Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Education

Interdisciplinary Curriculum and Learning in Higher

Education
Karri Holley
Subject: Curriculum and Pedagogy, Educational Theories and Philosophies, Educational Administration and Leadership
Online Publication Date: Apr 2017 DOI: 10.1093/acrefore/9780190264093.013.138

Summary and Keywords

Interdisciplinary curricula provide students the opportunity to work with knowledge drawn from multiple
disciplines. Following suit, interdisciplinary learning requires interaction of knowledge from different
disciplines; integration of knowledge from different disciplines; and an overarching topic, theme, or
problem that shapes the learning experience. Since the university curriculum is commonly structured by
academic
disciplines, and faculty are socialized to their respective disciplinary norms, interdisciplinarity is a complex
endeavor for colleges and universities. These endeavors include developing interdisciplinary courses,
sustaining interdisciplinary initiatives, and financing interdisciplinary programs.

Given the multiple challenges facing 21st-century society, the question of

interdisciplinarity is urgent. How knowledge is defined and disseminated; how and what students learn;
and how higher education can be responsive to its external environment are crucial issues facing
educators. Responding to these issues does not diminish the role of the discipline in education, but rather
acknowledges that knowledge is unbounded and potential discoveries lie outside compartmentalized
structures.

Disciplines provide the organizational foundation for academic departments in higher education, as well
as the curricular foundation for major fields of study and the dominant basis of preparing future faculty.
Upon completion of their doctoral degrees, most faculty assume positions that perpetuate the division of
knowledge, reinforcing a cycle of disciplines as normative and irrevocable. The disciplinary structure
stems from a greater diversification and specialization of labor that occurred over the last two centuries.1
As bodies of knowledge grew and new areas developed, institutions focused human, financial, and social
resources on segmented organizational units. These units have changed over time, however. Disciplines
expand, integrate, and scale down—for example, the trajectory of home economics (now family and
consumer sciences) or the birth of physical education (drawing from psychology and anatomy, among
others). While disciplines may change, the dominant structure of higher education has not. The structure
provides numerous advantages, including the ability to concentrate resources in specific areas, the
opportunity for a scholarly community to flourish around a particular set of problems or topics, and a
strong connection between student education and industry.2
However, the limitations of the disciplinary foundation are evident when we consider interdisciplinary
curricula. Interdisciplinary curricula result from efforts of colleges and universities to engage in
knowledge activities that cross disciplinary boundaries, structuring in turn the learning experiences of
students.3 Understanding the challenge of interdisciplinarity requires acknowledging that knowledge does
not always advance in a linear fashion, nor does knowledge flourish solely through accruing progressively
deeper and more complex disciplinary insights. Knowledge is defined and compartmentalized based on
social and institutional decisions. When knowledge is kept strictly defined in disciplinary compartments,
making potentially rich connections between various epistemological ideas that cross these various areas
is difficult. So too is the ability to solve complex problems that require more than one area of expertise,
such as climate change or poverty. Interdisciplinary curricula provide learning environments that allow
students and faculty from different disciplinary backgrounds to engage in scholarly conversations around
issues of shared interest and importance, while also exploring connections between their majors and
other sources of knowledge and experience. This article summarizes the definition and history of
interdisciplinary curricula in higher education before examining the relationship between the disciplines
and
interdisciplinarity; learning experiences and outcomes associated with interdisciplinary curricula; and the
long-term challenges of administering interdisciplinary programs.

Defining Interdisciplinary Curricula

The conversation about interdisciplinary curricula begins with the definition of interdisciplinarity. The
term is frequently used in higher education to describe activities that fall outside traditional disciplinary
boundaries, but little attention is typically given to
what is actually meant by the term. The differences among interdisciplinary, crossdisciplinary,
multidisciplinary, and transdisciplinary work are important. Significant differences include (1) the degree
of interaction individuals have outside a single disciplinary community, (2) the degree of integration
between bodies of knowledge associated with the disciplines, and (3) the presence of an overarching
problem, topic, or theme that drives interdisciplinary engagement.4

“Crossdisciplinarity” is the most generic of terms, referring to multiple forms of crossing boundaries. One
of the most familiar examples is borrowing tools, methods, concepts, or theories to expand
understanding of a topic or problem in a given field.5 The contributing discipline is a passive construct
rather than an active point of engagement.
Crossdisciplinary scholars work within their own disciplinary discourses and norms. As an example, ideas
from political science are used to understand political conflict in fictional literature. Crossdisciplinarity has
a long history as part of the modern university, especially among disciplines that share boundaries or
those with a shared focus. The disciplines of physics and astronomy illustrate this history. Physics studies
the laws that govern the universe; these laws extend (to the best of contemporary knowledge) to
nonEarthly environments. As a result, physics and astronomy programs are commonly housed in the
same academic department, enabling crossdisciplinary engagement.

