teaching and Learning in Interdisciplinary Higher Education: A Systematic Review

“…This resulted in: potential frameworks (seven out of 13), best practices (four out of 13), and essential conditions (two out of 13). To start with the proposed frameworks, these publications considered the following teaching and learning topics: an adaptation of Biggs and Collis' Structure of Observed Learning Outcome (SOLO) taxonomy to illustrate interdisciplinary learning (Ivanitskaya et al 2002), a proposed research agenda based on teaching and learning theories to encourage research in the field of interdisciplinary higher education (Lattuca et al 2004), a framework illustrating three major cognitive movements in interdisciplinary thought (Nikitina 2005), three strategies for interdisciplinary teaching (Nikitina 2006), four dimensions of a potential interdisciplinary pedagogy (Manathunga et al 2006), an empirically grounded framework for assessing students' interdisciplinary work (Boix Mansilla and Duraising 2007), and a framework for conceptualizing interdisciplinary classroom communication (Woods 2007). Second, best practices dealt with the relationship between disciplinary background and interdisciplinary education (Newell 1992), with the lack of adequate and appropriate methods for assessing interdisciplinary higher education programs (Field and Lee 1992), with the experiences of graduate students who pursued interdisciplinary studies (Graybill et al 2006), and a successful course approach (Eisen et al 2009).…”

“…In addition, there was slight evidence of the outcome-based approach as adopted in this review study. Three of the reviewed publications (Boix Mansilla and Duraising 2007;Nikitina 2005;Woods 2007) tend towards the outcome-based approach. Concerning the conceptualization of interdisciplinary thinking, Boix Mansilla and Duraising defined interdisciplinary thinking in a manner similar to that used in this review study.…”

“…These subskills suggest the importance of disciplinary declarative, procedural, and paradigm knowledge, such as the characteristics of natural and social scientific theories as, for instance, classified by Szostak (2003), supplemented with knowledge of interdisciplinarity, such as knowing the differences between disciplinarity, multidisciplinarity, and interdisciplinarity. Acquisition of these types of knowledge appears to be required for enabling students to step beyond the disciplinary theories and methods in order to make connections between disciplines, to identify disciplinary contradictions, and to consider opportunities for integration at a meta-level (Boix Mansilla and Duraising 2007). In particular, explicit attention to the students' exposure to disciplines and metacoordination seems to be important to avoid their feeling overwhelmed and losing the curricular thread (Eisen et al 2009;Manathunga et al 2006).…”

Why Teach Science with an Interdisciplinary Approach: History, Trends, and Conceptual Frameworks

“…Additionally, a growing body of research shows empirical evidence that interdisciplinary courses or programs benefit students by increasing critical thinking (Astin, 1993;Buchbinder et al, 2005;Nowacek, 2005), meta-cognitive reflection (Wolfe & Haynes, 2003), problem-solving, and other higher-order thinking skills (Boix Mansilla & Duraisingh, 2007;Lattuca et al, 2004;Leonard, 2007). For example, Vars (1991) and Beane (1995) reported that interdisciplinary programs improved the achievement scores of students in comparison to a separate subject curriculum.…”

“…Tyler (1959) saw integration as the horizontal connections necessary for a coherent curriculum, and Bloom (1958) also advocated for an inquiry-oriented, integrated curriculum. With the growing recognition of the importance of interdisciplinary learning and teaching, the term "interdisciplinary learning" is widely used throughout educational fields today, which pertain to grade levels K-12 and college due to a growing recognition of the inherent value and benefit of it (Boix Mansilla & Duraisingh, 2007;Boix Mansilla, Miller, & Gardner, 2000;Clarke & Agne, 1997;Golding, 2009;Jacobs, 1989;Klein, 2002).…”