learning discipline education

• Twitter Channel
• Facebook Profile
• YouTube Channel
• Instagram Profile
• Linkedin Profile
• Pinterest Profile

How School Discipline Impacts Students’ Social, Emotional and, Academic Development (SEAD)

What is school discipline.

Last year, Mississippi schools used corporal punishment 4,300 times — and the impact affects more than the students experiencing the abuse. According to one parent in Madison County School District, her son’s perception of safety in school changed after seeing another student get paddled in his classroom. This is a prime example of harsh school discipline practices, which can harm students’ social, emotional, academic, and in some cases, physical health. These practices must be reformed.  

“To create physically safe and emotionally supportive environments for all students, schools must adopt evidence-based approaches such as restorative justice that can be used to build and repair relationships while also holding students accountable for their actions”  

In general, school discipline refers to the rules and strategies applied in school to manage student behavior and support students in developing self-management skills. Informed by national, state, and local laws, school discipline encompasses a wide range of policies and practices — from those that are positive and evidence-based in supporting holistic development, such as restorative justice and Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports (PBIS); to practices that are most harmful, including discriminatory codes of conduct, expulsions and in- and out-of-school suspensions, corporal punishment, seclusion, restraint, and other punitive and exclusionary measures.

Download the Full Brief

School discipline policies are broadly intended to foster a high-quality learning environment by maintaining safety in the classroom; however, far too often, schools adopt measures that harm a student’s social, emotional, academic, and in some cases, physical health and well-being.  

To create physically safe and emotionally supportive environments for all students, schools must adopt evidence-based approaches such as restorative justice that can be used to build and repair relationships while also holding students accountable for their actions. When positive discipline policies and practices use a race-equity lens and are fairly implemented, these efforts can not only create safe and inclusive learning environments, but also support students’ holistic development.  

The Impact of School Discipline

School discipline policies and practices are a critical part of creating a school’s overall climate. Choosing harmful practices can result in short and long-term negative impacts on students’ social, emotional, and academic development (SEAD), whereas other, evidence-based practices can support a students’ holistic development and well-being.  

Although the rules may be intended to be applied equally regardless of a student’s race, gender, sexual orientation, socioeconomic status, disability status, or other personal characteristic, harmful school discipline policies are often disproportionately used on underserved students, particularly students of color and students with disabilities. Harsh discipline practices, such as corporal punishment, restraint, and seclusion can result in serious and life-threatening physical injuries. These and other practices, such as hardening measures (e.g., metal detectors and school police) and exclusionary discipline (e.g., suspensions and expulsions), create even more academic and psychological harms and have been linked to the school-to-prison pipeline.  

While districts and schools are supposed to reserve these various school discipline policies for serious offenses, many also employ these measures for minor and subjective infractions, including dress and hair code violations , talking in class, truancy, tardiness, “willful defiance,” and more. In many instances, students of color and students with disabilities are targeted for these minor offenses in ways that attack their cultural identity and strip them of their rights to a safe, healthy, and inclusive learning environment.  

Improving School Discipline Beyond Covid-19

The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic continues to take a toll on students’ mental health and well-being. The National Center for Education Statistics found that 56% of school leaders said the pandemic led to increased classroom disruptions from student misbehavior. And 48% said it led to more acts of disrespect toward teachers and staff.  

Even though school leaders have reported a dramatic uptick in students “acting out,” it is not without valid reasons. Whether it’s the devastating impact of losing a loved one, or the disruptions to routines, relationships, and learning environment due to months-long quarantines, the pandemic resulted in economic and health challenges, increased stress, social isolation, and anxiety for students. It’s no surprise the COVID-19 pandemic deeply affected student behavior in school.  

As reports demonstrate , school staff has had increasing challenges with responding to student behavior. While stricter school discipline policies are broadly intended to foster a safe and manageable learning environment, discipline is far too often used in ways that further harm students’ social, emotional, academic, and in some cases, physical and mental health and well-being.  

How to Evaluate a State’s School Discipline Policies

School discipline practices are determined by policies at all levels — federal, state, district, school, and even in individual classrooms. State leaders can have strong influence in how districts adopt and implement school discipline practices and policies by:  

• Creating clear goals
• Adopting evidence-based guidance and policies
• Publicly reporting discipline data

In 2022, building on Ed Trust’s 2020 seminal report titled, Social, Emotional, and Academic Development Through and Equity Lens, in partnership with CASEL, Ed Trust released Is Your State Prioritizing Social, Emotional, and Academic Development? , a 50-state scan that shows how states support the social, emotional, and academic needs of students in their discipline policies, as well as four other key policy areas:  

• Professional development
• Rigorous and culturally sustaining curriculum
• Student, family, and community engagement
• Wraparound services

Educators, advocates, and policymakers at all levels of government can use the 50-state scan to evaluate how their state’s school discipline policies compare to other states in holistically creating safe, supportive, and inclusive environments for students.  

Implementing Fair and Positive Discipline at the Local Level

A crucial part of implementing positive discipline practices with fidelity is ensuring all adults in schools and districts develop a race equity lens with which to implement those skills. A long history of research in school discipline shows that disproportionate disciplinary outcomes for students of color are not due to differential rates of behavior, and that the role of discrimination and bias in discipline outcomes must be taken seriously. Furthermore, research shows that using an approach that is racially and culturally conscious is the key to addressing disparities in discipline. A race-equity approach should therefore be embedded in all actions districts take to address discipline policies and practices.  

For actionable guidance, district leaders can use the toolkit from the Alliance for Resource Equity (ARE), a partnership between Ed Trust and Education Resource Strategies. ARE has developed a series of tools and guidebooks that outline specific actions to create a more equitable student experience, starting with a diagnostic tool that identifies areas for growth in a district’s current policies and practices. Then, district leaders can then reference the guidebook on creating a positive and inviting school climate that demonstrates how to further these goals. In particular, district leaders should consider the following key question in the ARE diagnostic tool and guidebook:  

Does each student experience a safe school with transparent, culturally sensitive, and consistently enforced rules and discipline policies?  

Decisions at the local level can ensure that state and federal discipline policies are implemented with fidelity or can even go beyond current policies by utilizing better or more evidence-based practices. District leaders have the power to set equity-focused policies and develop educator capacity for implementing positive discipline practices. These actions can create positive and inviting school climates where students feel safe and are held accountable for their actions in ways that best support their social, emotional, and academic development.  

• Our Mission

Aiming for Discipline Instead of Punishment

Brain-aligned discipline isn’t compliance-driven or punitive—it’s about supporting students in creating sustainable changes in behavior.

There are many perspectives on the topic of discipline in our classrooms and schools, and I’d like to explore the idea of using brain-aligned discipline with students who have adverse childhood experiences (ACEs). 

Traditional punishment with these students only escalates power struggles and conflict cycles, breeding an increased stress response in the brain and body. Punishment is used to try to force compliance. The vast majority of school discipline procedures are forms of punishment that work best with the students who need them the least.

With our most difficult students, the current way schools try to discipline students does not change their behavior, and often it escalates the problems.

Discipline, unlike punishment, is proactive and begins before there are problems. It means seeing conflict as an opportunity to problem solve. Discipline provides guidance, focuses on prevention, enhances communication, models respect, and embraces natural consequences. It teaches fairness, responsibility, life skills, and problem solving. 

There are times when students need to be removed from the classroom and school for aggressive, volatile actions, but upon re-entry we should make a plan of action that begins to address these actions in these brain-aligned ways.

The neurobiological changes caused by chronic negative experiences and a history of adversity can trigger a fear response in the brain. As Pam Leo says, “A hurtful child is a hurt-filled child. Trying to change her behavior with punishment is like trying to pull off only the top part of the weed. If we don’t get to the root, the hurtful behavior pops up elsewhere.” In children the fear response often looks aggressive, defiant, and oppositional.

Young people with ACEs have brains that are in a constant state of alarm. In this alarm state, consequences don’t register properly. Discipline can only be done when both the educator and the student are calm and self-regulated. If they aren’t, behavioral difficulties will escalate. 

In a brain-aligned model of discipline, we must teach the behaviors we want to see, laying the groundwork for prevention systems and strategies. 

Preventive Brain-Aligned Strategies

Preventive systems are taught as procedures and routines. They are collaborative and filled with choice. Their purpose is to create a sustainable behavioral change, not just compliance or obedience for a short period of time. 

I teach students about their neuroanatomy, so they understand what happens in their brains when they become stressed, angry, or anxious. When we understand this, we feel relieved and empowered. 

In morning meetings or whole class time, I discuss the prefrontal cortex, amygdala, and neuroplasticity with students. We identify and make lists of our emotional triggers and coping strategies, and I teach students to use their breath and movement to calm their stress response systems. 

Is there an adult in the school who connects with this student and has a space where the student can go if they need to regroup and calm their stress response systems? Are you teaching these procedures ahead of a time when a student needs to regulate away from the class? 

Could your school create a area for both teachers and students to go to when they need to reset their emotional state? This area could be stocked with paper, markers, crayons, water, soft music and lighting, a jump rope, a stationary bike, lavender scented cotton balls, jars for affirmations or worries, or a rocking chair. Students will need to be taught ahead of time how to use this area, which they should need for just two to five minutes in order to feel refocused and ready to return to class.

Examples of Natural, Non-Punitive Consequences 

Name-calling: Have the student create a book of positive affirmations for the class, or have them create a list of “kind words” and teach them to a younger class.

Low-level physical aggression (pushing, kicking, hitting): Some consequences could include giving the student a new learning space in the room or a new spot in line, or they could be tasked with performing an act of kindness or service for the hurt person.

If this occurs at recess, the student could be tasked with assisting a teacher on recess duty in monitoring the playground, noticing everything that is going well. They can roam around the playground, still getting the exercise they need. Or again they could perform an act of kindness toward the student who they hit.

Inappropriate language: This calls for a discussion when both student and teacher are in a calm brain state. Sometimes words that are inappropriate at school are used at home, so we need to understand the cultural context and have a discussion with the student.

An older student could research the words they used and report to you on why they’re not school words; younger students could try to write out what they were trying to convey using school-friendly language or drawings. 

Incomplete assignments: Have a one-on-one discussion to convey what this behavior communicates to you. Ask if something has changed at home or school, or if the student doesn’t understand what is required. Make a plan with the student and possibly a parent for making up the work that has been missed. And consider assigning a student mentor to help the student.

The research is clear. Our brains learn best in a state of relaxed alertness. Our discipline systems must begin to shift toward creating this state in all the members of our school community.

Discipline-Based Education Research: Understanding and Improving Learning in Undergraduate Science and Engineering (2012)

Chapter: 6 instructional strategies.

Instructional Strategies

In addition to the strategies described in Chapters 4 and 5 to promote conceptual change and improve students’ problem solving and use of representations, scientists and engineers want to provide the most effective overall learning experiences to help students acquire greater expertise in their disciplines. To some extent, those experiences are constrained by institutional context. Undergraduate lecture halls and laboratories provide much of the infrastructure for teaching students in science and engineering. One compelling question is how best to use those resources. An undergraduate course may be structured around traditional lectures offered two or three times weekly along with a laboratory experience. Some scientists and engineers want to explore alternatives to this traditional format. If they were to depart from the lecture-plus laboratory format, then according to discipline-based education research (DBER), which teaching options are most promising? More importantly, which options are backed by evidence for their effectiveness in fostering student learning?

A significant portion of DBER focuses on measuring the impact of instructional strategies on student learning and understanding. In this chapter, we summarize that research, discussing the three most common settings for undergraduate instruction—the classroom, the laboratory, and the field—and the effects of instructional strategies on different student groups.

OVERVIEW OF DISCIPLINE-BASED EDUCATION RESEARCH ON INSTRUCTION

As stated in Chapter 1 , two long-term goals of DBER are to help identify and measure appropriate learning objectives and instructional approaches that advance students toward those objectives, and identify approaches to make science and engineering education broad and inclusive. This research is motivated, in part, by ongoing concerns that undergraduate science and engineering courses are not providing students with high-quality learning experiences or attracting students into science and engineering degrees (President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology, 2012). Indeed, a seminal three-year, multicampus survey examined the reasons undergraduate students switch from science, mathematics, and engineering majors to nonscience majors (Seymour and Hewitt, 1997). The survey revealed that nearly 50 percent of undergraduates who began in science and engineering shifted to other majors. Their reasons for doing so were complex and numerous, but pedagogy ranked high among their concerns. In fact, poor faculty pedagogy was identified as a concern for 83 percent of all science, mathematics, and engineering students. Forty-two percent of white students cited poor pedagogy as the primary factor in their decision to shift majors, compared with 21 percent of non-Asian students of color, who tended to blame themselves and suffered a substantial loss of confidence in leaving the sciences (Seymour and Hewitt, 1997).

Recognizing these challenges, many institutions are working to identify effective approaches to improve undergraduate science and engineering education (Association of American Universities, 2011). DBER, by systematically investigating learning and teaching in science and engineering and providing a robust evidence base for new practices, is playing a critical role in these efforts.

Research Focus

Most DBER studies on instructional strategies are predicated on the assumption that students must build their own understanding in a discipline by applying its methods and principles, either individually or in groups (Piaget, 1978; Vygotsky, 1978). Consequently, with some variations, these studies typically examine student-centered approaches to learning, often comparing the extent to which student-centered classes are more effective than traditional lectures in promoting students’ understanding of course content.

A student-centered instructional approach places less emphasis on transmitting factual information from the instructor, and is consistent with the shift in models of learning from information acquisition (mid-1900s) to knowledge construction (late 1900s) (Mayer, 2010). This approach includes

•   more time spent engaging students in active learning during class;

•   frequent formative assessment to provide feedback to students and the instructor on students’ levels of conceptual understanding; and

•   in some cases, attention to students’ metacognitive strategies as they strive to master the course material.

The extent to which DBER on instructional practices is explicitly grounded in broader research on how students learn varies widely. The committee’s analysis revealed that either implicitly or explicitly, the principle of active learning has had the greatest influence on DBER scholars and their studies. With a deep history in cognitive and educational psychology, this principle specifies that meaningful learning requires students to select, organize, and integrate information, either independently or in groups (Jacoby, 1978; Mayer, 2011; National Research Council, 1999). In addition, the framework of cognitive apprenticeship drives many instructional reforms in physics and thus can help to explain research findings about the success of those reforms. As described in Chapter 5 , cognitive apprenticeship is based on the idea that complex skills depend on an interlocking set of experiences and instruction whose efficacy, in turn, depend on the learner and the community of practitioners with whom the learner interacts (Brown, Collins, and Duguid, 1989; Yerushalmi et al., 2007).

Although some DBER is guided by learning theories and principles, reports of DBER studies are typically organized around instructional setting. Following that convention, we organize our synthesis of DBER on instruction by setting—classroom, laboratory, and field—before considering the effects of instructional strategies on different groups.

Most of the available research on instruction is conducted in introductory courses. Sample sizes range from tens of students to several hundred students. The preponderance of this research is conducted in the context of a single course or laboratory—often by the instructor of that course, and sometimes comparing outcomes across multiple sections of that course. Fewer studies are conducted across multiple courses or multiple institutions.

Many studies use pre- and post-tests of student knowledge (often with a comparison or control group) to assess some measure of learning gains for one course, typically lasting one semester. These gains often are measured with concept inventories developed for aspects of the discipline or other specialized assessments (see Chapter 4 for a discussion of concept inventories), or with course assignments or exams. Fewer studies measure longer-term gains, or other outcomes such as student attitudes and motivation to study the discipline.