“Multidisciplinary” knowledge lacks the hallmark characteristic of interdisciplinarity– integration. This

approach is “encyclopedic.”6 In multidisciplinary studies, knowledge is sequenced in a manner that allows
students to experience related disciplinary contributions to a topic, but no effort is made to synthesize
these contributions.7 Though students are exposed to content from various disciplines, they do not learn
to question extant disciplinary structures. Thus, multidisciplinarity is characterized by disciplinary
juxtaposition rather than disciplinary integration, the hallmark of interdisciplinarity. While juxtaposing
disciplines allows for wide access to an array of related knowledge, each discipline retains its individual
identity. For example, geopolitical conflict may be studied from social, economic, and religious
perspectives, with no effort to integrate the different points of view. An academic seminar focused on
veterans may bring faculty from such disciplines as social work, education, economics, cognitive science,
psychology, and public health, each providing a distinct perspective on the veteran experience.

The concept of “transdisciplinarity” has expanded over time. In the first typology of terms, the concept
referred to a common system of axioms that transcends disciplinary worldviews through an overarching
synthesis, such as anthropology conceived as a science of humans. As the trajectory of knowledge
production evolved, the term became associated with a variety of overarching frameworks, including
general systems theory, feminist theory, cultural critique, and sustainability. In addition, a new
connotation arose in the late 20th century: co-production of knowledge with stakeholders in society.
Scientifically reliable knowledge is still important, but “socially robust knowledge” is responsive to the
public and private spheres.8 The Mode 2 theory of knowledge production is one of the most frequently
cited models.9 In contrast to linear, disciplinebased approaches, transdisciplinarity is associated with
complexity, nonlinearity, and heterogeneity. Learning Labs exemplify transdisciplinarity. They operate as
community science centers and are supported by nonprofit organizations, higher education, and industry.

As for “interdisciplinarity,” the term refers to integration of knowledge from multiple disciplines in pursuit
of an outcome that is not possible from a single disciplinary approach. Interdisciplinary integration can
occur through blending and linking different epistemological forms. Accordingly, interdisciplinary
curricula “critically draw upon two or more disciplines and lead to an integration of disciplinary
insights.”10 Campbell11 famously proposed a fish-scale model of interdisciplinarity, comparable to
overlapping scales on a fish’s body. The ethnocentric nature of disciplines results in clusters of knowledge
in the gaps between them. Campbell’s model suggests a critique of graduate education and institutional
structures. Scholars are trained increasingly within interdisciplinary clusters, but they are often simply
added to the existing structure, leaving epistemological gaps unexplored. When applied to knowledge
activities, this model would favor “novel specialties, novel ranges of competence, and new administrative
structures that facilitate communication across disciplines.”12

While different curricula share the “interdisciplinary” label, a variety of approaches have appeared.
Lattuca’s13 typology illustrates the multiple forms interdisciplinary curricula can assume. These forms are
defined by interaction and integration that occur between academic disciplines and are shaped by the
type of question being asked. Synthetic questions bridge disciplines and so cannot be completely
answered by a single discipline. Transdisciplinary questions apply across disciplines; they do not conform
to a single disciplinary identity. Because conceptual questions have no disciplinary basis, they are not
restricted by any disciplinary frame. Lattuca argued for four kinds of interdisciplinary curricula. (1) With
Informed Disciplinarity, instructors concentrate on a single discipline but bring in other disciplinary ideas
to enhance course content. Examples include the use of statistical data to show how poverty impacts
public health outcomes or when economic theories expand sociological analyses of voting behavior. (2)
Synthetic Interdisciplinarity combines theories, concepts, and research methods, although boundaries
between different disciplines remain clear. This curriculum would be especially evident in teamtaught
courses where instructors from different disciplines individually developed and delivered a portion of the
class. (3) Transdisciplinarity applies across fields, where students engage with real-world practices
through a variety of prescribed tasks. (4) Finally, Conceptual Interdisciplinarity has no disciplinary focus.
For example, frameworks of inquiry such as poststructuralism or postmodernism do not belong within a
single discipline. First-year seminars focused on questions of leadership or civic engagement require
students to understand, evaluate, and critique knowledge from multiple disciplines.

Both specialization and interdisciplinary activity vary across the contemporary university landscape.14 This
variety can complicate identifying and classifying interdisciplinary curricula, since they assume diverse
organizational forms. Interdisciplinary learning experiences typically occur through structures that fit
within the traditional organization of higher education, such as autonomous colleges, cluster colleges,
interdisciplinary departments, centers, and institutes. Nontraditional settings as learning communities,
massive open online courses (MOOCs), and multi-institutional consortia are also common.
Interdisciplinarity also occurs in traditional disciplines, schools, and colleges. Consider programs in
economics, which can be housed in colleges of business, arts and sciences, agriculture, or education, to
name a few. The study of economics can also occur in departments of mathematics, sociology, or political
science. Professional schools15 such as law, medicine, engineering, and education often include multiple
disciplinary specialties to help students situate themselves within the larger scope of professional
practice.16 Disciplinary diversity does not necessarily translate into interdisciplinary learning, however,
and many so-called interdisciplinary programs are actually “multidisciplinary.”
A history of interdisciplinary curricula
The curriculum represents a prescribed set of courses designed to shape student learning. Its structure
reflects arrangement of knowledge by experts in a way that makes a discipline or field of study
accessible.17 However, the curriculum does not result from a neutral process but rather from decisions
faculty and institutional leaders make about how knowledge should be packaged and delivered.
Members of disciplinary communities codify what counts as knowledge, conferring legitimacy on specific
perspectives, ideas, and paradigms. Disciplines are nested within the academic organization of a
particular institution as well as the larger higher education system, adding other influences on knowledge
production such as local priorities. As a result of tensions between the nature of knowledge and the
culture of higher education, the curriculum has been the subject of debate, reform, and change
throughout the history of American higher education. Examples include the land grant emphasis on
science, engineering, and agriculture beginning in the late 1800s and the introduction of specialist studies
programs in the mid-1900s in response to sociocultural concerns.

