Article Summary
Article Summary
Summary
The context for this book chapter (de Waard, 2019) focuses on Amsterdam University College (AUC) which is a Liberal Arts and Sciences college in the Netherlands. One aspect to note is that the implementation of interdisciplinarity at AUC is coming from the institution level and not an inherent monodisciplined structure like the one studied in (Lindvig, Lyall, & Meagher, 2019). The college implements interdisciplinary learning through the use of "themed programs" where each program has a central theme that the other programs attempt to highlight in their own learning objectives. The 6 themes are:
- Energy, Climate, and Sustainability
- Life, Evolution, and Universe
- Health and Well-being
- Information, Communication, and Cognition
- Social Systems
- Cities and Cultures
The goal is to introduce interdisciplinary concepts at a surface level while approaching discipline-specific concepts more in-depth. The hope is that students will be able to answer questions and approach situations from more perspectives than just their own. There are some common skills, like critical thinking, for example, that can support every discipline. The author notes that courses in the Humanities tend to introduce interdisciplinary concepts earlier in their courses than Science and Social Science courses. The students generally start from a monodisciplinary perspective based on their program. When they are confronted with a problem or question, they are encouraged to consider ideas from other disciplines, thereby taking a more interdisciplinary approach. Theoretically, I can see how this will allow students to consider other perspectives.
The article then suggests three strategies to implement interdisciplinary learning in the classroom. The first strategy encourages taking a collaborative and student-centered approach. I think this is a good place to start as it promotes constructivist learning practices (Powell & Kalina, 2009). Students are observed to go through a more effective learning process when they are active rather than passive. The second strategy more concretely suggests the use of student-led discussion whereby the discussion leaders are tasked with presenting an article to the class and facilitating a discussion with their peers. The teacher's role in this process is to steer the class back if they veer too far off track and moderate the conversation for appropriateness. The teacher should also model an effective discussion participant and offer different perspectives when there is a lull in the discussion. The third strategy for teachers is to allocate flexible periods in their course schedules. By not making the course progression too rigid, the teacher can accommodate ad hoc learning activities and opportunities whose inspiration arises from the class discussions and debates.
The author acknowledges, conversely, that it is easy to consider these practices in an ideal world where all students participate. It can become stressful, however, when discussions fizzle out and students are not sure what to say. He suggests that one source of this apprehension might be that the students do not know why they are being asked to discuss a particular topic so explaining the why can be beneficial. He reports that when the strategies do work, students have reported giving excellent feedback on their own learning process and achievements in their courses.
Questions
- The strategies from the article seem easy to implement in "softer" disciplines that already are accustomed to hosting in-class discussions and debates. How might a teacher in the sciences or a technical program implement these same strategies to promote interdisciplinarity without detracting from "covering content"?
- What are some ways to measure that the interdisciplinary learning objectives were met from the perspective of a teacher who only specializes in their own "main" discipline?