INSTRUCTION IN THE CLASSROOM SETTING

Understandably, most DBER on instructional strategies centers on the classroom setting. The reviews of DBER commissioned for this study (Bailey, 2011; Dirks, 2011; Docktor and Mestre, 2011; Piburn, Kraft, and Pacheco, 2011; Svinicki, 2011; Towns and Kraft, 2011), along with other syntheses (e.g., Allen and Tanner, 2009; Hake, 1998; Handelsman, Miller, and Pfund, 2007; Prince, 2004; Ruiz-Primo et al. 2011; Smith et al., 2005; Wood, 2009) consistently support the view that adopting various student-centered approaches to classroom instruction at the undergraduate level can improve students’ learning relative to lectures that do not include student participation. A limited amount of research suggests that even incremental changes toward more student-centered approaches can enhance students’ learning (Derting and Ebert-May, 2010; Knight and Wood, 2005).

Research from the different fields of DBER reveals some nuances and variations on this theme, which we explore in this section. We have organized this discussion by instructional strategy rather than by discipline because these strategies in themselves are not discipline-specific, and most are implemented in similar learning environments. We include discipline-specific discussions under each strategy where that research was available.

Making Lectures More Interactive

Most undergraduate science and engineering classes are taught in a lecture format. Although traditional lectures can be effective for some students (Schwartz and Bransford, 1998), instructors have a variety of options at their disposal to make lectures more interactive and enhance their effectiveness. These options range in scope and complexity from slight modifications of instructional practice—such as beginning a lecture with a challenging question for students to keep in mind—to devoting most of the instructional time to collaborative problem solving. Research on making lectures more interactive is a significant focus of DBER. Overall, the committee has characterized the strength of the evidence on making lectures more interactive as strong because of the high degree to which the findings converge, albeit from many studies that were conducted in the context of a single course using a wide variety of measurement tools. This section discusses several options for making lectures and small discussion groups more interactive. Most of these approaches involve enhancing or refining—rather than completely eliminating—the lecture format.

Encouraging Student Participation

Interactive lectures involve students in learning the material, often requiring them to think and apply the content that is covered during class. Several

geoscience education research studies have examined the effectiveness of interactive lectures. One study (Clary and Wandersee, 2007) tested a model of integrated, thematic instruction in the introductory geology lecture. Students in the experimental condition did an in-lecture “mini-lab” with petrified wood and discussed their observations in on-line discussion groups. Pre-test/post-test application of a researcher-developed survey showed statistically greater gains in the experimental group than in two control groups. Other research examining the use of ConcepTests (short, formative assessments of a single concept), Venn diagrams constructed with student input, and analysis of geologic images during lecture has shown significant differences between control and experimental groups; students who experienced the interactive strategies earned higher exam scores (McConnell, Steer, and Owens, 2003).

Interactive lecture demonstrations are another strategy for encouraging student participation. With this approach, students (1) make predictions about the outcome of a physical demonstration that the instructor conducts in class, (2) explain this prediction with peers and then with the class, (3) observe the event, and (4) compare their observations to their predictions (Sokoloff and Thornton, 2004). Some research on interactive lecture demonstrations indicates that they can improve students’ understanding of foundational physics concepts as measured by the Force and Motion Conceptual Evaluation (Sokoloff and Thornton, 1997). Other research suggests that the prediction phase (consistent with conceptual-change models) is particularly important to the success of an interactive lecture demonstration (Crouch et al., 2004). Similarly, chemistry education research shows that students who were allowed to work in small groups to make predictions about lecture demonstrations showed significant improvements on tests over students who merely observed demonstrations (Bowen and Phelps, 1997).

Another approach is to adapt lectures based on student responses to pre-class or in-class work. The most familiar pre-lecture method is Just-in-Time Teaching. With this approach, students read and answer questions or solve homework problems before class and submit their work to the instructor electronically, with enough time for the instructor to modify the lecture to target student weaknesses or accommodate their interests (Novak, 1999). A moderate amount of evidence suggests that Just-in-Time Teaching is effective in teaching some physics concepts, such as Newton’s Third Law (Formica, Easley, and Spraker, 2010), and is associated with positive attitudes about introductory geology (Linneman and Plake, 2006; Luo, 2008). In biology, Just-in-Time Teaching has been associated with improved student preparation for classes and more effective study habits; students also preferred this format to traditional lectures (Marrs and Novak, 2004).

Other versions of pre-lecture assignments have been associated with gains in student learning. As one example, Multimedia Learning Modules have been associated with improved course performance in physics (Stelzer

et al., 2009). In a large introductory biology course for majors, students who participated in Learn Before Lecture (a simpler approach than Just-in-Time Teaching) performed significantly better than students in traditional courses on Learn Before Lecture-related exam questions, but not on other questions (Moravec et al., 2010).

Although arguably less common, approaches that involve real-time adjustment of instruction also appear to have the potential to improve student learning and performance. In a quasi-experimental study in the geosciences, students in interactive courses were given brief introductory lectures followed by formative assessments that triggered immediate feedback and adjustment of instruction. These students showed a substantial improvement in Geoscience Concept Inventory scores (McConnell et al., 2006).

Audience response systems (“clickers”) are a different approach to encouraging greater student participation in large-enrollment courses. Clickers are small handheld devices that allow students to send information (typically their response to a multiple choice question provided by the instructor) to a receiver, which tabulates the classroom results and displays the information to the instructor. The value of clickers for in-class formative assessment has been debated. Some biology instructors have reported high student approval and enhanced learning using clickers (e.g., Smith et al., 2009; Wood, 2004), while others have found them less useful and have discontinued their use (Caldwell, 2007). Research in chemistry and astronomy suggests that learning gains are only associated with applications of clickers that incorporate socially mediated learning techniques, such as those discussed in the next section (Len, 2007; MacArthur and Jones, 2008). Overall, the research on clickers indicates that technology itself does not improve outcomes, but how the technology is used matters more (e.g., Caldwell, 2007; Keller et al., 2007; Lasry, 2008).

Regarding clickers—as regarding instruction more broadly—DBER has not yet systematically used learning theory principles to examine whether certain strategies are more effective for different populations of students, or analyzed the conditions under which those strategies are successfully implemented. However, several authors have offered suggestions for best practices with clicker technology (Beatty et al., 2006; Caldwell, 2007; Smith et al., 2009; Wieman et al., 2008), including posing formative assessment questions at higher cognitive levels and socially mediated conditions for learning such as allowing students to discuss their responses in groups before the correct answer is revealed.

Involving Students in Collaborative Activities

Many transformed courses (i.e., courses in which instructors are using student-centered approaches) incorporate in-class activities where

students collaborate with each other. Consistent with research from science education and educational psychology, DBER has shown that these activities enhance the effectiveness of student-centered learning over traditional instruction (e.g., Armstrong, Chang, and Brickman, 2007; Johnson, Johnson, and Smith, 1998; Smith et al., 2009, 2011; Springer, Stanne, and Donovan, 1999). Moreover, collaborative learning has been shown to improve student retention of content knowledge (Cortright et al., 2003; Rao, Collins, and DiCarlo, 2002; Wright and Boggs, 2002). However, it is important to remember that collaborative learning is not inherently effective, and this approach can be implemented ineffectively (Slavin, Hurley, and Chamberlain, 2003). In this vein, DBER does not yet provide conclusive evidence about the conditions under which these strategies are effective, and for which students.

Think-Pair-Share is a straightforward form of in-class collaborative activity—widely used in K-12 education—that is also referred to as informal cooperative learning (Johnson, Johnson, and Smith, 2011; Smith, 2000). With this approach, the instructor poses a question, often one that has many possible answers; asks students to formulate answers, share their answers, and discuss the question with their group; elicits answers again; and engages in a class-wide discussion. The use of informal groups in this way has been associated with improvements in a variety of outcomes, including achievement, critical thinking and higher-level reasoning, students’ understanding of others’ perspectives, and attitudes about their fellow students, instructors, and the subject matter at hand (Johnson, Johnson, and Smith, 2007, 1998; Smith et al., 2005). Instructors adapt Think-Pair-Share in various ways. Some geoscience education researchers have followed brief introductory lectures with interactive sessions during which students discussed ideas in groups and completed worksheets based on the misconceptions literature. On average, students who participated in the interactive sessions scored higher on tests than students who received only lecture, even when taught by the same instructor during the same semester (Kortz, Smay, and Murray, 2008).

In chemistry, a number of initiatives that stress socially mediated learning have been widely adopted and adapted. In POGIL (Process-Oriented Guided Inquiry Learning), 1 students work together in small groups on guided inquiry activities to learning content and science practices. PLTL (Peer Led Team Learning) 2 uses peer-team leaders in out-of-class team problem-solving sessions. Both POGIL and PLTL have developed large communities of practice, and there is some evidence that they can improve student outcomes. One mixed-methods study reported significantly improved

__________________

1 For more information, see http://www.pogil.org [accessed April 13, 2012].

2 For more information, see http://www.pltl.org [accessed April 13, 2012].

outcomes for organic chemistry students in PLTL sections on all course exams and finals, compared with students who learned through traditional lecture courses (Tien, Roth, and Kampmeier, 2002). Other studies have shown that a combination of PLTL and POGIL improved test scores for a cohort of students in general chemistry (Lewis and Lewis, 2005). However, much more research remains to be done to investigate how these pedagogies can best be implemented, how different student populations are affected, and how the fidelity of implementation—that is, the extent to which the experience as implemented follows the intended design—affects outcomes.

To explore the common view that group learning is pragmatically impossible in large-enrollment courses, some astronomy education researchers created and systematically studied a series of collaborative group activities modified specifically for large-enrollment courses known as ASTRO 101. We have characterized the strength of this evidence as limited because relatively few studies exist and the results have not been independently replicated. Studies of these activities reveal that students can learn more when collaborative group activities are added to traditional lecture and that they enjoy the collaborative learning experience more than traditional courses (Adams and Slater, 1998, 2002; Skala, Slater, and Adams, 2000). In addition, female-only learning groups performed better than heterogeneous groups in these activities (Adams et al., 2002). Survey responses, course evaluations, and exam performance in large-enrollment (600 students) oceanography courses have also revealed an increased interest in science as well as improvements in subject-matter learning, information recall, analytical skills, and quantitative reasoning for students who were taught with cooperative learning and collaborative assessments (Yuretich et al., 2001).

In addition to being used in large lectures, collaborative activities also are used to make smaller discussion sections more interactive. In physics, Cooperative Group Problem Solving requires students to work in formal, structured groups on specifically designed tasks called context-rich problems (Heller and Heller, 2000; Heller and Hollabaugh, 1992). The design of this highly structured approach is based on research on cooperative learning, a popular method in K-12 education (Johnson, Johnson, and Holubec, 1990; Johnson, Johnson, and Smith, 1991). A limited amount of evidence at the undergraduate level suggests that this approach can contribute to improved conceptual understanding and problem-solving skills (Heller and Hollabaugh, 1992; Heller, Keith, and Anderson, 1992; Hollabaugh, 1995) (see Box 6-1 for a description of other collaborative models used in physics in which a key feature is changing the learning space). Findings from a study in chemistry also indicated that cooperative group problem solving improved students’ problem-solving abilities by about 10 percent, and that this improvement was retained when students returned to individual problem-solving activities (Cooper et al., 2008). In that study, the only students who did not benefit

BOX 6-1 Changing the Learning Space: Some Examples from Physics

Several physics education reforms have involved redesigning the learning space. Based on the model of cognitive apprenticeship (see Chapter 5 ), these redesigns also involve dramatic changes to the way physics is taught, reducing the amount of lecturing and often integrating laboratory and lecture. Some examples include the following:

Workshop Physics . Developed at Dickinson College, Workshop Physics taught university physics entirely within the laboratory, using the latest computer technology. Students preferred workshop courses, and students in these courses generally outperformed students in traditional courses on conceptual exams but not in problem solving (Laws, 1991, 2004).

Studio Physics. Developed at Rensselaer, Studio Physics redesigned teaching spaces to accommodate an integrated lecture/laboratory course. Early studies showed little improvement in students’ conceptual understanding or problem-solving skills, despite the popularity of the innovation. Later implementations, which added research-based curricula, resulted in improved learning of content over traditional courses (Cummings et al., 1999; Sorensen et al., 2006) but not always improvements in problem solving (Hoellwarth, Moelter, and Knight, 2005).

SCALE-UP . Developed at North Carolina State University, the Student-Centered Active Learning Environment for Undergraduate Programs (SCALE-UP) begins with a redesign of the classroom. Each room holds approximately 100 students, with round tables that accommodate 3 laptops and 9 students, whiteboards on several walls, and multiple computer projectors and screens so every student has a view. Students engage in hands-on activities and with computer simulations, work collaboratively on problems, and conduct hypothesis-driven experiments. SCALE-UP students have better scores on problem-solving exams and concept tests, slightly better attitudes about science, and less attrition than students in traditional courses (Beichner et al., 2007; Gaffney et al., 2008).

from this activity were students with the lowest scores on a logical thinking test who were paired with students of similar ability.

Teasing apart the benefits of collaborative group versus individual problem-solving practice is difficult, as is following changes in problem-solving ability over time, particularly in large classes. Some recent work has been done on the development and validation of tools for comparing collaborative and individual problem-solving strategies in large (60-100 students) biochemistry courses, with students discussing ill-defined problems in small online groups (Anderson, Mitchell, and Osgood, 2008), and then working through individual electronic exams based on similar, but not identical, problems (Anderson et al., 2011).

Other Instructional Strategies

Some DBER exists on other popular instructional strategies that are not necessarily interactive. We have characterized the strength of conclusions that can be drawn from this evidence as limited because relatively few studies exist and the findings across disciplines are contradictory. For example, in traditional and student-centered classes alike, analogies and explanatory models are widely used pedagogical tools to help students see similarities between what they already know and unfamiliar, often abstract concepts (Clement, 2008). Some physics education research suggests that use of analogies during instruction of electromagnetic waves helped students generate inferences, and that students taught with the help of analogies outperformed students who were taught traditionally (Podolefsky and Finkelstein, 2006, 2007a). Further research indicates that blending multiple analogies to convey wave concepts can lead to better student reasoning than using single analogies or standard abstract representations (Podolefsky and Finkelstein, 2007b). A possible explanation for this finding is that using multiple analogies may have helped learners to see the general pattern across the separate analogies (Gentner and Colhoun, 2010), rather than becoming overly attached to the specific features of any one analogy. This result echoes findings from cognitive science that multiple analogies facilitate problem solving because they help solvers to construct a general schema for the common underlying solution procedure (Catrambone and Holyoak, 1989; Gick and Holyoak, 1983; Novick and Holyoak, 1991; Ross and Kennedy, 1990).

In contrast to findings from physics education research, a series of chemistry education research studies identifies the challenges of using analogies for college students who had successfully completed at least one biochemistry course (Orgill and Bodner, 2004, 2006, 2007). In those studies, faculty used analogies to identify similar features between the already-known concept and the concept to be learned, with the goal of facilitating the transfer of knowledge from one setting to another. However,

the instructors often did not identify where the analogy broke down or failed to be useful. As a result, students overgeneralized the features of the known situation, thinking that all features were represented in the target. This overgeneralization impaired student learning.

Another approach in teaching science and engineering is to present abstract concepts and then follow them with a specific worked example (sometimes called a “touchstone example”) to illustrate how the concepts are applied to solve problems. With this approach, students’ understanding of the concept often becomes conflated with the particulars of the example that is used. As a result, students may have difficulty separating the solution from the specifics of a particular problem, which may limit their ability to apply knowledge of the concept in other settings. This phenomenon is known as the “specificity effect” and has been demonstrated in several physics education research studies (Mestre et al., 2009) as well as basic studies in cognitive science.

Supplementing Instruction with Tutorials

The tutorial approach is a common instructional innovation in physics and astronomy, and represents a significant area of research and development for physics and astronomy education research. With a tutorial approach, instructors are provided with a classroom-ready tool to target a specific concept, elicit and confront tenacious student misconceptions, create learning opportunities, and provide formative feedback to students.