The Industrial Revolution in the 1800s coincided with the growth of knowledge across science,
engineering, and agriculture. This expansion intensified tension between the classical college
curriculum—grounded in study of Latin, Greek, rhetoric, and logic—and new areas of knowledge in a
growing American economy. A new tension also arose when the undergraduate major was
institutionalized in an “elective system,” requiring students to complete a series of courses reflecting
areas of specialization with selected electives.18 This system allowed students to make individual choices
based on their interests and in ways that complemented their majors. It also enabled faculty to teach
courses in their areas of specialty—an important consideration as faculty became more and more
professionalized in disciplinary domains during the 20th century in academic departments. The system
was not without its critics, especially the perceived sacrifice of general knowledge for the sake of
specialization.19

Any analysis of interdisciplinary curricula should acknowledge the influence of general education,
especially in U.S. higher education. While many general education programs are based on a
multidisciplinary assortment of separate disciplinary courses, some programs allow students to integrate
knowledge from multiple areas into an integrative framework that constitutes a common core. In a few
cases, cores are institution-wide, though in others they are tailored for particular groups such as honors
students. The underlying premise is that students should possess a common body of knowledge,
regardless of their majors. Interdisciplinary general education also cultivates integrative skills, including
the ability to work with multiple forms of knowledge to understand complex questions, cope with
complexity, grapple with problems by drawing on multiple points of view, and understand the role of
context. An early model appeared at Yale University20 in 1901, when core areas in social sciences, natural
sciences, and humanities were introduced. This model fostered connection-making in ways the elective
system did not. In the 1930s, the University of Chicago also consolidated academic departments into four
divisions: physical sciences, biological sciences, social sciences, and humanities. Faculty, in kind,
developed a gateway survey course for all students in each division.21 Over time, interdisciplinary general
education also became associated with preparing students to be global citizens with an understanding of
the world outside their specialties. While general education programs possess the potential for
interdisciplinary learning, the most common distribution model remains multidisciplinary and does not
give specific attention to issues of integration and interdisciplinary methodology.

In addition to general education and electives, other innovations in curriculum have fostered
interdisciplinarity. For instance, the experimental spirit of mid-20th-century American higher education
led to founding new academic institutions whose mission highlighted interdisciplinary initiatives and
student learning opportunities, including the
University of Wisconsin at Green Bay (1965), the University of California, Santa Cruz
(1965), and Evergreen State College (1967). Evergreen State drew inspiration from
Alexander Meiklejohn, who oversaw the interdisciplinary liberal arts curriculum of the University of
Wisconsin’s Experimental College in the late 1920s. At Evergreen State, students undertake
multidisciplinary studies organized around a theme; share a common reading list; and engage in small
learning communities. The University of Wisconsin at Green Bay also retains its interdisciplinary mission,
emphasizing interdisciplinary learning focused on problem solving across the undergraduate curriculum.
Outside the United States, examples of institutions established in pursuit of interdisciplinary models also
appear, including Linköping University (Sweden, established in 1975) and the University of Sussex
(England, established in 1961).22 Institutions do not necessarily retain elements of their interdisciplinary
foundation. Influences such as state funding, the job market, accountability and assessment, student
interests, and knowledge trends can change an institution’s orientation and priorities.

In addition to academic institutions founded in the 20th century which embraced an interdisciplinary
mission, new interdisciplinary fields arose, such as area, gender, and race/ethnic studies. Area studies, for
instance, allowed scholars from a range of disciplines to focus on a specific geographical region. The
founding of the Association for
Asian Studies (1948), the American Studies Association (1950), and the Latin American Studies
Association (1966) served the needs of new fields that fostered scholarly connections outside of a single
discipline. The Urban Affairs Association (1969), the National Council for Black Studies (1975), the Society
for Social Studies of Science (1975), and the National Women’s Studies Association (1977) offered
interdisciplinary opportunities in urban, gender, and race/ethnic studies as well as the study of science
and technology.