The University of Washington physics education research group has developed several Tutorials in Introductory Physics (McDermott and Shaffer, 2002), and numerous studies have demonstrated that these tutorials significantly improve student understanding of the targeted concepts and of scientific reasoning more generally (see review by Docktor and Mestre, 2011, for a detailed listing of relevant publications). The success of the University of Washington tutorials has inspired other research groups to create and evaluate tutorial-style learning interventions (e.g., Elby, 2001; Steinberg, Wittmann, and Redish, 1997; Wittmann, Steinberg, and Redish, 2004, 2005). In physics, these adaptations are predominantly used in a recitation or discussion section.

Astronomy education researchers have successfully modified the tutorial approach to be used in a lecture classroom environment. For example, Lecture-Tutorials for Introductory Astronomy (Prather et al., 2004, 2007) is a widely used series of short-duration, highly focused, highly structured learning activities. Instructors lead students through a purposeful sequence of carefully constructed questions designed to move the learner toward a more expert-like understanding. Several studies have shown that the lecture-tutorial approach is more effective than lecture-dominated courses

in improving students’ understanding in astronomy (Alexander, 2005; Bailey and Nagamine, 2009; Lopresto, 2010; Lopresto and Murrell, 2009). One study of multiple introductory science courses across multiple institutions revealed that adaptations of the astronomy approach for introductory geoscience courses improved students’ test scores in those courses (Kortz, Smay, and Murray, 2008).

INSTRUCTION IN THE LABORATORY SETTING

Learning science and engineering takes place not just in classrooms, but also in laboratories 3 and in the field. Well-designed laboratories can help students to develop competence with scientific practices such as experimental design; argumentation; formulation of scientific questions; and use of discipline-specific equipment such as pipettes, microscopes, and volumetric glassware. However, laboratories that are designed primarily to reinforce lecture material do not necessarily deepen undergraduate students’ understanding of the concepts covered in lecture (Elliott, Stewart, and Lagowski, 2008; Herrington and Nakhleh, 2003; Hofstein and Lunetta, 1982; Kirschner and Meester, 1988 Lazarowitz and Tamir, 1994; White, 1996). Indeed, a 2004 review of more than 20 years of research on laboratory instruction found “sparse data from carefully designed and conducted studies” to support the widely held belief that laboratory learning is essential for understanding science (Hofstein and Lunetta, 2004, p. 46).

Relatively few DBER studies focus on the laboratory environment. We have characterized the strength of evidence as moderate in physics because the research base includes a combination of smaller-scale studies (e.g., a single course or section) and studies that have been conducted across multiple courses or institutions, with general convergence of findings. In chemistry, engineering, biology, the geosciences, and astronomy, the strength of the conclusions that can be drawn from this research is limited.

One of the criticisms of traditional laboratory manuals is that they do not reflect what scientists actually do: develop hypotheses, design and conduct experiments, make decisions about measurement error versus equipment sensitivity, and report their findings. Several reformed physics

3 It was beyond the scope of this committee’s charge to define what constitutes a laboratory course (see National Research Council [2006] for a definition of laboratory experiences for K-12 education). Recognizing the wide range of laboratory experiences—and the variations within and across disciplines—in this report, we describe what is commonly practiced in each discipline by using the operational definitions of laboratory employed in the research we reviewed.

curricula include laboratory experiences that are aligned with scientific practices (see, for example, Investigative Science Learning Environment [Etkina and Van Heuvelen, 2007], Physics by Inquiry [McDermott et al., 1996a, 1996b)], and Modeling Instruction [Brewe, 2008]). In these laboratory exercises, students record observations, develop and test explanations, refine existing models, and build and refine their own causal models through experimentation.

Studies of specific curricular innovations show that these types of laboratories are more effective than traditional laboratories for developing students’ ability to design experiments, collect and analyze data, and engage in more authentic scientific communication (Etkina et al., 2006, 2010; Karelina and Etkina, 2007). These laboratories also contribute to positive attitudes about introductory physics, as measured by the Colorado Learning Attitudes about Science Survey (Brewe, Kramer, and O’Brien, 2009), in contrast to most other introductory physics courses (Redish, Steinberg, and Saul, 1998). A limited amount of evidence suggests that some of these benefits may extend beyond the laboratory setting. For example, one study showed that the skills learned in a reformed physics laboratory can transfer to novel tasks in biology (Etkina et al., 2010). In another study, students in a reformed laboratory outperformed their peers from traditional laboratories on course exam problems (Thacker et al., 1994).

Some physics education research has examined the use of technology in the laboratory setting. One curriculum, RealTime Physics Active Learning Laboratories , targets known misconceptions by using microcomputer-based technologies to instantly analyze formative data and provide immediate feedback to the student. Studies of RealTime Physics show gains on the Force Motion Concept Inventory (Sokoloff and Thornton, 1997) over traditional laboratories, although the value of the instantaneous feedback on improving students’ learning is debated (Beichner, 1990; Brasell, 1987; Brungardt and Zollman, 1995). A limited amount of evidence also suggests that video-based laboratories, where students either create their own videos of motion in the laboratory or use provided videos such as a space-shuttle launch and then analyze the videos using specific software programs, can improve students’ understanding of kinematics and kinematics graphs (Beichner, 1996). In addition, interactive computer simulations of physical phenomena can lead to improved student performance on laboratory reports, exam questions, and performance tasks (e.g., assembling real circuits) over traditional instruction (Finkelstein et al., 2005).

The chemistry laboratory is where the properties and reactions between chemicals become visible, and where chemists extrapolate the properties of

compounds to their molecular structure. For chemistry faculty, the laboratory is integral to learning chemistry. Given the expense of laboratory instruction, however, the question of whether students can learn chemistry without laboratories is asked with increasing frequency by department chairs and faculty administrators.

Despite its importance in the curriculum, the role of the chemistry laboratory in student learning has gone largely unexamined. The research that has been done has investigated faculty goals for laboratory learning, the role of graduate students as teaching assistants in the laboratory, experiments to restructure the laboratory with an inquiry focus, and students’ interactions with instrumentation in the laboratory.

An interview study of chemistry faculty revealed that faculty goals vary for connecting laboratory to lecture, promoting students’ critical thinking, providing experiences with experimental design, and teaching students about uncertainty in measurement (Bruck, Towns, and Bretz, 2010). Research on students’ experiences in general chemistry (Miller et al., 2004) and analytical chemistry (Malina and Nakhleh, 2003) suggests that such variation can influence students’ views of laboratory learning. Depending on how faculty members structure the laboratory experiment and assess student learning, students can view instruments simply as objects, without any knowledge of their internal workings, or as useful tools for collecting evidence about the behavior of molecules and their properties.

Domin (1999) has characterized inquiry in chemistry laboratories as ranging from deductive experiences (“explain, then experiment”) to inductive experiments (“experiment, then explain”). To explore learning along this continuum, Jalil (2006) designed a laboratory course with both kinds of experiments, finding that although students initially preferred deductive experiments, they eventually came to value the inductive approach because the experiments provided them with knowledge for subsequent learning in lecture. Although the label “inquiry” is often synonymous with inductive experiments, one analysis (Fay et al., 2007) found that neither commercially published laboratory manuals nor peer-reviewed manuscripts that self-identify as “inquiry” score very high on Lederman’s rubric of scientific inquiry, which was designed to assess the level of scientific inquiry occurring in high-school science classrooms. This research has been extended to other disciplines with similar results (Whitson et al., 2008).

Regarding the effect of laboratories on learning, emerging evidence suggests that students in an open-ended, problem-based laboratory format improve their problem-solving skills (Sandi-Urena et al., 2011, in press). The science writing heuristic—which combines an instructional technique to improve the flow of activities during an experiment with an alternative format for writing laboratory reports—is another approach to improve student learning. Research has shown that students who were taught by

teaching assistants who implemented the science writing heuristic appropriately showed significant improvements on their lecture exam scores (Rudd, Greenbowe, and Hand, 2007). In contrast, traditional laboratories that confirm the knowledge students may already possess do not appear to increase their understanding or retention (Gabel, 1999; Hart et al., 2000; Hofstein and Mamlok-Naaman, 2007).

Biology education research studies on instruction in the laboratory setting typically examine the outcomes of inquiry-based laboratories, often in comparison to traditional laboratories. The design of inquiry-based laboratories is based on the concept of the learning cycle, in which students pose questions, confront their misconceptions, develop hypotheses, and design experiments to test them (Johnson and Lawson, 1998; Lawson, 1988). In the best of these laboratories, students answer research questions using online datasets (e.g., genomic sequence data) (Shaffer et al., 2010) or even contribute to such datasets by isolating and characterizing previously undiscovered life forms (e.g., Hanauer et al., 2006). This work can lead to research publications with students as co-authors (e.g., Hatfull et al., 2010).

Although the committee has characterized the strength of the findings as limited, the evidence from biology education research suggests that when compared with traditional laboratory exercises, inquiry-based laboratories can improve students’ learning and their short-term retention of biology content (Halme et al., 2006; Lord and Orkwiszewski, 2006; Rissing and Cogan, 2009; Simmons et al., 2008). Inquiry-based laboratories also can improve students’ competency with science practices and confidence in their ability to do science (Brickman et al., 2009), and may increase retention of students in the major (Seymour et al., 2004). It is not clear, however, whether inquiry-based laboratories are more effective in dispelling common misconceptions on such topics as the nature of cellular respiration and the origins of plant biomass.

As one example of an inquiry-based laboratory, the Genomics Education Partnership used the Classroom Undergraduate Research Experience and pre- and post-test assessments to evaluate the impact of an authentic Drosophila genome annotation project on learning in 472 students at 46 participating institutions (Shaffer et al., 2010). The experimental design allowed for comparisons in knowledge gains between students who identified elements on the genome and engaged in more extensive characterization and students who only identified elements on the genome. For the latter group, pre- and post-test scores were the same. In contrast, the post-test scores of students who engaged in both tasks were nearly twice as high as their pre-test scores. This effort stands out in the biology education research

literature because of the scale of the study and the range of institutions involved.

Engineering

Unique among DBER fields, engineering is an externally accredited practice-based profession. As a result, undergraduate engineering education involves developing technical competencies and preparing graduates for practice (Lynch et al., 2009). Engineering educators are therefore concerned with both affective and cognitive outcomes of laboratory experiences (Feisel and Rosa, 2005). Along these lines, recent efforts to develop inquiry-based engineering laboratories to foster student engagement seem promising (Kanter et al., 2003) although the research is in an early stage of development. However, the committee’s review revealed that a limited amount of research exists on how these laboratories affect students’ learning. A follow-up paper to a colloquy on the role of laboratory instruction in engineering noted “the lack of coherent learning objectives for laboratories and how this lack has limited the effectiveness of laboratories and hampered meaningful research in this area” (Feisel and Rosa, 2005, p. 121).

The Geosciences

As with the other fields of DBER, the laboratory is understudied in the geosciences. One study of an introductory geoscience laboratory showed that students who completed the optional laboratory in conjunction with an introductory-level, lecture-based course earned higher final exam scores than students who completed only the lecture course (Nelson et al., 2010). Students over age 25 benefitted much more from the laboratory than students of conventional college age. Older students who took the laboratory option performed 21 percent higher than older students in the lecture-only course, whereas college-age students performed about 3 percent higher than their lecture-only counterparts. Students over age 25 and of conventional college age had similar GPAs and course grades, on average.

A limited amount of research on the introductory astronomy laboratory suggests that online datasets might have some benefits for undergraduate students. For example, the highly structured task of repeatedly querying large online datasets can enhance students’ understanding of the nature of scientific inquiry (Slater, Slater, and Lyons, 2010; Slater, Slater, and Shaner, 2008). In addition, undergraduate students’ understanding of the difference between data and evidence can be enhanced when they are explicitly

taught to develop their own research questions and conduct investigations over the duration of a course (Lyons, 2011). One study has shown that this approach works equally well for students in face-to-face collaborative groups and individually in the relatively isolated environment of an internet-delivered astronomy course (Sibbernsen, 2010).

LEARNING IN THE FIELD SETTING

For some disciplines, learning in the field is just as important as learning in the classroom or laboratory. The geoscience curriculum, for example, has had field instruction at its core for more than a century (Mogk and Goodwin, 2012). Field learning in the geosciences encompasses a variety of activities, ranging in scale from a single outdoor class activity (perhaps with a duration of only an hour or two), to sustained individual or group projects, short- or long-term residence programs, capstone field camps at the undergraduate level, and group or individual field projects at the undergraduate or graduate level (Butler, 2008; Mogk and Goodwin, 2012; Whitmeyer, Mogk, and Pyle, 2009).

The geoscience education literature is replete with descriptions of instructional activities in the field. However, reports of the efficacy of these activities are largely observational and anecdotal. We have characterized the strength of this evidence as limited because few studies exist and they have typically been conducted in the context of a single field course. The available research measures a variety of outcomes, and suggests that field courses can positively affect the attitudes, career choices, and lower- and higher-order cognitive skills of student participants as measured by survey instruments designed to assess these outcomes (Huntoon, Bluth, and Kennedy, 2001); improve introductory students’ understanding of concepts in the geosciences as measured by the Geoscience Concept Inventory (Elkins and Elkins, 2007); and contribute to the development of teamwork, decision-making, autonomy, and interpersonal skills (Boyle et al., 2004; Stokes and Boyle, 2009). Several scoring rubrics are helping to standardize the assessment of learning outcomes in the field (e.g., Pyle, 2009).

Some studies have used GPS tracking devices to monitor students at work in the field. Building on the cognitive science field of naturalistic decision making (Klein et al., 1993; Lipshitz et al., 2001; Marshall, 1995; Zsambok and Klein, 1997), some geoscience education research has analyzed the navigational choices of students who were engaged in independent field work and correlated those choices with performance (Riggs, Balliet, and Lieder, 2009; Riggs, Lieder, and Balliet, 2009). That research reported an optimum amount of relocation and backtracking in field geology: too much retracing indicates confusion, and too little reoccupation of key areas appears to accompany a failure to recognize important geologic features.

EFFECTS OF INSTRUCTIONAL STRATEGIES ON DIFFERENT STUDENT GROUPS

Most of the studies the committee reviewed were not designed to examine differences in terms of gender, ethnicity, socioeconomic status, or other student characteristics. However, physics education research has explored the impact of instructional innovations on females and minorities. For example, the positive impacts of SCALE-UP appear to be even greater for females and minorities (Beichner et al., 2007). In contrast, researchers studying the early implementation of Workshop Physics discovered that the attitudes of females about the course were significantly worse than males, and that females’ dissatisfaction arose from the alternative format of Workshop Physics , difficult laboratory partners, and time demands (Laws, Rosborough, and Poodry, 1999).

Some physics education researchers designed a course called Extended General Physics specifically for students whom they identified as likely to struggle with college physics. Enrollment in the course included nearly 70 percent females, and greater proportions of underrepresented minorities than traditional physics courses. Among other features, the course incorporated several student-centered pedagogies, including collaborative activities. Students in this course had a higher retention rate, higher grades, and better attitudes than their peers in the traditional section, and these differences were particularly pronounced for females and minorities. Moreover, students in Extended General Physics and traditional courses scored similarly on common exam questions, indicating that Extended General Physics was at least as rigorous as the traditional physics course (Etkina et al., 1999).

Along similar lines, a handful of biology education research studies suggest that first-year students from underrepresented groups perform better in biology courses that offer supplemental instruction (Barlow and Villarejo, 2004; Dirks and Cunningham, 2006; Matsui, Lui, and Kane, 2003). This effectiveness might be at least partially attributed to the cooperative learning that is typically included in supplemental instruction (Rath et al., 2007).

A few astronomy education research studies also have examined differences among males and females. One study showed that males outperform females on the Astronomy Diagnostic Test , leading the study’s authors to conclude that the concept inventories developed for astronomy (see Chapter 4 ) might have some inherent biases (Brogt et al., 2007; Hufnagel, 2002; Hufnagel et al., 2000). In a separate study, female students in ASTRO 101 started at lower achievement levels than their male counterparts, but the use of curriculum materials designed to improve quantitative reasoning skills closed those initial gaps (Hudgins et al., 2006).

SUMMARY OF KEY FINDINGS

•    Across the science and engineering disciplines in this study, DBER clearly indicates that student-centered instructional strategies can positively influence students’ learning, achievement, and knowledge retention, as compared with traditional instructional methods. DBER does not yet provide evidence on the relative effectiveness of different student-centered strategies, whether different strategies are differentially effective for learning different types of content, or the effectiveness of strategies for subgroups of learners.

•    Research on the use of various learning technologies suggests that technology can enhance students’ learning, retention of knowledge, and attitudes about science learning. However, the presence of learning technologies alone does not improve outcomes. Instead, those outcomes appear to depend on how the technology is used.

•    Despite the importance of laboratories in undergraduate science and engineering education, their role in student learning has largely gone unexamined . Research on learning in the field setting is similarly sparse .

DIRECTIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH

Despite the preponderance of DBER on the benefits of student-centered instruction and of instruction that involves the use of technology, important gaps remain. With some exceptions, the studies the committee reviewed measure learning within the context of a single course. Multi-instructor, multi-institutional studies are needed to move beyond the idiosyncrasies of instructional approaches that work well only in the presence of certain instructors or with students who fit a particular profile. More work also is needed on large-scale projects such as POGIL, to better understand the conditions under which its materials are successfully implemented and provide insights into how the effective use of these materials and associated pedagogy can be reliably supported. Additional research examining the influence of student-centered instruction on other types of outcomes, such as declaring a major, retention in the major and pursuing further study also would be helpful. And finally, longitudinal studies are needed to gauge the effects of student-centered instruction on the long-term retention of conceptual knowledge and on the application of foundational skills and knowledge to progressively more challenging tasks.

Most of the research on instructional strategies has been conducted in introductory courses. Less evidence exists regarding the efficacy of different

instructional approaches in upper-division courses, although some has been conducted (see, for example, Chasteen and Pollack [2008] and Smith et al. [2011]). Within introductory courses it is unclear whether student-centered learning environments affect different student populations differently, because DBER scholars rarely compare the effects of a given strategy for different student populations. Populations of interest for future study include students who are underrepresented in science, including students for whom English is a second language, females, and ethnic/racial minorities. It also would be useful to explore the dimensions of overall science performance, quantitative skills, and spatial ability. Further study is needed on strategies to accommodate students with disabilities into the full suite of instructional opportunities, especially laboratory and field-based learning.

Across the disciplines in this study, the role of the laboratory class is poorly understood. It would be helpful for scientists, engineers, and DBER scholars to identify the most important outcomes of a well-designed laboratory course, then to design instruction specifically targeted at those outcomes and instruments for routinely assessing those outcomes. Future DBER might compare learning outcomes associated with different types of laboratory instruction (e.g., free-standing versus laboratory activities that are integrated into the main course) and compare outcomes in courses where laboratories are required, optional, or not offered. In addition, laboratory activities in which students conduct inquiry on large, professionally collected data sets (such as genomics data and geoscience datasets served by the U.S. Geological Survey, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, and various university consortia) have grown in prominence in recent years (Hays et al., 2000), but have been little studied.

Additional research also is needed on field-based learning. Specifically, which types of field activities promote different kinds of learning and which teaching methods are most effective for different audiences, settings, expected learning outcomes, or types of field experiences? The research base is particularly sparse regarding the degree of scaffolding needed for different types of field activities, and which types of field projects are optimal for a given learning goal (Butler, 2008). Given the expense and logistical challenges of field-based instruction, it is important to identify which learning goals (if any) can only be achieved through field-based learning, and which (if any) could be achieved through laboratory or computer-based alternatives. These studies also should explore affective dimensions of field learning, including motivations to learn science and cultural and other barriers to learning.

In studying the efficacy of different instructional approaches, DBER scholars must take into account the time constraints of instructors. Future DBER studies might document the time associated with different

instructional approaches and explore which approaches are most efficient for supporting students’ learning in terms of faculty effort. At the same time, research into enhancing the effectiveness of graduate teaching assistants and paraprofessionals such as full-time laboratory instructors can explore ways to make student-centered instruction an economically viable approach, even at a time of shrinking funding for higher education.

The National Science Foundation funded a synthesis study on the status, contributions, and future direction of discipline-based education research (DBER) in physics, biological sciences, geosciences, and chemistry. DBER combines knowledge of teaching and learning with deep knowledge of discipline-specific science content. It describes the discipline-specific difficulties learners face and the specialized intellectual and instructional resources that can facilitate student understanding.

Discipline-Based Education Research is based on a 30-month study built on two workshops held in 2008 to explore evidence on promising practices in undergraduate science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education. This book asks questions that are essential to advancing DBER and broadening its impact on undergraduate science teaching and learning. The book provides empirical research on undergraduate teaching and learning in the sciences, explores the extent to which this research currently influences undergraduate instruction, and identifies the intellectual and material resources required to further develop DBER.

Discipline-Based Education Research provides guidance for future DBER research. In addition, the findings and recommendations of this report may invite, if not assist, post-secondary institutions to increase interest and research activity in DBER and improve its quality and usefulness across all natural science disciples, as well as guide instruction and assessment across natural science courses to improve student learning. The book brings greater focus to issues of student attrition in the natural sciences that are related to the quality of instruction. Discipline-Based Education Research will be of interest to educators, policy makers, researchers, scholars, decision makers in universities, government agencies, curriculum developers, research sponsors, and education advocacy groups.

READ FREE ONLINE

Welcome to OpenBook!

You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

Show this book's table of contents , where you can jump to any chapter by name.

...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

Switch between the Original Pages , where you can read the report as it appeared in print, and Text Pages for the web version, where you can highlight and search the text.

To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter .

Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

View our suggested citation for this chapter.

Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

Get Email Updates

Do you enjoy reading reports from the Academies online for free ? Sign up for email notifications and we'll let you know about new publications in your areas of interest when they're released.

Smithsonian Voices

From the Smithsonian Museums

SMITHSONIAN EDUCATION

Teaching About Real-World, Transdisciplinary Problems and Phenomena through Convergence Education

In its 2018 Federal STEM Strategic Plan, a collaboration of government agencies wrote that science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education should move through a pathway where disciplines “converge” and where teaching and learning moves from disciplinary to transdisciplinary. Classroom examples help spotlight what this framework can look like in practice.

Carol O’Donnell & Kelly J. Day

In today’s K-12 classrooms, students are learning a lot more than just reading, writing, and arithmetic. Today, problem- and phenomenon-based learning means that students are tackling some of the most complex topics of our times, whether it is cybersecurity, innovation and entrepreneurship, climate change, biodiversity loss, infectious disease, water scarcity, energy security, food security, or deforestation. Educators are using transdisciplinary learning to help students address deep scientific questions and tackle broad societal needs.

Convergence Education

But how does an educator, who is assigned to teach one discipline (e.g., reading, writing, math, science, social studies, or art) bring together multiple disciplines to teach about complex socio-scientific problems or opportunities? Researchers at the National Science Foundation (NSF) call this “ convergence ”, and say that it has three primary characteristics:

• A deep scientific phenomenon (that is, an observable event or happening that can be explained, such as clean groundwater);
• An emerging problem  (that is, something that can be solved through the development of an object, tool, process or system and includes multiple criteria and constraints, such a new water filtration system); or,
• A pressing societal need (that is, a need to help people and society, such as ensuring all community members have access to clean water to stay healthy).
• It has deep integration across multiple disciplines. This is important because complex socio-scientific problems and phenomena cannot be explained or solved by looking at them through one perspective (e.g., environmental, social, economic, or ethical). Instead, experts from different disciplines must work together to blend their knowledge, theories, and expertise to come up with a comprehensive solution.
• Finally, it is transdisciplinary . That means no one discipline can solve the problem on its own.

From Disciplinary to Transdisciplinary

What do we mean by “transdisciplinary?” In its Federal STEM Strategic Plan, a collaboration of government agencies wrote in 2018 that science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education should move through a pathway where disciplines converge and where teaching and learning moves from disciplinary to transdisciplinary . They wrote:

“Problems that are relevant to people’s lives, communities, or society, as a whole, often cross disciplinary boundaries, making them inherently engaging and interesting. The transdisciplinary integration of STEM teaching and learning across STEM fields and with other fields such as the humanities and the arts enriches all fields and draws learners to authentic challenges from local to global in scale.” ( OSTP, 2018, p 20 )

STEAM education expert and author Joanne Vasquez, former Executive Director of the National Science Teaching Association (NSTA), and her co-authors explain it this way:

• Disciplinary – Students learn concepts and skills separately in isolation.
• Multidisciplinary – Students learn concepts and skills separately in each discipline but in reference to a common theme.
• Interdisciplinary – Students learn concepts and skills from two or more disciplines that are tightly linked so as to deepen knowledge and skills.
• Transdisciplinary – By undertaking real-world problems or explaining phenomena, students apply knowledge and skills from two or more disciplines to help shape the learning experience.

A Classroom Example

Let’s try an example, using images selected by one of the co-authors who is a master STEAM teacher and former Einstein Fellow at the U.S. Department of Energy, Kelly J. Day. Imagine you were teaching about plants so that your students can help people experiencing food insecurities in their community. This requires fundamental disciplinary knowledge about science, mathematics, social studies, civic engagement, and entrepreneurship. What would it look like to move along the pathway to convergence , from disciplinary to transdisciplinary teaching and learning?

• Using a disciplinary approach, a science teacher might ask students to examine the properties of soil or have students study how tomato seeds germinate in each soil type. In this case, the teacher is identifying an isolated concept (fact, idea, or practice) that is aligned with only one discipline (e.g., science).
• Using a multidisciplinary approach, a math teacher might ask the students who learned about soil properties and tomato seed germination in science class, to calculate in math class the cost of buying 1 pound of soil, 20 packets of tomato seeds, 10 packets of pepper seeds, and 3 garden tools. The concept now involves multiple disciplines addressed independently on different aspects of the same concept.
• Using an interdisciplinary approach, multiple teachers—for example, one social studies, one science, and one math—might work together to have students plant a variety of seeds in different soil types to grow vegetables on the school grounds. Each teacher would ask students to contribute to the collective problem—studying soil properties and seed germination in their science class; calculating the cost of the materials in their math class; and finally, drawing a map of the local school grounds in their social studies class to help decide where to place the garden based on geographic direction.  In this case, students and teachers across disciplines work together in an integrated way that makes the concept more authentic and real-world (but, like the salad shown here, you can still identify the individual component disciplines or parts).
• Finally, using a transdisciplinary approach, you would walk into any one classroom and not be able to tell which discipline(s) are being taught because they have “converged.” For example, students might be asked to come up with an entrepreneurial project to raise funds for those in need in their local community. They decide to design and build a garden so they can make and sell salsa, while also helping people experiencing food insecurities in their community. In this case, students identify a complex real-world problem and work together to create a shared approach to identifying the phenomenon or solving the problem.

A Pathway to Convergence

Teaching for convergence is not about replacing disciplinary teaching with transdisciplinary teaching; instead, it is about a pathway to convergence . Students, especially in the early grades, still require a strong foundation of disciplinary knowledge and skills. The transition along the pathway to convergence , from disciplinary to transdisciplinary teaching and learning, does not just happen—it is intentional, explicit, and measured.

Transdisciplinary teaching and learning that leads students along a pathway to convergence has many different names that you may be familiar with already—phenomenon-based learning, problem-based learning, place-based learning, project-based learning, civic engagement, inquiry-based learning, entrepreneurship education, and applied learning. No matter what you call it, this type of teaching is important to prepare today’s students for tomorrow’s complex world. And it is becoming more common in schools, despite the barriers that exist in the U.S. (e.g., aligning with standards; finding time in the curriculum; finding common planning time to collaborate with other teachers).

Free Teaching Resources

The Smithsonian and other federal agencies that support STEAM teachers are here to help. We develop resources to support educators as they move  from disciplinary to transdisciplinary teaching and learning along the pathway to convergence. At the Smithsonian, for example, we have a front door to discoveries in science, history, art, and culture. We bring these disciplines together by integrating inquiry-based science education, civic engagement, place-based education, global citizenship education, and education for sustainable development, so that students can engage in local action for global goals , whether it is about food security or environmental justice .

Convergence education and a transdisciplinary approach to teaching and learning helps students develop critical reasoning skills, systemic understanding of complex issues, scientific literacy, perspective taking, and consensus building, all as they plan and carry out local actions for social good. Teachers and students across the country, with the support of the Smithsonian and other federal partners, are tackling the most pressing environmental and social issues of our time, supporting young students as they take action to address complex global issues, and helping them find solutions that address societal needs through convergence education.

Acknowledgement : This article is based on the work of the Federal Coordination in STEM Education (FC-STEM) Interagency Working Group on Convergence, under the direction of Quincy Brown and Nafeesa Owens of the Office of Science and Technology Policy. The IWG is co-led by Louie Lopez and Jorge Valdes, with support from Executive Secretary Emily Kuehn.

Editor's Note: To learn more about the Convergence Education framework, join Carol O’Donnell and Kelly J. Day, along with a panel of federal educators and practitioners at the Smithsonian's National Education Summit on July 27-28, 2022. More information is available here:  https://s.si.edu/EducationSummit2022 

Carol O’Donnell | READ MORE

Dr. Carol O’Donnell is Director of the Smithsonian Science Education Center, dedicated to transforming K-12 Education through Science™ in collaboration with communities across the globe. Carol serves on numerous boards and committees dedicated to science education and is on the part-time faculty of the Physics Department at George Washington University, where she earned her doctorate. Carol began her career as a primary school teacher. Her TedX Talk demonstrates her passion for “doing science” and “object-driven learning.”

Kelly J. Day | READ MORE

Kelly Day is the Albert Einstein Distinguished Educator Fellow at the Department of Energy and is on the Interagency Working Group for Convergence Education. She also helps run the DOE-sponsored National Science Bowl. Prior to her placement at the DOE, Day was a mathematics teacher and in 2015 ,Day received the Fulbright Distinguished Award in Teaching.

Enacting Transdisciplinary Values for a Postdigital World: The Challenge-Based Reflective Learning (CBRL) Framework

• Original Articles
• Open access
• Published: 22 June 2024

Cite this article

You have full access to this open access article

• SeoYoon Sung   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-3261-4686 1 ,
• Doug Thomas 1 &
• Thanassis Rikakis 1  

184 Accesses

1 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

Traditional disciplinary and interdisciplinary educational models often fall short in enabling students to transform problems and solutions for real-world needs. They restrict learners’ ability to deconstruct problems and innovate beyond their subject-based expertise, hindering the development of reflective practice in new and unknown situations across domains. This paper introduces the Challenge-Based Reflective Learning (CBRL) framework that emphasizes context-driven, challenge-based experiential learning process. It presents a novel approach to understanding cross-boundary interactions and learning, overcoming the limitations of traditional, discipline-bounded models involving inter- and trans-disciplinarity. CBRL cultivates reflective practice by nurturing domain-general competencies and domain-specific skills inherent in concrete human experiences. This paper translates reflective practice theories into actionable methods for higher education, demonstrating their application at the Iovine and Young Academy at the University of Southern California—a school that integrates technology, arts and design, and business and entrepreneurship through its reflective, challenge-driven learning approach. The case study outlines a four-year college curriculum that flexibly incorporates student interests and societal challenges across domains. This paper enhances the scholarship of reflective practice and transdisciplinary education and research, discussing the implications for cultivating new kinds of expertise needed in a postdigital era.