While interdisciplinary programs in these areas are now common at colleges and universities, they
assume many different forms. Some are areas of specialization within the academic department. Others
may be freestanding, independent departments or schools. Program structures may change over time.
Established, autonomous, and respected interdisciplinary studies programs at Wayne State, Appalachian
State, San Francisco State, and Miami Universities closed in the early 21st century, eventually replaced
with different interdisciplinary initiatives.23 Wealthy, large institutions or those with an emphasis on
undergraduate degrees in arts and sciences provide hospitable environments for interdisciplinary areas of
study compared to other institutional types.24 Interdisciplinary programs in the humanities and social
sciences far outnumber programs in the natural and applied sciences.
The relationship between the disciplines and
interdisciplinarity
Academic disciplines, to reiterate, typically take the structural form of programs, departments, and
schools or colleges. Beyond these structural forms, other features distinguish disciplines as unique fields.
Aldrich25 added that a discipline is defined by a scientific community that engages in peer review, acting
as gatekeepers of the quality of research products in a particular subject area.26 Peer review shapes
validation of knowledge and, in turn, plays a role in determining curriculum. Within an interdisciplinary
field of study, a clearly demarcated, well-structured, and accessible scientific community can be absent.
Questions that drive interdisciplinary efforts are not always grounded in an established body of
knowledge, and individuals may be spread across different disciplines, institutions, and even continents.
A discipline also has a flagship journal, undergraduate and graduate degrees, and a scholarly professional
association.27 These components serve as cultural symbols unifying a particular domain of knowledge,
while reinforcing its longevity and trajectory.

In contrast, interdisciplinary areas can be in their infancy, or move in and out of different stages,
presenting obstacles to shaping the cultural symbols that define disciplines. The question of whether
interdisciplinary fields exhibit characteristics of a discipline is a

matter of debate. Not all interdisciplinary areas develop on the same trajectory or the same rate.
Molecular biology traces its origins to the convergence of physics, genetics, and structural chemistry in
the early 1900s and is now commonly recognized as a discipline. Although cognitive science originated a
few decades later, the field spreads across multiple academic departments, including psychology,
neuroscience, linguistics, and philosophy. The answer is not easy, even when focusing just on curriculum.
Repko and Szostak28 suggest another way of thinking about disciplines, including (1) a constantly evolving
epistemological foundation, (2) cognitive discord evidenced by disagreements within the same field, and
(3) a tendency to push against boundaries, especially with neighboring fields of study. These
characteristics underscore how disciplines themselves are in a constant state of change, and indeed some
argue that modern disciplines have become more interdisciplinary. Frank and Gabler29 argue that “forces
of change” cut across knowledge domains, with implications throughout what is regarded as “the
academic core.” These implications are reflected in rearrangement of academic disciplines, particularly
the way they expand or contract in relation to each other. Just as interdisciplinary fields change state, so
do disciplines.

Klein30 suggested that the question of interdisciplinarity is also linked with an extended definition of
discipline: the notion of “federated” disciplines such as physics, chemistry, and anthropology. They are
large in size and include independent subdivisions that exhibit distinct disciplinary features while
maintaining loose connections among their subdivisions. For example, anthropology is divided into the
subdivisions of physical anthropology, linguistic anthropology, cultural anthropology, and archaeology.
Each of these subdivisions, in turn, is further divided into smaller and more niche knowledge domains.
Archaeology is further divided into ethnoarchaeology, cultural resource management, and other even
smaller fields, as are the other subdivisions. While new students may take a common introductory
course, their programs of study diverge along different subdivisions.
Given the similar ways that knowledge evolves as a part of human contact and interaction, it would be a
mistake to assume that disciplinary and interdisciplinary fields of study exist at opposite ends of an
epistemological continuum. Klein31 suggested that the goal of interdisciplinary identity fields is to
“reconfigure the social and cognitive space of the academy into a new community of pluralities that is
both intercultural and interdisciplinary” (p. 8). This goal, though, applies more generally to other fields as
well. Interdisciplinarity also explores questions and problems that do not exist within disciplines.
Curricula that acknowledge a diversity of perspectives related to a particular topic of study promote
inclusion of a range of perspectives while cultivating skills needed for integration and collaboration. At
the same time, the motivation for interdisciplinary engagement is not solely to expand epistemological
perspectives. It is also driven by overlapping social, cultural, and economic factors. Interdisciplinary
studies degrees targeted toward adult or nontraditional students may aim to increase an individual’s
earning potential, for example, while interdisciplinary degrees in environmental science underscore
challenges related to the environment and sustainability.

Learning experiences and outcomes for interdisciplinary

curricula
Klein32 delineated elements of the interdisciplinary learning process, including defining the problem at
hand, determining bodies of knowledge relevant to the problem, developing an integrative framework,
evaluating relevant epistemological concepts, and integrating them toward an interdisciplinary
understanding or outcome. Defining the problem can be a difficult task for students and faculty, as
problems tend to be framed by disciplinary terminology and may themselves be disciplinary constructs.
What one discipline sees as a problem, for example, may not be evident in another. When the problem is
removed from the disciplinary context, scholars may experience difficulty in describing its relevance and
import. These challenges extend to determining relevant bodies of knowledge. Disciplines tend to follow
unique epistemological trajectories,33 making it difficult to assess knowledge outside of a disciplinary
context.