Similar content being viewed by others

Embedding Interdisciplinary and Challenge-Led Learning into the Student Experience

Learning in Transdisciplinary Collaborations: A Conceptual Vocabulary

Transdisciplinary Pedagogy in Higher Education: Transdisciplinary Learning, Learning Cycles and Habits of Minds

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

Introduction

Amid rapid sociotechnical transformations and escalating global challenges such as Generative AI, poverty, workforce disruptions, and human and environmental health, there is a pressing need for educational programs that equip students with critical skills and competencies to navigate and influence complex postdigital realities. Societal issues, evolving in unanticipated scales and kinds, have challenged the way students gain and apply knowledge across disciplines, demanding that educational institutions reflect real-life practices that are increasingly non-standard and cross-boundary. Yet, the prevailing disciplinary and interdisciplinary learning models of higher education have been limited in fostering reflective practice across boundaries.

To this end, the purpose of this paper is to develop a new learning framework and explain, in theory and practice, how the learner might move across traditional disciplinary and professional boundaries through reflective practice—i.e., enhancing the intuitive performance of day-to-day actions by examining one’s experiences and actions to inform subsequent actions (Schön 1983 ). Reflective practice has traditionally been applied within disciplinary contexts or specialized professional settings in a single field (e.g., nurses, teachers, toolmakers). Surveying the historical shifts and the limitations of discipline-based educational models—disciplinarity and interdisciplinarity—this paper explores how reflective practice might be reimagined to support emergent, fluid, and contextual problem-solving across domains. Following transdisciplinary theories and ethos, yet evolving towards a more practically actionable framework, it proposes Challenge-Based Reflective Learning (CBRL). Through the development of CBRL, this paper advocates for a new kind of expertise necessary to navigate present and future postdigital complexities.

CBRL shifts the purpose of learning from content-oriented (i.e., content as a final product of learning) to context-driven learning (i.e., the process of learning which embraces at its core that context can fundamentally alter the relevance of a problem). We demonstrate that reflective practice is conducive to advancing transdisciplinarity, as its emphasis on context and practice helps students find paths to gain the necessary knowledge and skills within specific challenge spaces. Based on this vision of education, our proposed framework engages students with contextualized, sociotechnical challenges in ways that intentionally and progressively draw in multiple perspectives and domain areas to enhance their knowing-in-practice.

Originating from the University of Southern California (USC) in the United States, the CBRL framework has been designed and implemented within an innovative school that integrates technology, art and design, and business and entrepreneurship: the Iovine Young Academy (IYA or the Academy). While IYA’s CBRL focuses on the intersection of these three areas, producing emerging challenge spaces such as extended reality (XR), product innovation, design strategy, and transformational AI, CBRL is adaptable to integrated programs focused on other interconnected domains—e.g., participatory wellness involving policy, healthcare, and medicine. Thus, IYA’s case study offers a roadmap for operationalizing transdisciplinary learning across domains.

This article proceeds as follows. The subsequent section lays out the background to understanding the emergence of postdigital complexities leading to different types of learning frameworks as well as the key concepts involving the proposed framework. The second section, ‘ Review of Literature ’, is composed of four subsections, surveying the disciplinary, interdisciplinary, and transdisciplinary models in relation to the reflective practice tradition, as well as the challenge-based reflective approach. The third section conceptualizes the CBRL framework by outlining its four interrelated layers of learning. The fourth section shares the case of at IYA at USC as an illustration of CBRL’s practical implementation by explicating its curriculum. The discussion section then connects CBRL back to the broader reflective practice and transdisciplinary scholarship, highlighting its implication for envisioning what it means to cultivate expertise in a complex postdigital landscape. The paper concludes by discussing remaining questions and suggesting future work on how CBRL might be further developed and adopted.

Background: Postdigital Complexities and Conceptual Definitions

New technologies are rapidly integrated into work processes and workplaces, demanding relevant skills that would better respond to massive global employment shifts, the automation of tasks across all industries, distributed work, and cross-cutting innovation (World Economic Forum 2023 ). These shifts raise questions about how people might leverage their uniquely human abilities to tackle complex, evolving challenges alongside new intelligent machines. A spectrum of positions exist regarding the potential of generative AI, or its augmented counterpart (Peters et al. 2019b ). On the one hand, some raise concerns about how AI-generated technologies may displace workers who are unable to keep pace with emerging innovations (Frey and Osborne 2017 ). On the other hand, others see that as repetitive tasks become automated, more opportunities will emerge for leveraging human ability to engage in more complex and tacit activities, leveling the gap between high and low skilled workers (Brynjolfsson et al. 2023 ).

Between this spectrum, postdigital scholars have revealed more nuanced views of the relationship between technology (AI in particular) and human work, and its linkage with education (and teaching and learning) and work landscape (Jandrić et al. 2023 ; Peters et al. 2019a ; Moradi and Levy 2020 ). These studies point out the broader issue raised in global and national policy reports (OECD 2023 ; McKinsey Global Institute 2021 ; World Economic Forum 2023 ; The Workforce Board 2019 ): that people are expected to gain unusual and complex combinations of advanced skill sets. The World Bank Group ( 2019 ) report states, ‘a marketing professional might well be called upon to write algorithms. A physics graduate may land a job as a quantitative trader in the finance industry’. Since students will enter work in new jobs and functions that currrently do not exist, these reports highlight the importance of nurturing cross-functional skillsets. To do so, they suggest enhacing cross-industry, multi-sector collaboration and partnerships, and incentivizing lifelong learning needed for cross-boundary learning and collaboration (World Economic Forum 2016 ).

The fragile and unconventional linkage between work and education cannot exclusively be addressed through existing learning models. For instance, preparing students for the unforseen future of work does not happen by simply switching degrees or obtaining an additional degree. Disciplinarity has often failed to capture the multidimensional complexity emerging from the postdigital convergence between science, technology, and society, insufficiently supporting students in developing the adaptability and complex thinking needed (Darbellay 2019 ; Ashby and Exter 2019 ).

Efforts to address these issues have led to alternative forms of collaboration between fields, via interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary models (Jandrić and Knox 2022 ). Conceptual distance exists between inter- and trans-disciplinary models (Jandrić and Knox 2022 ; Darbellay 2019 ; Ashby and Exter 2019 ; Collin 2009 ; Gao et al. 2020 ; Klaassen 2018 ), developed through their ‘complementary and antagonistic relationships’ (Darbellay 2019 : 96). Without seeking to establish a taxonomy in this article, we guide readers to further conceptual clarity in the literature (Nicolescu 2010 ; Jandrić and Knox 2022 ; Darbellay 2015 , 2019 ; Klaassen 2018 ).

Interdisciplinarity involves ‘studying one research question within an integrated system mode of various disciplines’ (Jandrić and Knox 2022 : 10). It moves beyond merely juxtaposing disciplinary viewpoints to collaboratively engage the constituting disciplines in the ‘joint production of knowledge’ (Darbellay 2015 : 166). It is still anchored in specific disciplinary traditions, focusing on ‘transferring or borrowing’ methods as well as ‘hybridizing or bridging’ mechanisms between (inter) disciplines (Jandrić and Knox 2022 ; Darbellay 2015 ).

Trandisciplinarity implies ‘a gathering of various research approaches around a common problem, which transforms “original” research methodologies arriving from each discipline’ (Jandrić and Knox 2022 : 10). Nicolescu ( 2010 ) suggests that it is achievable at a higher conceptual plane of commensurability where new frameworks are created. Some emphasize dialogue among social, political, and economic actors and ordinary citizens in the research process (see Zurich's approach in McGregor 2015 ).

Yet, these models of integrated learning —models that aim to combine subject areas of different disciplines into an integrated whole (Gao et al. 2020 )—have been limited in equipping learners to address complex and unanticipated issues, because they have been primarily applied as an extension of disciplinary learning. A central challenge is enabling learners to explore the world by ‘transcending’ disciplinary boundaries, while simultaneously navigating the ‘disciplinary organization of academic institutions that for now retains its dominance and its prevalence’ (Darbellay 2019 : 101). To create more diverse ways in which students engage with postdigital complexities, there is a need to develop and test a new learning framework to prepare students with different kinds of expertise—beyond disciplinary expertise.

Against this backdrop, the postdigital community has posed a key question: What is the function and purpose of education in a postdigital age where continuous sociotechnical and employment shifts are expected (Peters et al. 2019b )? As Biesta ( 2020 ) states, education is not oriented toward a single purpose. Developing new models begin with redefining the purpose of education to consider other values neglected in the existing educational landscape: to enhance students' expert performance (i.e., knowing in practice—indicating action, practice, and doing (Orlikowski 2002 ; Polanyi 1967 )) in handling complex, diverse experiences.

From this purpose, learning begins with real-life challenges that are relevant for the learner and unique to their practical interests across complex domains. In this paper, the word domain is used to contrast with disciplinary knowledge to denote abstracted knowledge (e.g., design strategy, communication, computation) or cross-cutting themes with strategic focus (e.g., cybersecurity) (adopted from Goodyear et al. 2023 ). The incorporation of knowledge across diverse domains allows for tackling a very particular challenge relevant in a particular point and place in time. In essence, CBRL facilitate the learner’s continuous movement between ‘noisy’ challenges of the world and relevant domain knowledges involved, leveraging the rich interplay between domain-general competencies and domain-specific skills. The result is the translation of reflective practice into a new kind of expertise focused on the process of addressing the ‘meta-convergence’ (between biology, science, information, technology, and society) (Jandrić and Knox 2022 ; Knox 2019 ).

Review of Literature

Constraints of disciplinary thinking in fostering reflective practice.

John Dewey ( 1933 : 118) saw ‘reflective thinking’ as a means to confront an authentic problem, as it involves ‘active, persistent, and careful consideration of any belief or supposed form of knowledge in the light of the grounds that support it’. Since every experience is at least partially new, one goes through a reflective thinking cycle, transforming the experience into an iterative cycle of action and reflection (Kolb 1984 ). This reflective thinking cycle also depends on a double movement between deduction and induction, moving back and forth between meaning (inclusive and holistic) and facts (observed and specific) (Dewey 1910 ). It uses generalized knowledge across various experiences (e.g., domain-general competencies) to inform the understanding of specific components of new experiences (e.g., domain-specific skills and knowledge). Reflective thinking is more than processing experiences; it is also generative (Rodgers 2002 ).

Within the full complexity of rich life experiences (Dewey 1933 ), individuals move across these experiences and ‘confront the urgent challenges in our unequal, messy, data-driven societies beyond disciplinary boundaries’ (Poltze 2023 ). The human experience requires the ability to engage the suspended contradictions and the uncertainty of plurality and complexity. For example, the development of aesthetics relies deeply on the synergies of conflicting experiences (Vygotsky 1972 ). Many complex socio-economic events are not well fitted to deterministic analyses (Wells 2008 ). Recognizing this complexity inherent in the dynamics of knowledge has been central to the discourse that challenges the notion of disciplinary structures (Nicolescu 2010 ; Klein 2001 , 2004a , b ).

A disciplinary approach to learning offers an explicit and replicable way of understanding the world (Menand 2010 ). Disciplines systematize information, facilitating structured knowledge development, which supports ongoing contributions and gap-filling by others. Disciplinary curricula are organized into fixed learning paths—and these progress from elementary to more complex concepts (Ong 1983 ). Also, they are delivered through a scalable didactic pedagogy and, in many cases, tested through standardized tests (Cope and Kalantzis 2016 ). Yet, Dewey challenges the assumption that disciplines are collections of objective epistemic materials (Stoller 2018 ). Disciplines, instead, are value-laden ecosystems of social practices shaped by histories and thus limited in the approaches.

Disciplinary systems that aim for ‘consistency’ of processes and associated values and ‘certainty’ in solutions and outcomes may impede the ability of the learners to engage conflicting ideas and recognize gaps for innovation (Walsh 2020 ). When considering fields regarded as constituting stable and objective bodies of subject matter, the disciplinary methodology often becomes the goal rather than a means to an end. Symbolic math is regularly conflated with applied quantitative ability, even though depending on the person and the application, other forms of quantitative expertise (e.g., visual or non-symbolic methods) may be more effective (Grandin 2006 ; Van Herwegen et al. 2018 ).

The growing specialization in technical skills continues to evolve quickly. Combined with this, technologies create complex social and organizational structures, posing challenges for disciplinary learning (Johnson 2023 ). ‘Disciplinary codification’, which was essential for the organization and stabilization of subject-based knowledge, has become increasingly difficult. While technology increasingly dictates changes in work routines and systems, educational stakeholders find increasingly difficult to keep pace with growing subdisciplines organized by subjects and tools (Johnson 2023 ). New tools and techniques including Generative AI and Large Language Models also alter processes of learning and research, challenging disciplinary methodologies in dramatic ways.

Even though disciplinary knowledge is one way of facilitating human abilities, it has by now become almost coterminous with the idea of education itself. The notion of expertise is predominantly associated with disciplinary preparation. Disciplinary expertise promotes explicit, codified knowledge, formalizing and systemizing work processes and division of labor. The processes and methods for gaining relevant knowledge have remained rigid in higher education (Rich 2009 ). Consequently, learners are limited in their abilities to expand beyond their established areas of subject-based expertise. It overlooks other forms of knowing critical for tackling challenges that Dewey describes as democratic life and the reflective practices of inquiry crucial in diverse disciplines (Stoller 2018 ).

The ability to utilize one’s reflective capacity involves making learning meaningful across rich and diverse experiences and actions. Yet, theories of reflective practice have primarily been applied within single disciplines or professions, focusing on achieving professional artistry at work (Tan et al. 2023 ). Developing reflective practice suitable for the twenty-first century involves rethinking its application in today’s landscapes of work, technology, and education beyond its theoretical origins. The theory can be updated by investigating how people create novel configurations of heterogenous ideas and relationships, including the blending of the digital world with human experiences (Ball and Savin-Baden 2022 ).

Reflective Practice in Interdisciplinary Education: Persistent Challenges

There have been increasing efforts since the 1960s in exploring different degrees of interaction and integration of diverse disciplines (Klein 2010 ). Researchers have examined various collaborative approaches that create new ways to tackle complex societal challenges. They have also highlighted the role of interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary education in enhancing problem-solving across diverse fields, moving beyond the limits of traditional academic boundaries. Empirical studies have examined the design and assessment of such cross-disciplinary models (Dierdorp et al. 2014 ; Lou et al. 2011 , 2017 ; Riskowski et al. 2009 ).

Interdisciplinarity emphasizes the synthesis of knowledge, methods, and processes from multiple disciplines to address problems that are too complex to deal with by a single discipline or profession (Knight et al. 2013 ). Interdisciplinary programs begin with well-established knowledge from specific disciplines and use it as a foundation to develop new, integrated fields. Integration occurs by identifying new combinatorial disciplines, such as bioengineering, chemical engineering, and even quantum cosmology (Nicolescu 2010 ; Ramachandran 2010 ). Discovering new disciplines through this process, the number of interdisciplinary majors grew by 250% between 1975 and 2000 (Knight et al. 2013 ).

Yet, interdisciplinarity often operates as multidisciplinary assemblages of discipline-based knowledge (Klein 2010 ). From a student’s standpoint, they are typically expected to first choose a disciplinary home while simultaneously building and gathering knowledge in a neighboring discipline. The integration of subject matters is left primarily up to the learner who often does not know how different disciplinary processes and knowledge might overlap (Howlett et al. 2016 ). Relying solely on the content-driven integration of knowledge can hinder students in effectively applying their expertise to novel contexts outside of known boundaries (National Academy of Engineering and National Research Council 2014 ). Successful interdisciplinarity is thus often limited to local interdisciplinarity—i.e., connectivity of neighboring disciplines (e.g., behavioral medicine, nanotechnology, bioinformatics) (Ashby and Exter 2019 ).

Many interdisciplinary programs are built on disciplinary roots that operate via a core question: How does a discipline fit to solve a problem? Common to the disciplinary approach, interdisciplinarity is driven by a content-oriented approach that dominates higher education. Subject-based content is both a product and a primary outcome of learning. Examples include mastering skill sets to design a chair or training to become a disciplinary specialist. Solely focusing on content also fixes methodologies, rendering learning process to be about ‘disciplining’ learners. The expectation is that the learner will produce an outcome imposed by a rigid curriculum or the methodologies of the involved disciplines, external to their personal learning experience. Jandrić and Knox ( 2022 ) point out this limitation, where specific en vogue methodologies (e.g., data science) dominate the learning process and collaboration.

Human learning and development are shaped by one’s daily experiences, actions, consciousness, relationships, feelings, and intentions (Johnson 2023 ). People learn by making sense of and transforming their experiences into knowledge—hence, learning by doing (Kolb 1984 ). As reflective practice engages with these experiences involving life situations, practice depends on one’s understanding of the context in which the practice occurs. Thus, reflective practice emphasizes learning as a matter of understanding, embodying, and navigating context, not as a progressive and linear accumulation of disciplinary knowledge. Reflective thinking processes involve noticing problems of interest, engaging in meaningful inquiry that incorporates subjective judgement and intuition, and experimenting with solutions across new application areas.

For cross-domain interactions to better consider the increasingly unstable and non-standard linkage between education and work, alternative framework might explore a path that moves beyond merely focusing on a set of subject-based knowledge that a graduate is expected to master to graduate (Thompson and Cook 2019 ). The complexity of a problem space should inform diverse paths towards cross-domain inquiry. This is done by enhancing students’ contextualized knowing while enabling them to handle diverse experiences that draw on various domains.

Transdisciplinarity as a Path Towards Cultivating Reflective Practice

The levels of cross-domain interactions are contingent upon factors such as problem selection, interaction levels, and alignment or dissociation among disciplines (Klaassen 2018 ). Depending on such factors, a program may explore a new approach that moves beyond disciplinary framing (Nicolescu 2002 ; Klein 2004a , b ). Known as transdisciplinarity, these models can ‘metaphorically encompass the several parts of the material field that are handled separately by the individual specialized disciplines’ with the goal of understanding the present world (Nicolescu 2002 in Gao et al. 2020 ; Nicolescu 2010 ). Transdisciplinarity emphasizes the problem space, aiming to foster deep, authentic learning experiences of learners in understanding the real-world problems (McGregor 2017 ).

During the 1980s, educators diverged into two general camps, one emphasizing discipline or field-based learning that favors standardized assessments and the other promoting interdisciplinary learning (Rich 2009 ). The transdisciplinary movement offered a partial resolution to address this schism because it identified a path to examine cross-boundary interactions by highlighting higher-order thinking and skills (e.g., creativity, computational thinking, and problem-solving competencies). Transdisciplinarity also offered a ‘better route to methodological plurality than interdisciplinarity’ that tends toward a single set of assumptions and methods (Jandrić and Knox 2022 : 11).

Differences exist in the two approaches within transdisciplinarity scholarship: the Zurich approach and the Nicolescuian approach. In dealing with complex real-world challenges, the Zurich approach emphasizes partnerships between diverse stakeholders and end users, including academics and non-academics (Klein 2001 , 2003 ). Authentic knowledge interaction occurs when people with different ideas, frames of mind, and habits commit to the collective creation and expansion of new knowledge (Rich 2009 ). Yet, this approach has been critiqued for limiting transdisciplinarity within existing social constraints (Nicolescu 2010 ), which may revert interactions to discipline-based models. Solutions stem from science, aiming to improve scientific approaches to address societal complexity (McGregor 2015 ). The Zurich model focuses on joint problem solving where the goal is on the production of knowledge as opposed to the process of discovery, interpretation, and understanding (Nicolescu 2010 ).

Nicolescu’s ( 2010 ) approach leans towards process, placing the person at the center of the interactions within the environment. It offers a path to transcending the content-driven education and advancing towards learning as a discernment process, wherein individuals engage in their experiential practice to cultivate their unique disposition—developing their way of thinking, problem-solving, and relating to the world. Transdisciplinarity promotes an understanding of evolving realities by offering a more realistic and participatory learning process. From this standpoint, transdisciplinarity is beyond integrative (Evans 2019 ), as it considers both strengths and weakness of each field to identify a higher conceptual plane where different theories and methodologies can at least partially commensurate (Nicolescu 2008 ; Jandrić and Knox 2022 ).

Transdisciplinarity, however, remains conceptual without substantial practical development. Especially, it lacks clear connections to bridge the gap between fostering transdisciplinary ways of thinking and implementing practical mechanisms for integrating diverse forms of knowledge that are organized within disciplinary structures. Darbellay ( 2019 ) contends that failing to recognize the existing disciplinary organization can lead to an unproductive, ‘declare war’ scenario where academic tribes refuse any constructive dialogue that questions the exclusivity of disciplinary principles. Concerted efforts are needed to advance transdisciplinary models to a new level of practice, tested against real-world contexts.

Following the transdisciplinary ethos and recognizing its limitations, we present a novel perspective on how learners can develop the reflective practice essential for transdisciplinary thinking. Such a framework responds to Green’s ( 2022 ) challenge to surpass what Nicolescu ( 2010 ) called as ‘the war of definitions’ that exists within the transdisciplinarity scholarship. Our work, informed by our experiences in implementing CBRL within our institution, aims to advance towards the development of ‘an actualized praxis of transdisciplinarity’ (Green 2022 : 689).

Fostering Reflective Practice Across Diverse Domains

Jantsch ( 1972 ) postulated that the integration of disparate knowledge domains and reconciling their contradictory elements require identifying a high-dimensional problem space. When one makes something (e.g., a wooden tool, a house, or a computer), the person learns about how to make that specific artifact. Yet, they also develop generalized design strategy abilities which can apply to the making other kinds of artifacts (Simon 1969 ; Auernhammer and Roth 2021 ). Similarly, every time the learner engages in a specific embodied task (e.g., playing sports, performing music, or conducting a scientific experiment), the learner builds insights—not only about the performance of the specific action, but also domain-general understanding of performing similar actions (Dourish 2004 ).

Both Dewey and Polanyi ( 1967 ) explain that embodied learning through personalized experiences and the development of domain-specific knowledge occur in parallel. Tsoukas ( 2003 : 5), echoing Polanyi, explains that what makes ‘a scientist to use the formulae of celestial mechanics to predict the next eclipse of the moon, and a physician to read an X-ray picture of a chest’ is ‘ skillful action ’ achieved through the body. The learner applies skills which are not fully and consciously captured in terms of the particulars, but which can be skillfully performed (e.g., riding a bike, swimming). Thus, the reflective learner develops a domain-general understanding, informed by a series of related or even heterogeneous experiences involving performance and skills.

When the learner reflectively engages in diverse kinds of performances, intentionally in relation to each other, the skillful learner learns to interconnect diverse knowledge, linking the specific skills with broader human experiences. This serves as the backbone in what we define as Challenge-Based Reflective Learning (CBRL). The CBRL framework is built on the notion of tacit knowledge we gain from our daily life, while explicitly recognizing the rich interconnection between embodied reflective learning experience (the personal ), the abstract knowledge gained through such engagements (the general ), and the domain-specific knowledge that the learner gains from specific activities ( specific ).

The human ability to develop domain-specific knowledge in tandem with generalized abstractions has been documented through research in neurophysiology of learning (Desai et al. 2018 ). This is linked to our brain’s ability to learn in different ways at once and to apply and transfer knowledge flexibly (Badre et al. 2010 ; Eraut 2004 ). Learning scientists have proposed a layered learning approach. The top layer can relate to the embodiment of knowledge in real-world actions. This connects with the next layer, broad and general abstractions, which connects with detailed knowledge specific to a subject area, activity, or action (Carroll 1993 ; Tenenbaum et al. 2011 ). A key aspect of the CBRL framework is prioritizing the development of learners’ overall reflective abilities across diverse domains by focusing on the interplay of these learning layers. The learner’s movements across these layers foster the development of the learner’s unique disposition conducive to lifelong reflective learning.

For transdisciplinary approaches manifest tangible outcomes conducive to authentic cross-domain interactions beyond subject-based knowledge, programs can utilize novel practices aimed at cultivating learners’ reflection- in -action: ‘thinking about what we are doing when we are doing it with a view to making any changes needed during the event’ (Schön in Corrall 2017 : 27). This concept differs from reflection- on -action (Schön 1983 , 1987 ), retrospective reflection that deals with thinking on or about what one has done while evaluating the effectiveness of one's action (Corrall 2017 ).

Reflection has traditionally been understood in the context of a single, one-off experience detached from action rather than an overarching process of inquiry (Lundgren et al. 2017 ). For instance, many inter- or trans-disciplinary programs add separate reflective journal exercises into existing course activities as a way to enhance reflexivity (Bell et al. 2011 ; Corrall 2011 ). These approaches do not fully address the dichotomy between action and reflection (Freire 2000 ). They fail to capture how learners leverage their ability to ‘self-distanciate’ themselves from customary ways of acting to gain critical insight into their improved practice (Tsoukas 2009 ).

This limitation also echoes the restricted application of the theories of reflective practice within existing discipline-specific educational ecosystems. Fostering reflection-in-action enables learners and practitioners to reflectively monitor their assumptions, purposes, and the knowledges and interests entangled within existing boundaries. Enabling reflection-in-action, intentionally across domains, can lay a practical foundation for actualizing transdisciplinarity, allowing learners to iteratively experiment with different perspectives, action, skillsets, and solutions during skilled activities.

Challenge-Based Reflective Learning (CBRL): The Conceptual Framework

CBRL elucidates how reflection-in-action can be developed while understanding the mechanisms for integrating domain-relevant knowledge, skills, and competencies beyond learners’ familiar expertise. Informed by the work of Rikakis et al. ( 2020 ), the CBRL framework constitutes four interrelated multilayers of learning: Dispositions (i.e., overall life skills), Domain-general competencies, Intersectional expertise (i.e., cross-cutting problem spaces) and Domain-specific skills and knowledge (see Fig.  1 ).

The Challenge-Based Reflective Learning (CBRL) Framework, CC BY 4.0 

Figure  1 displays an interconnected relationship between the four learning components involving the development of a disposition of productive inquiry (at the top of the learning layer image), domain-general competencies (at the second highest level), intersectional expertise (at the mid-level), and learner’s development of domain-specific skills and knowledge (at the lowest level). Arrows cycle between the layers indicating a level of fluidity between each layer. Next to the image are four boxes of text that further describe each learning layer.

Key Components of CBRL: The Four Learning Layer

Dispositions.

CBRL underscores the central educational goal of fostering what Brown and Thomas ( 2008 ) call a disposition —‛a stance toward the world that inclines the person toward effective practice’. Dispositions are not simply attitudes, values, and worldviews. Dispositions, situated within the overarching dimension of the framework, are about propensity, or ‘what people are likely to do in particular situations’ (Brown and Thomas 2008 : Para 2). Cultivating students’ unique dispositions of productive inquiry means that the learner builds their unique tendencies that support their meaningful inquiry . In CBRL, students achieve this by engaging with real-world questions that hold personal significance, reflecting what Biesta calls ( 2020 ) subjectification —taking the freedom to enhance or restrict capacities as individuals.

At the same time, the cultivation of disposition never occurs separately from the learner’s social experiences, or what Biesta calls socialization . CBRL emphasizes that students tackle challenges in collaboration with diverse stakeholders and other students who have different dispositions and strengths. This expansive socialization of complex problems cultivates dispositions and enables students to gain the needed knowledge and skills, thus achieving Biesta’s ( 2020 ) qualification of education—the provision of knowledge and skills.

The process of taking informed actions to address complex challenges situated across various domain areas is not predetermined. Learning that is angled toward reflective practice combines insights from both domain-general and domain-specific dimensions, with the goal of integration for purposeful action. This is best nurtured by providing students opportunities to collectively practice integrations within a learning environment designed for exploring challenge spaces that directly interest them.

Domain-General Competencies

CBRL emphasizes domain-general competencies that act as a bridge between reflective experiences and diverse knowledge areas. These competencies, like design strategy and abstract computation [i.e., extracting the quantitative relations of the key parameters of an experience (Simon 1969 ; LaViers and Maguire  2023 )], facilitate knowledge transfer across experiences. This transfer is crucial for associating disparate elements of complex challenges and is developed in tandem with domain-specific skills (Carroll 1993 ; Desai et al. 2018 ; Rikakis et al. 2020 ).

Yet, knowledge transfer does not stem from codified disciplinary knowledge. Because knowing is inseparable from its constituting practice (Orlikowski 2002 ), the competence of skillful practice arises through ongoing involvement in specific tasks and social practices (Lave 1988 ; Suchman 1987 ). Biesta ( 2020 ) similarly observes that socialization provides learners access to practices and traditions that help them develop their identities. For learners to gain competencies across varied areas, they must actively participate in these social practices, aiming to grasp and bridge the mindset, norms, language, and habits of competent practitioners (e.g., software engineers, UX designers)—all involved in understanding the context of a challenge.

Such processes necessarily involve accepting plurality and disagreements in different domains (Nicolescu 2008 ), fostering socialization around the challenge being addressed. Curricula and pedagogy that suppoort cross-domain competencies enable learners to apply 'useful practices' (Orlikowski 2002 ) within a challenge space, facilitating temporary unification of contradictory ideas (Nicolescu in McGregor 2015 ). This approach aligns with CBRL’s objective to enhance expert performance across complex situations by intentionally exposing them to diverse perspectives, contexts, and languages involved in a broader challenge space. Beginning with the individual and social experience, as the impetus for reflective learning, the learner develops a new form of expertise that differs from traditional notions of disciplinary thinking.

Intersectional Applications Expertise

Postdigital challenges emerging from industry and societal needs occur at the intersection of technology, human experience, as well as specific applications, products, and tools that are tailored to domain areas and related fields (e.g., biotechnology, computational chemistry, AI and statistics in the arts) (Johnson 2023 ). Postdigital innovations across these intersections also require the understanding of evolving business models. Consequently, intersectional application areas are more fluid, emergent, and shaped by the changing societal, sociotechnical, and workforce trends and discourse (hence, real-world, challenge based). As learners develop and apply their domain-general competencies through real-world challenges, they can gain expertise at the intersection, gaining the reflective practice needed to address complex and multifaceted complexities.

Intersectional application areas are developed concurrently with domain-general and domain-specific knowledge and competencies. When the student learns to deconstruct a challenge across meaningfully chosen inquiry areas (e.g., design, computing, and business), the student can connect knowledge from one application area (e.g., e-commerce) with other domain areas (e.g., product innovation and extended reality). Mastery occurs when making integrative and applied responses to real-world challenges through a series of collaborative practice.

CBRL can be enhanced through a challenge-based learning cycle that begins with (1) discerning dimensions and perspectives of a challenge, (2) prompting relevant approaches and the knowledge needed, (3) prototyping to test ideas in action, and (4) iterating or pivoting based on experiences. This pedagogical process also involves the notion of tinkering (Bardone et al. 2024 ), where learners proactively respond to adaptive problems. By accounting for the inherent unpredictability of unique situations, they enhance their learning by leveraging the positive significance of chance events in-action .