In addition, differences exist between undergraduate and graduate interdisciplinary curricula. Prior
learning experiences are one factor. Students in master’s or doctoral coursework bring an undergraduate
foundation that provides a depth of knowledge and shapes their perception of an interdisciplinary topic.
Undergraduate students likely lack the depth of knowledge graduate students have in a specific field,
suggesting they begin their experience in an interdisciplinary course at a different cognitive level. In
short, disciplinary foundations shape interdisciplinary learning. Boix Mansilla34 outlined four cognitive
processes involved in interdisciplinary work:

1. Establishing purpose
2. Weighing disciplinary insights
3. Building leveraging integrations
4. Maintaining a critical stance.
Establishing purpose offers a guide to students and faculty. The purpose frames the learning agenda and
illustrates why an interdisciplinary approach is necessary. A clear purpose also offers a benchmark for
assessing student learning outcomes. Through selecting disciplinary insights, learners highlight those
bodies of knowledge relevant to the issue and give shape to the process of inquiry. Leveraging
integrations encourages students to produce integrative understandings. Potential integrative devices
include complex explanation and a focus on multiple causes for a multifaceted phenomenon. Others such
as aesthetic reinterpretation (using music or art) and practical solutions (developing a coherent and
viable plan) let students actively integrate knowledge. A critical stance allows students and faculty to
measure learning outcomes according to the interdisciplinary purpose, the sources of disciplinary
evidence, and the selection of integrative devices. These four cognitive processes are overlapping and
reinforcing.

Boix Mansilla and Duraisingh35 offered additional examples of integrative devices, using data collected
from an undergraduate interdisciplinary science and humanities program. These examples are typical of
epistemic frames used to synthesize knowledge from two or more disciplines.

• Complex explanations: Students “explained the impact of the nuclear revolution by interweaving
their scientific understanding of atomic energy with an analysis of the relevant historical and
sociological context.”
• Aesthetic reinterpretations: Students synthesized “their responses to literary and musical
interpretations of the Faust legend ... exploring the role of religious symbolism through an installation
or painting.”

• Practical solutions: Students “borrowed strategically from different disciplines to craft a viable
and coherent way to address a defined problem, such as a shortage of donated organs” (p. 226).

Graduate-level interdisciplinary curricula exhibit distinctive traits that reflect student goals and previous
student learning experiences, although less research has been given to the issue. Borrego and
Newswander36 examined graduate-level interdisciplinary curricula in STEM (Science, Technology,
Engineering and Math) fields. Aspects of the curriculum unique to graduate-level studies in STEM fields
included an emphasis on teamwork and communication skills. The authors concluded: “Skilled
interdisciplinarians explicitly reflect on the challenges and processes of integration, including the
limitation of various disciplinary perspectives and the synergistic value of the interdisciplinary approach.”
Graduate-level curricula provide these skills by exposing students to multiple disciplines, in both
academic coursework and research settings. Using data collected from a survey of NSF-funded IGERT
programs, Borrego and Newswander found curricula featuring two or more disciplines in depth were
most common. The necessary skill of integration was taught through systems theory or similar devices.
The scarcity of research on graduate-level student outcomes in interdisciplinary programs across the
humanities and social sciences makes it difficult to determine how widely these findings apply.

Depending on the level of instruction and local institutional context, interdisciplinary curricula promote a
range of different student learning outcomes. Several student outcomes are common across these
different settings: foremost among them are flexible thinking, enhanced cognitive skills, greater tolerance
for ambiguity, ability to synthesize information, and improved critical thinking skills.37 Students engaged
in interdisciplinary courses also demonstrate unconventional thinking skills compared to their peers not
enrolled in such coursework.38 These gains result from experiences with the task of integration, when
students are required to bring together different disciplinary components in novel and sometimes
unprecedented ways. They also demonstrate sensitivity to bias (considering interdisciplinary behavior
requires examining assumptions that underscore disciplinary knowledge) and enhanced listening skills (as
a result of scrutiny required in considering validity of multiple points of view). Students in
interdisciplinary courses learn how to evaluate and synthesize new information39 and encounter unique
opportunities to connect extant and emergent knowledge.40

Interdisciplinary courses often prompt alternative ways of teaching and assessing outcomes. Extensive
empirical evidence is lacking on whether students benefit solely from interdisciplinary context or
alternative teaching styles. Some evidence, though, suggests engagement in interdisciplinary learning
strengthens critical thinking, and problem-solving abilities are enhanced when students negotiate
different disciplinary bodies of knowledge to achieve interdisciplinary outcomes. For instance, Tsui41
demonstrated critical thinking gains for students in interdisciplinary coursework, especially courses
utilizing alternative and experimental forms of pedagogy. Full et al. illustrated how undergraduate
students in an interdisciplinary science course posted gains in critical thinking through participation in a
“discovery-based laboratory.” Students worked in collaborative teams to develop hypotheses and
procure evidence.42 Engaging students in authentic tasks related to real-world problems enables easier
recall of ideas in future settings. Lattuca, Voight, and Fath43 reported that “tasks associated with the
problem replicate the data gathering, analysis, and problem solving that students expect to encounter in
everyday life and work.” Hapern and Hagel44 reasoned that varying the conditions in which students learn
to simulate unpredictable real-world environments produces better learning outcomes. They also noted
that learning is enhanced when knowledge is acquired in one setting and applied in another. Interacting
with challenging problems offers students opportunities to develop unique epistemological approaches.
King and Kitchener45 also argued that ill-structured problems inherent to interdisciplinarity require
nuanced and reflective thinking.