Through iterative engagements in these challenge areas, students gain competencies to address them in similar intersections [e.g., business (from e-commerce), design (from product innovation), and technology (from extended reality)]. The learner’s mobility across these broader areas of domain enables the learner to cultivate what we call expertise at the intersection . CBRL posits that this intersectional expertise enables learners to move beyond conventional disciplinary expertise, allowing them to apply a broader set of domain knowledge and competencies across various and unknown challenge spaces.

Domain-Specific Skills and Knowledge

Domain-specific knowledge functions neither as the main goal of CBRL nor as a fixed pathway through which learners develop their competencies. With CBRL’s challenge-driven approach, the learner deconstructs and redefines challenges, ascertains needed information and resources, and pursues pertinent skills needed for the specific challenge being explored. CBRL emphasizes collaborative culture of learning where one can access necessary knowledge and resources through collaborative or self-directed efforts (Thomas and Brown 2011 ). The CBRL framework focuses on redefining challenges for innovative perspectives and solutions.

This differs from the goals of combining diverse knowledge for interdisciplinary outcomes. Unlike conventional approaches—where learners start by acquiring discrete skill sets and knowledge within a discipline, gradually expanding to interdisciplinary knowledge—CBRL begins with learners’ reflective engagement in real-world problems and their simultaneous engagement in skillful practices and social participation across multiple domain-general areas. During the practice of identifying, socializing, and addressing real-world challenges, students learn to identify the domain-specific knowledge needed and find ways to access or gain that knowledge. Consequently, CBRL reorders the conventional sequence of acquiring domain-specific knowledge and skills.

In sum, the Challenge-Based Reflective Learning framework aims to nurture reflective learners to move across the four learning layers to synergistically pursue real-life challenges beyond disciplinary boundaries. The next section illustrates how CBRL can be executed by sharing a case study where this framework has been developed.

A Case at the University of Southern California, Iovine and Young Academy

Case context.

In 2013, the co-developers of Beats, Jimmy Iovine and Andre ‘Dr. Dre’ Young, announced a 70-million-dollar gift to the University of Southern California (USC) for the creation of an innovative 4-year academic program, the Iovine and Young Academy (IYA). In 2014, IYA admitted 25 first-year undergraduate students as a part of its first cohort. In 2023, 53 students started the program, and by 2027, the first-year cohort is expected to reach 70 students, for a program total of 280 undergraduates by 2030. The school expanded in 2017 to include graduate students and in 2020 to include minors, totaling 200 enrolled graduate students and 250 minors. Upon graduating, students at IYA pursue a diverse range of positions in the workforce, particularly in technology and creative industries. Many have launched startups and student-driven ventures, garnering more than $120 million venture and development funding (IYA n.d.a , n.d.e ).

Applying the CBRL Framework at IYA

Applying the CBRL framework, IYA’s overarching educational goal is to cultivate the learners’ unique dispositions to engage in diverse and productive inquiries across diverse challenge areas. IYA focuses on applications at the intersection of human-centric design (arts and design), technology development (computing and technology), and business transformation (entrepreneurship and business). Students are encouraged to incorporate their diverse interests in addressing societal challenges, through partnerships with relevant stakeholders ranging from small startups to large corporations, local and community-based organizations, academic and industry mentors, researchers, and peers. Thus, IYA admits students with diverse and complementary interests, especially those with creative traits that differ from students traditionally sought by other disciplinary programs (e.g., engineering or business majors). This aim uniquely shapes the IYA application process and recruiting practices (IYA n.d.b ).

As illustrated in Fig.  2 , the IYA curriculum is mapped in accordance with the four interrelated layers of CBRL indicated in Fig.  1 : Dispositions, domain-general competencies, intersectional expertise, and domain-specific skills and knowledge. These four types of courses align with different phases of IYA’s challenge-based pedagogical model, designed to facilitate a cyclical process for innovation (See IYA n.d.c ). Overall, the four arrows moving horizontally across a four-column grid represent the journey of an undergraduate IYA student navigating the CBRL curriculum.

The CBRL Curriculum at the Iovine and Young Academy, CC BY 4.0 

Dispositional Core Courses

The dispositional core courses allow for students to engage in the challenge-based learning experiences and learn to understand, address, or redefine various societal issues. Most challenge areas explore innovations at the intersection of Technology, Design, and Business, but many also expand beyond these areas. The dispositional courses at IYA are:

Innovators Forum (1st year): Students gain an innovator’s mindset by ‘pitching’ ideas across diverse challenges provided by real stakeholders.

Design Strategy (2nd year): Students learn to think critically across intersecting areas—from business problems, everyday human needs, and resource constraints—through design strategy methodologies (IYA n.d.d ).

Industry Practicum (3rd year): Students practice innovation from the perspective of engineers, designers, and entrepreneurs while solving field-specific problems.

Garage Experience (GX) (Final year, yearlong): Students develop innovative projects that lead to viable enterprises, operational prototypes, or a practical initiative for advanced research. Expert faculty and field specialists guide this capstone involving labs, demos, workshops, and critiques (IYA n.d.e ).

Innovation Quest (Open to all students, yearlong): Students learn to grow entrepreneurial mindset to develop, accelerate, and scale their ventures. (IYA n.d.f ).

Domain-General Core Courses

The domain-general core courses connect essential skills, language, norms, and perspectives in technology, arts and design, and business to the following domain general competencies: design strategy, interactive computation, innovation. These competencies are critical to intersectional applications across design, technology, and business. The domain-general courses at IYA are:

Dev I and Dev II: While learning the backend and frontend of interactive computing applications, students also learn to rapid prototype and iterate through user testing. These courses aim to develop competencies in computation and design strategy.

Rapid Visualization: While learning various design techniques and tools, students learn to think visually and translate their ideas into concrete visual forms. The course focuses on the abstract ability of visual thinking for developing design strategy.

Disruptive Innovation: While learning finance, accounting, and management fundamentals, students gain the entrepreneurial mindset needed to develop student-driven ventures. The course focuses on strategy and innovation management.

These courses help establish a shared language for all IYA students and expectations for cross-domain collaboration. They serve as an intermediary, helping to translate intersectional applications expertise and domain-specific knowledge into overarching reflective and life skills.

Intersectional Application Areas Courses

The intersectional application areas courses help students create functional prototypes in relevant industries that require a combined application of technology, design, and business skills. For example, the Transformative AI course teaches students how to design for inclusive sociotechnical transformations and meet the needs of specific groups and communities. The course takes a challenge that society faces and build solutions using AI, rather than starting with building tools and looking for a way to apply it. Students choose their courses from seven intersectional areas, such as Augmented Intelligence, Extended Reality, Health Innovation, and Product Innovation. These areas within CBRL may shift over time, depending on the focused domain-general competencies and relevant industry and societal demands.

Domain-Specific Areas Courses

Lastly, the domain-specific areas courses represent free electives to pursue domain-specific skills relevant to various challenges that students pursue throughout different courses, activities, and the program at IYA. Students can take courses across diverse departments on campus, such as Medicine, Law, Engineering, and Cinematic Arts. They also collaborate with others to engage in special projects at these schools or IYA. Since CBRL reorders the conventional sequence of acquiring domain-specific knowledge, students work with faculty to determine the appropriate domains and levels, access relevant courses, and find needed experts for collaboration.

Observed Outcomes of CBRL at IYA

Based on data from the past six years, the CBRL framework implemented at IYA has resulted in significant promise in integrating reflective and transdisciplinary learning, with applied learning and career outcomes desirable in today’s workforce needs. Since 2018,

86% of the Academy graduates are employed within three months after graduation, joining companies in various sectors, especially in tech and creative industries (e.g., Apple, Blizzard, EY, Harlem Capital, Google, Volvo, Meta) ( n.d.e ).

Many Academy graduates are hired in strategic positions where they engage in sociotechnical problem solving and designing (e.g., digital strategy senior consultant, augmented reality (AR) engineer, XR designer).

The five-year graduation rates are 95%, with approximately 8% of graduates launching startups with external funding secured ( n.d.e ).

The increasing societal transformations have advocated for nurturing reflective human capabilities involving creative and divergent thinking (Evans 2019 ). Such a discernable movement has been demonstrated in this paper by outlining the historical shift from traditional discipline-based educational models towards emergent, fluid, and contextual problem-solving (Klein 2015 ). Yet, existing mono-, inter-, and trans-disciplinary models have fallen short in cultivating reflective practice needed to navigate what Jandrić and Knox ( 2022 ) call ‘techno-scientific convergences’. Following the transdisciplinary ethos while addressing its limitations associated with the lack of actualized praxis in transdisciplinarity (Green 2022 ), the proposed framework demonstrates how learners can leverage their reflective abilities across domains to generate new meaning out of complexity, addressing unknown and evolving scenarios of the future.

Reflective practice theories show how new meaning emerges at the intersection of personal and embodied experiences, and environmental influences that shape these experiences. Since these theories were developed within the confines of traditional disciplinary education and specialized professional contexts, they have not fully addressed how to foster reflective thinking in postdigital settings. Reflective practice, when understood in relation to domain-general and domain-specific competencies and knowledge grounded in everyday action, offers a new path to seeing and addressing postdigital complexities beyond a discipline-bound methodology. It offers a new method for understanding ‘messiness and unpredictability’ in and for postdigital times (Jopling 2023 : 155).

CBRL establishes the practical base for transdiscplinarity through reflective engagement in action. By deconstructing and redefining problems across various domains, students delve into complex problems and inquires, creating new connections between areas of thought, technology, people, and broader sociotechnical systems (Fawns et al. 2023 ). CBRL at IYA enriches the interplay between personal experience, sociocultural structures of knowledge, and intersectional expertise centered around emerging technologies.

CBRL contributes to the postdigital transdisciplinary scholarship by reimagining how one may engage domain knowledge across boundaries in a dynamic, challenge-based inquiry process. Transdisciplinarity recognizes what Gibbons et al. ( 1994 ) call Mode 2 knowledge (as opposed to Mode 1, disciplinarity): contextualized and heterogeneous knowledge. Yet, transdisciplinarity necessarily needs to consider ‘the epistemological framing of disciplines themselves, framing that points to the strengths and weaknesses each field can bring to addressing a given issue’ (Evans 2019 : 70). This is achieved by contextualizing the challenge space and utilizing domain-general competencies that can act as what Nicolescu ( 2010 ) described as the ‘the included middle’: a bridge between reflective dispositions (process) and diverse forms of domain-specific knowledges (specific skillsets), enabling learners to apply prior experiences to new situations.

By seeing problems at the intersection of multiple domains (in IYA’s case, technology, art and design, and business), students can navigate and utilize multiple realities and contradictory ideas inherent in the real world by temporarily uniting them (Nicolescu 2005 in McGregor 2015 ) within a challenge. CBRL’s reflective learning model prompts learners to critically assess assumptions and redefine problem areas, promoting a shift from static content-driven models towards a plurality of new thought styles (Darbellay 2015 ).

CBRL explores various transdisciplinary research and pedagogical methods, as called for by Peters et al. ( 2019a ). It does not aim to teach people how to solve certain types of problems, because of its core educational focus on dispositions. Thus, it eschews a product-based (knowledge as commodity) model of education, embracing vulnerability and uncertainty needed in postdigital education—being open to uncertainty in addressing a problem and ‘developing a reflective approach to teaching’ (Jopling 2023 ).

CBRL’s methodology is indicative of a shift towards a postdigital economy, where teaching, learning, and professional development are intertwined within the fabric of academia, industry, and society at large. While seeking to help students build their dispositional capacities to develop their personalized and adaptive learning trajectories spanning sectors and domains, it also seeks to reconfigure and transform the social systems related to the organization of academic institutions and its knowledges. This involves maintaining a position at the intersection , embracing the overlap between interdependence of different combinations and perspectives. It moves towards a resilient, lifelong learning ethos of transdisciplinarity emphasizing collaboration and iteration across boundaries.

Recognizing that expertise can be developed across diverse domains, CBRL helps reevaluate what it means to gain expertise beyond the confines of disciplinary and professional norms. Expertise has predominantly been associated with being a specialist in a particular field, generating distinct professions (e.g., physicians, lawyers, and engineers) (Hardoš 2018 ; Heimstädt et al. 2023 ). However, this notion does not recognize other kinds of expertise that may complement or expand beyond disciplinary or interdisciplinary framings. Discipline-bounded education does not produce all forms of expertise; therefore, reflective and transdisciplinary competencies need to be enacted to prepare students for an unforeseeable future. CBRL thus offers alternative avenues to disciplinary and interdisciplinary models, cultivating expertise that can support other forms of innovation at the intersection, helping individuals and groups better respond to the ever-changing and cross-cutting uncertainties of postdigital times.

An expert, in this sense, is a reflective practitioner who draws on a repertoire of context-specific problem cases across diverse areas of knowledge (Rolfe 1997 ) while building what Tauritz call ‘uncertainty competences’ (Jopling 2023 : 164). The expert moves intuitively across diverse and unknown situations, embracing vulnerability and applying a body of personal, tacit knowledge along with a repertoire of past experiences to inform future practice. The reflective practitioner translates knowledge into practice in whatever situation they find themselves across different areas (Rolfe 1997 ), moving beyond the boundaries of knowledge in ways that are unanticipated.

This paper has explored the limitations of viewing disciplinary, interdisciplinary, and transdisciplinary models as complete educational paradigms for the twenty-first century postdigital world. Grounded in the reflective practice tradition, we introduced Challenge-Based Reflective Learning (CBRL) with the aim of reimagining the purpose of education: to enhance reflective practice necessary for learning across intersected and uncertain domain areas. We have demonstrated that such an aim can be practically operationalized when a learning framework acknowledges the interrelationships between one’s expert performance and the cultivation of domain-specific and domain-general skills and competencies, along with the development of expertise at the intersection realized within real-life challenges. We contend that education in postdigital times should focus more on guiding students to gain and apply knowledge as resources for future and unknown contexts, reshaping it to meet new demands and situations (Brown and Thomas 2008 ). This approach also values personal judgement, embodied action, and the embracing of uncertainty and plurality, which are essential for navigating the complexities of postdigital times (Jandrić et al. 2023 ).

Limitations and Future Work

Caveats concerning the CBRL framework warrant attention. First, to enact a transformative framework like CBRL, more agencies need to be given to students, teachers, and researchers to envision new educational, technological, and vocational futures (Peters et al. 2019a ). Pedagogical innovation and philosophy are closely tied with institutional design, leading to issues of agency, power, and control. While these issues were not discussed in this paper, we recognize that promoting pedagogical innovation and advocating for broader educational reform require a critical examination of underlying organizational structures, practices, and norms. Reflecting on our decade of experience in applying the CBRL framework at our institution, a helpful study could highlight opportunities and challenges of navigating the complexities of institutional change. Bossio et al. ( 2014 )’s reflective self-study discusses complex and politicized interactions involving interdisciplinary education. Such studies can reveal cultural and organizational complexities. Other approaches such as critical and historical discourse analyses examine deeper logics of institutional structures, questioning the goals of educational reforms (Schneider 2019 ; Hayes 2019 ).

Secondly, the framework was developed and evaluated within the context of a well-resourced, research-intensive university in North America. This environment may differ from that of other institutions, leading to varied applications and challenges of the framework in different settings. Our ongoing empirical investigation focuses on assessing CBRL’s adaptability to diverse student populations, particularly in underserved communities within our local urban settings of the greater Los Angeles area. We evaluate its applicability in high school and after-school programs. Working with high school teachers and administrators preparing to launch new schools that adopt CBRL, we are observing significantly different challenges faced by their students—such as food and security.