Beyond problem orientation, interdisciplinary courses also tend to promote structural knowledge,
including ways information is related and organized.46 Knowledge structure plays a crucial role in memory
and information recall. De Jong and Ferguson-Hessler47 documented how experts accrue knowledge not
by having a superior memory, but rather by organizing knowledge in meaningful units that have
relationships to other units. Knowledge structures are enhanced by a depth of knowledge; the processing
of deep knowledge allows learners to construct stronger and more elaborate structures. Students in
interdisciplinary courses develop structural knowledge from different domains. By developing a critical
assessment of the relationship between different knowledge domains, students are able to more deeply
analyze the interdisciplinary problem, topic, or theme.48

This emphasis occurs in part because interdisciplinary courses are typically constructed around a
particular focus, similar to ways traditional disciplinary courses allocate subject matter. As students work
through selected disciplinary material, their goal is to understand the content of disciplinary
contributions and their underlying logic.
Integration occurs when students see a problem or topic as more than the simple sum of its disciplinary
parts. Yet, the question of curriculum persists. Course designers must determine what basic skills or
knowledge students need before enrolling in a particular course. They must also consider at which stage
students should be exposed to more advanced concepts.

The sequence of disciplinary and interdisciplinary courses impacts student learning experiences. Newell49
suggested introducing students to interdisciplinary coursework during their first year of college,
encouraging openness to new thinking styles before students are socialized into a particular disciplinary
major. However, because successful interdisciplinary outcomes require disciplinary contributions,
allowing courses to build on the strengths of other disciplines may provide the best outcome. Students
can utilize newly acquired disciplinary cognitive tools, while identifying their strengths and weaknesses. In
a meta-analysis of research related to interdisciplinary learning, Spelt et al.50 identified skills necessary for
positive student learning outcomes in interdisciplinary environments, including knowledge of the
disciplines and of disciplinary paradigms.

Students draw on their disciplinary knowledge in interdisciplinary environments. The authors further
concluded that a balance between disciplinarity and interdisciplinarity links curricular content,
encouraging a progressively more complex knowledge base and a clear roadmap for learning.

The following sections discuss writing, team teaching, and pedagogy, each considered crucial to active
engagement and learning in interdisciplinary settings.

Writing
Writing skills are widely considered an important area of student development in higher education.
Through general education, students satisfy writing demands by fulfilling specific discipline-based
requirements. Across these courses, students continue to be introduced to argumentative writing, where
evidence from external sources is gathered and assessed. A more multidisciplinary approach to writing
emerged in the mid-1970s, when the “writing-across-the-curriculum” (WAC) movement sought to
address writing overlaps across academic disciplines. In the same way that the general education
curriculum reflects interdisciplinary ideals in cross-secting foci, so do WAC programs. McLeod51 described
the basic assumptions of the movement: “that writing and thinking are closely allied, that learning to
write well involves learning particular discourse conventions, and that, therefore, writing belongs in the
entire curriculum, not just a course offered by the English department.”

Advocates of WAC argue that the act of writing is best understood as “writing to learn.” Resnic contended
that the act of writing has the potential to be “a cultivator and an enabler of higher order thinking . . .
especially if we consider writing as an occasion to think through arguments and to master forms of
reasoning and persuasion.” Boix Mansilla et al.52 proposed a framework designed to assess student
writing in interdisciplinary settings. It builds on four dimensions of interdisciplinary understanding:
purposefulness, disciplinary grounding, integration, and critical awareness. The first dimension–
purposefulness–enables objects of study to be presented as viable and multidimensional, requiring
interdisciplinary study. The second dimension–disciplinary grounding–illustrates skill in using components
of disciplinary knowledge toward a flexible interdisciplinary inquiry. These components are not examined
in isolation, however. They are put to use toward an integrative end. The third dimension–successful
integration–requires students to employ an integrative device in a way that utilizes disciplinary
knowledge and supports an interdisciplinary conclusion, outcome, or result. In the final dimension–
critical awareness–students recognize the strengths and weaknesses of disciplinary insights.

Team Teaching
Interdisciplinary efforts also arise from collaborative efforts of faculty from different disciplines. In team-
taught courses, individual instructors are responsible for their respective disciplinary contributions,
though the group shares instructional design responsibilities.53 This approach moves past reductionist
tendencies of disciplines, although faculty may need support as they navigate the course terrain. Shapiro
and Dempsey54 reflected on challenges of interdisciplinary team teaching, noting, “Disparate goals related
to content, process, identity, and relationship contribute to conflict.” Although instructors can model
collaboration and gain knowledge from outside their discipline by co-teaching an interdisciplinary class,
student assessment can prove to be a difficult obstacle, as instructors seek techniques that satisfy both
the disciplinary and interdisciplinary context.

Davis55 suggested several criteria for determining the degree of collaboration in interdisciplinary team
teaching. The first, planning, considers how involved faculty are in planning the course and whether
collaborative decision making occurs when determining learning outcomes. Content integration, the
second criterion, assesses the representation of different disciplinary perspectives, especially if and how
the perspectives are integrated as part of the course structure. The third criterion focuses on teaching.
Who is responsible for teaching in the course? What teaching strategies are prioritized? How are these
decisions made? Finally, testing and evaluation offers insight into what learning outcomes will be
measured and how; how course faculty are involved in the process; and what mechanisms students may
use to provide course feedback. Despite obstacles, team teaching is acknowledged as a best practice for
interdisciplinary courses.56 Successful team teaching experiences require instructors to have common
beliefs about the roles of teachers and students. Shared beliefs provide an important foundation as
instructors negotiate different disciplinary perspectives. Interdisciplinary partnerships enable instructors
to conceptualize the curriculum in innovative ways, seeking depth rather than breadth. In the same way
that differences between epistemological ideas can produce generative tensions leading to knowledge
advances, so can differences in teaching styles and content produce positive classroom interactions.

In order to prepare for interdisciplinary team teaching, Lattuca57 suggested that instructors begin by
reading outside their discipline and participating in conversation with scholars from other fields of study.
This requirement demands that faculty engage in different, and perhaps more extensive, forms of
preparation than teaching a course in their home disciplines. Collaboration is also a necessary element
for some
interdisciplinary courses, as instructors can bring a range of epistemological perspectives
into course development and delivery. Teachable moments occur when students encounter difficult or
challenging epistemological obstacles while observing teachers negotiating boundaries between different
disciplines. Davis58 concluded that students benefit when reminded of the course’s intellectual structure
and rationale. He added, “These efforts . . . are not likely to yield much unless students see faculty
collaborating in the classroom.” As one example, an intellectual debate among faculty colleagues offers
students insight into professional disagreement that is expert and collegial.59
Pedagogy
Interdisciplinary pedagogical approaches usually align with the idea of integrative learning. Klein defined
integrative learning as “an umbrella term for structures, strategies, and activities that bridge numerous
divides.”60 DeZure61 noted that integrative learning comes in different varieties, including the connection
of knowledge and skills from different sources; the application of theory to practice in a range of settings;
the ability to reconcile diverse and competing viewpoints; and the ability to understand issues in context.
These different varieties impact interdisciplinary pedagogical approaches and their influence in the
classroom.

One obstacle associated with interdisciplinary pedagogy is fostering the integration between different
bodies of knowledge necessary for interdisciplinary outcomes. Nikitina62 developed different approaches
to interdisciplinary teaching. The first approach, contextualizing, allows for disciplinary material to be
embedded in the study of time, culture, and personal experience. The second approach, conceptualizing,
requires identification of core concepts from multiple disciplines. Students then focus on connections
between these concepts. Often a connection can be established through empirical or theoretical
evidence. Problem-centering, the final approach, occurs when a problem or topic is the primary focus of
the course; students learn how to apply disciplinary knowledge toward further understanding the
problem.

A rapidly changing environment for higher education shapes the way instructors approach
interdisciplinary courses. For example, DeZure63 suggested e-portfolios and online programs that facilitate
collaboration as pedagogical tools well suited for interdisciplinary engagement. Increased attention to
learning and assessment has led to strong evidence of the effectiveness of high-impact practices, such as
service learning and learning communities. When combined with activities that emphasize writing and
critical reflection, these practices encourage intentional learning.

Faculty development related to interdisciplinary pedagogy is supported through both internal and
external mechanisms. One example is Boston University’s Center for Interdisciplinary Teaching and
Learning, which provides faculty development opportunities related to interdisciplinary or general
education courses, including training in the use of e-portfolios as well as alternative assessment
techniques. Duquesne University sponsors faculty learning groups, drawing participants from across the
disciplines that focus on the challenges of constructing effective interdisciplinary learning environments.
Doctoral students can also gain knowledge related to interdisciplinary pedagogy through graduate
teaching certificate programs or future faculty fellows programs. Federal funding agencies such as the
National Science Foundation and the National Institutes of Health increasingly prioritize interdisciplinary
topics that engage faculty, graduate students, and undergraduate students in research activities that
provide experience in interdisciplinary settings.
Long-term Challenges to the Organization and Administration
of Interdisciplinary Curricula
The organization of interdisciplinary curricula is strongly influenced by institutional context, culture, and
history. For instance, Duke University is considered among the first major American research universities
to establish interdisciplinarity as a cornerstone of its institutional mission. The university directed
considerable financial resources toward establishing interdisciplinary initiatives among its teaching,
research, and service functions. In comparison, Bard College draws from its liberal arts mission to
prioritize interdisciplinary learning among its undergraduate students; Bard created the first human rights
major in the United States and developed Citizen Science, a required course in the first-year curriculum to
enhance scientific literacy regardless of academic major. Another important factor is the availability of
human and financial resources. Not all interdisciplinary courses share the same goals or learning
outcomes. Common goals include the ability for students to understand and integrate different bodies of
knowledge as well as understand how questions or topics might cross disciplinary boundaries. Some
curricula are strongly grounded in social justice missions, such as programs in gender or race/ethnic
studies. Others might seek opportunities to experiment with innovative or novel approaches to learning,
including an undergraduate honors or general education capstone course. The mission and purpose of
the curriculum should be taken into account when considering issues of staffing, structure, and student
outcomes.

Interdisciplinary programs may struggle with revenue generation, depending on their organizational
structure and their place within the institutional hierarchy.64 The funding mechanisms vary. Some
programs result from an initial investment by the central administration and are expected to procure
future funding independently. Other programs rely on student tuition or faculty grants. Programs may
also be supported in perpetuity by the administration, especially when interdisciplinary efforts align with
cultural initiatives of the institution or with the institutional mission statement. At some colleges with
strong liberal arts missions, interdisciplinarity is a foundation of the core curriculum. The curriculum at
Wellesley College highlights creative thinking that crosses disciplinary boundaries, and its emphasis on
new fields and interdisciplinary approaches is considered an institutional hallmark. In comparison,
cultivating new interdisciplinary efforts is part of the strategic plan at Case Western Reserve University.
The institution has prioritized funding to these efforts. Assessing institutional productivity by degree
production is an increasingly popular approach to allocating scarce public funds for higher education.
Interdisciplinary programs that do not offer a degree are
disadvantaged by this form of measurement, and must offer other forms of evidence that indicate their
value to the institution, the student, and society. External grant funding to support interdisciplinary
programs is available, especially in STEM-related fields of study. While securing a grant is a competitive
process, this funding stream frees interdisciplinary programs from institutional obligations and allows
them to pursue different priorities, depending on faculty and student interests. However,
interdisciplinary programs can be vulnerable to the elimination of external funding.

Interdisciplinary learning is closely associated with interdisciplinary spaces. The spaces best suited to this
sort of interaction are commonly defined as flexible, innovative, and adaptable to alternative forms of
knowledge production. Some buildings are newly constructed, evidence of an institution’s commitment
to interdisciplinary work, while others are re-purposed for new knowledge opportunities.65 Space is not
simply a physical construct. One example of cultural space supportive of interdisciplinary work is found in
learning communities, where individuals who share similar interests (not necessarily disciplinary
backgrounds) collaborate. Other examples include experiential education or university-industry
partnerships.

The question of how to sustain interdisciplinary work is also crucial. If faculty are appointed in a home
department, they may experience pressure to devote their energies in other directions. Even faculty with
a dual/joint appointment can experience conflict about which academic unit they should prioritize. These
appointments lack long-term viability, as faculty efforts may change due to individual or institutional
priorities. Faculty remain a crucial element in successful interdisciplinary efforts, so cultivating a faculty
able to engage in interdisciplinary work is an important consideration. Cluster faculty hiring initiatives are
a recent method for achieving this goal, where faculty with complementary areas of expertise or those
aligned with institutional goals are hired to work across disciplinary boundaries. Hiring initiatives are
associated with emergent areas of education and research. Typically, areas of emphasis are determined
by an internal competition, where administrators select proposals that align with the institution’s
strategic plan and priorities.66 Early cluster faculty hiring initiatives prioritized STEM-related topics. More
recent efforts included topics drawn from the social sciences and humanities, such as postcolonial
studies. The lack of empirical evidence regarding the effectiveness of this approach has not stopped many
major American research universities from adopting it.

Conclusion
This summary of interdisciplinary curriculum and learning has stressed the complexity involved in such
work. The complexity exists on multiple levels: between different disciplines, between different fields of
study, between institutional cultures, and between the work and structure perceived to be normative for
higher education. While the term “interdisciplinarity” is used broadly, consensus definitions exist for
work shaped by disciplinary interaction, disciplinary integration, and the presence of an overarching
problem, topic, or theme. The Association for Interdisciplinary Studies, for example, has developed
support materials for the consensus definition of “interdisciplinary” education, along with bibliography of
the literature. It is not enough to simply bring different disciplinary elements together. Interdisciplinarity
is an active process of engagement with social and cultural influences that shape the perception of
knowledge production.

Over the course of the 20th century, a number of arguments for interdisciplinarity emerged, including a
holistic view of knowledge and integrative strategies of learning. Contemporary proponents of
interdisciplinary curriculum join their counterparts in inter- and transdisciplinary research to argue that
problems do not come in disciplinary-shaped boxes, and the university must demonstrate the flexibility
needed to allow for knowledge complexity. Given advances in knowledge production and dissemination,
knowledge itself can be considered increasingly interdisciplinary, which changes the construct and culture
of the academic discipline. In an era when higher education institutions grapple with decreased funding,
increased demands for access, and a push toward productivity and accountability, this flexibility may be
difficult to come by and even harder to preserve. Just as the specialization and diversification of
knowledge in the last century resulted in
the modern departmental structure, knowledge continues to evolve, requiring institutions, faculty, and
students to evolve as well.