These inquiries prompt us to consider what support is needed when CBRL disrupts the traditional learning sequence. Future research should explore how transdisciplinary reflective practice engages students of diverse backgrounds and needs. Postdigital critical pedagogy emphasizes the role of education in fostering equity, dialogical approach to learning, and horizontal communication networks (Jandrić et al. 2019 ). This could prompt further inquiries on how the CBRL framework might be applied, modified, and expanded.

Finally, while reflective practice theories focus on professional development, and thus, benefits work performance, the CBRL framework should not be seen solely as a means to enhance employability and career prospects. Schneider ( 2019 ) warns against the trend of preparing students solely for future marketability. Nevertheless, given the convergence of work, employment, technology, and education, further discussion is needed on the broader implications of CBRL in postdigital work landscape. There has been rich dialogue among postdigital scholars about the interplay between pedagogy, technology, and work (See Part II and III in Peters et al. 2019a ).

In conclusion, a new learning framework that promotes innovative cross-domain interaction enhances our understanding of what it means to cultivate reflective practice and expertise in a dynamic postdigital world.

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 .

Article   Google Scholar  

Auernhammer, J., & Roth, B. (2021). The origin and evolution of Stanford University’s design thinking: From product design to design thinking in innovation management. Journal of Product Innovation Management , 38 (6), 623–644. https://doi.org/10.1111/jpim.12594 .

Badre, D., Andrew, S. K., & Mark, D. (2010). Frontal cortex and the discovery of abstract action rules. Neuron, 66 (2), 315–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2010.03.025 .

Ball, J., & Savin-Baden, M. (2022). Postdigital learning for a changing higher education. Postdigital Science and Education , 4 (3), 753–771. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42438-022-00307-2 .

Bardone, E., Mõttus, P., & Eradze, M. (2024). Tinkering as a complement to design in the context of technology integration in teaching and learning. Postdigital Science and Education , 6 (1), 114–134. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42438-023-00416-6 .

Bell, A., Kelton, J., McDonagh, N., Mladenovic, R., & Morrison, K. (2011). A critical evaluation of the usefulness of a coding scheme to categorise levels of reflective thinking. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education , 36 (7), 797–815. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2010.488795 .

Biesta, G. (2020). Risking ourselves in education: Qualification, socialization, and subjectification revisited. Educational Theory , 70 (1), 89–104. https://doi.org/10.1111/edth.12411 .

Bossio, D., Loch, B., Schier, M., & Mazzolini, A. (2014). A roadmap for forming successful interdisciplinary education research collaborations: A reflective approach. Higher Education Research and Development , 33 (2), 198–211. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2013.832167 .

Brown, J. S., & Thomas, D. (2008). The power of dispositions. Ubiquity , 2008 (November). https://doi.org/10.1145/1472987.1472988 .

Brynjolfsson, E., Li, D., & Raymond, L. R. (2023). Generative AI at Work . Working Paper 31161. Cambridge; MA: National Bureau of Economic Research. https://doi.org/10.3386/w31161 .

Carroll, J. B. (1993). Human cognitive abilities: a survey of factor-analytic studies. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511571312 .

Book   Google Scholar  

Collin, A. (2009). Multidisciplinary, interdisciplinary, and transdisciplinary collaboration: Implications for vocational psychology. International Journal for Educational and Vocational Guidance , 9 (2), 101–110. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10775-009-9155-2 .

Cope, B., & Kalantzis, M. (Eds.). (2016).  A pedagogy of multiliteracies: Learning by design. London: Palgrave Macmillan UK. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137539724 .

Corrall, S. (2011). Continuing professional development and workplace learning. In P. Dale, J. Beard, & M. Holland (Eds.), University libraries and digital learning environments (pp. 239–258). Farnham: Ashgate. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315549002 .

Corrall, S. (2017). Crossing the threshold: Reflective practice in information literacy development. Journal of Information Literacy , 11 (1). https://doi.org/10.11645/11.1.2241.

Darbellay, F. (2015). Rethinking inter- and transdisciplinarity: Undisciplined knowledge and the emergence of a new thought style. Futures , 65 , 163–174. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2014.10.009 .

Darbellay, F. (2019). From interdisciplinarity to postdisciplinarity: extending klein’s thinking into the future of the University. Issues in Interdisciplinary Studies, 37 (2), 90–109.

Google Scholar  

Desai, R. H., Reilly, M., & van Dam, W. (2018). The multifaceted abstract brain. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 373 (1752).  https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2017.0122.

Dewey, J. (1910). Systematic Inference: Induction and Deduction. In J. Dewey,  How we think  (pp. 79–100). D. C. Heath.  https://doi.org/10.1037/10903-007 .

Dewey, J. (1933). How we think: A restatement of the relations of reflective thinking to the educative process. Lexington, MA: D.C. Heath & Co.

Dierdorp, A., Bakker, A., Van Maanen, J. A., & Eijkelhof, H. (2014). Meaningful statistics in professional practices as a bridge between mathematics and science: an evaluation of a design research project. International Journal of STEM Education , 1 (9), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-014-0009-1 .

Dourish, P. (2004). Where the Action Is. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

Eraut, M. (2004). Transfer of knowledge between education and workplace settings. In H. Rainbird, A. Fuller, & A. Munro (Eds.), Workplace Learning in Context (pp. 201–221). London: Routledge.

Evans, T. L. (2019). Transdisciplinary engagement with enforced dependency: A platform for higher education to address crises in employment, sustainability, and democracy in technological society. In M. A. Peters, P. Jandrić, & A. J. Means (Eds.), Education and Technological Unemployment (pp. 61–77). Singapore: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-6225-5_5 .

Fawns, T., Ross, J., Carbonel, H., Noteboom, J., Finnegan-Dehn, S., & Raver, M. (2023). Mapping and tracing the postdigital: Approaches and parameters of postdigital research.  Postdigital Science and Education , 5 (3), 623–642. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42438-023-00391-y .

Freire, P. (2000). Pedagogy of the oppressed . New York, NY: Continuum.

Frey, C. B., & Osborne, M. A. (2017). The future of employment: How susceptible are jobs to computerisation? Technological Forecasting and Social Change , 114 , 254–280. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2016.08.019

Gao, X., Li, P., Shen, J., & Sun, H. (2020). Reviewing assessment of student learning in interdisciplinary STEM education. International Journal of STEM Education , 7 (1), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-020-00225-4 .

Gibbons, M., Limoges, C., Nowotny, H., Schwartzman, S., Scott , P., & Trow, M. (1994). The new production of knowledge. London: Sage.

Goodyear, P., Markauskaite, L., Wrigley, C., Spence, N., Mosely, G., & Swist, T. (2023) Constructing design knowledge for postdigital science and education. In P. Jandrić, A. MacKenzie, & J. Knox (Eds.), Constructing Postdigital Research: Method and Emancipation (pp. 65–83). Cham: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-35411-3_4 .

Grandin, T. (2006).  Thinking in pictures: and other reports from my life with autism.  New York, NY: 2nd Vintage Books.

Green, B. (2022). Why the World doesn’t need a metaphysics of transdisciplinarity: Response to ‘The Struggling Towards a Transdisciplinary Metaphysics’ (Gibbs 2021). Postdigital Science and Education, 4 (3), 683–691. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42438-022-00296-2 .

Hardoš, P. (2018). Who exactly is an expert? On the problem of defining and recognizing expertise. Sociológia, 50 (3), 268–288.

Hayes, S. (2019). ‘Employable Posthumans’: Developing HE policies that strengthen human technological collaboration not separation. In M. A. Peters, P. Jandrić, & A. J. Means (Eds.), Education and Technological Unemployment (pp. 29–44). Singapore: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-6225-5_11 .

Heimstädt, M., Koljonen, T., & Elmholdt, K. T. (2023). Expertise in management research: A review and agenda for future research. Academy of Management Annals, 18 (1). https://doi.org/10.5465/annals.2022.0078 .

Howlett, C., Ferreira, J. A., & Blomfield, J. (2016). Teaching sustainable development in higher education: Building critical, reflective thinkers through an interdisciplinary approach. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education , 17 (3), 305–321. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJSHE-07-2014-0102 .

IYA. (n.d.a). The academy effect. https://iovine-young.usc.edu/discover/the-academy-effect . Accessed 2 March 2024.

IYA. (n.d.b). Undergraduate admission. https://iovine-young.usc.edu/apply/undergraduate/undergraduate-admissions . Accessed 2 March 2024.

IYA. (n.d.c). The learning experience. https://iovine-young.usc.edu/discover/the-learning-experience . Accessed 4 June 2024.

IYA. (n.d.d). Design strategy. https://iovine-young.usc.edu/design-strategy . Accessed 2 March 2024.

IYA. (n.d.e). IYA Career edge. https://iovine-young.usc.edu/learn/iya-career-edge#academy-capstone-experiences . Accessed 2 March 2024.

IYA. (n.d.f). Innovation quest. https://iovine-young.usc.edu/iya-innovation-quest . Accessed 2 March 2024.

Jandrić, P., & Knox, J. (2022). The postdigital turn: Philosophy, education, research. Policy Futures in Education , 20 (7), 780–795. https://doi.org/10.1177/14782103211062713 .

Jandrić, P., MacKenzie, A., & Knox, J. (Eds.). (2023). Postdigital research: genealogies, challenges, and future perspectives . Cham: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-31299-1 .

Jandrić, P., Ryberg, T., Knox, J., Lacković, N., Hayes, S., Suoranta, J., Smith, M., Steketee, A., Peters, M., McLaren, P., Ford, D. R., Asher, G., McGregor, C., Stewart, G., Williamson, B., & Gibbons, A. (2019). Postdigital Dialogue. Postdigital Science and Education , 1 (1), 163–189. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42438-018-0011-x .

Jantsch, E. (1972). Inter- and transdisciplinary university: A systems approach to education and innovation. Higher Education , 1 (1), 7–37. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01956879 .

Johnson, M. W. (2023). Postdigital practical axiology. In P. Jandrić, A. MacKenzie, & J. Knox (Eds.), Postdigital Research: Geneologies, Challenges, and Future Perspectives (pp. 129–151) . Cham: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-31299-1_8 .

Jopling, M. (2023). Postdigital research in education: Towards vulnerable method and praxis. In P. Jandrić, A. MacKenzie, & J. Knox (Eds.), Postdigital Research: Geneologies, Challenges, and Future Perspectives (pp. 155–171). Cham: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-31299-1_9 .

Klaassen, R. G. (2018). Interdisciplinary education: A case study. European Journal of Engineering Education , 43 (6), 842–859. https://doi.org/10.1080/03043797.2018.1442417 .

Klein, J. T. (2001). Interdisciplinarity and the prospect of complexity: The Tests of Theory. Issues in Integrative Studies, 19, 43-57.

Klein, J. T. (2003). Unity of knowledge and transdisciplinarity: Contexts of definition, theory and the new discourse of problem solving. In G. H. Hadorn (Ed.), Unity of Knowledge (pp. 35–39). Paris: UNESCO EOLSS.

Klein, J. T. (2004a). Interdisciplinarity and complexity: An evolving relationship. Emergence: Complexity and Organization, 6 (1–2), 2–10.

Klein, J. T. (2004b). Prospects for transdisciplinarity. Futures, 36 (4), 515–526.

Klein, J. T. (2010). A taxonomy of interdisciplinarity. In R. Frodeman, J. T. Klein, & C. Mitcham, The Oxford handbook of interdisciplinarity (pp. 15–30). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Klein, J. T. (2015). Reprint of discourses of transdisciplinarity: Looking back to the future. Futures, 65, 10–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2015.01.003 .

Knight, D. B., Lattuca, L. R., Kimball, E. W., & Reason, R. D. (2013). Understanding interdisciplinarity: Curricular and organizational features of undergraduate interdisciplinary programs. Innovative Higher Education , 38 (2), 143–158. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10755-012-9232-1 .

Knox, J. (2019). What does the ‘Postdigital’ mean for education? Three critical perspectives on the digital, with implications for educational research and practice. Postdigital Science and Education, 1 (2), 357–370. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42438-019-00045-y .

Kolb, D. (1984). Experiential Learning as the Science of Learning and Development . Englewood Cliffs, NJ: NPH.

Lave, J. (1988). Cognition in Practice . Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

LaViers, A., & Maguire, C., (2023). Making meaning with machines: Somatic strategies, choreographic technologies, and notational abstractions through a Laban/Bartenieff Lens. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

Lou, S., Chou, Y., Shih, R., & Chung, C. (2017). A study of creativity in CaC2 steamship derived stem project-based learning. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics Science & Technology Education , 13 (6), 2387–2404. https://doi.org/10.12973/eurasia.2017.01231a .

Lou, S. J., Shih, R. C., Diez, C. R., & Tseng, K. H. (2011). The impact of problem-based learning strategies on stem knowledge integration and attitudes: an exploratory study among female Taiwanese senior high school students. International Journal of Technology & Design Education , 21 (2), 195–215. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-010-9114-8 .

Lundgren, H., Bang, A., Justice, S. B., Marsick, V. J., Poell, R. F., Yorks, L., Clark, M., & Sung, S. (2017). Conceptualizing reflection in experience-based workplace learning. Human Resource Development International , 20 (4), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1080/13678868.2017.1308717 .

McGregor, S. L. T. (2015). The nicolescuian and Zurich approaches to transdisciplinarity. Integral Leadership Review, 15 (2).

McGregor, S. L. T. (2017). Transdisciplinary pedagogy in higher education: Transdisciplinary learning, learning cycles and habits of minds. In P. Gibbs (Ed.), Transdisciplinary Higher Education: A Theoretical Basis Revealed in Practice (pp. 3–16). Cham: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-56185-1_1 .

McKinsey Global Institute. (2021). The Future of Work after Covid-19: Feb 18, 2021 Report. https://www.mckinsey.com/featured-insights/future-of-work/the-future-of-work-after-covid-19# /. Accessed 4 March 2024.

Menand, L. (2010). The Marketplace of Ideas: Reform and Resistance in the American University . New York, NY: W.W. Norton.

Moradi, P., & Levy, K. (2020). The future of work in the age of AI: Displacement or Risk-Shifting. In M. Dubber, F. Pasquale, & S. Das (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Ethics of AI (pp. 269–288). Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780190067397.013.17 .

National Academy of Engineering and National Research Council [NAE & NRC]. (2014). STEM integration in K-12 education: Status, prospects, and an agenda for research . Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press.

Nicolescu, B. (2002). Manifesto of transdisciplinarity . Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

Nicolescu, B. (2008). In vitro and In vivo knowledge: Methodology of transdisciplinarity. In B. Nicolescu (Ed.), Transdisciplinarity: Theory and Practice (pp. 1–22). New York: Hampton Press.

Nicolescu, B. (2010). Methodology of transdisciplinarity–levels of reality, logic of the included middle and complexity. Transdisciplinary Journal of Engineering & Science , 1 (1). https://doi.org/10.22545/2010/0009 .

OECD. (2023). OECD Digital Education Outlook 2023: Towards an Effective Digital Education Ecosystem . Paris: OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/c74f03de-en .

Ong, W. J. (1983). Ramus, method, and the decay of dialogue: From the art of discourse to the art of reason . Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Orlikowski, W. J. (2002). Knowing in practice: Enacting a collective capability in distributed organizing. Organization Science , 13 (3), 249–273.

Peters, M. A., Jandrić, P., & Means, A. J. (Eds.). (2019a). Education and Technological Unemployment. Singapore: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-6225-5 .

Peters, M. A., Jandrić, P., & Means, A. J. (2019b). Introduction: Technological unemployment and the future of work. In M. A. Peters, P. Jandrić, & A. J. Means (Eds.) , Education and Technological Unemployment (pp. 1–12) . Singapore: Springer.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-6225-5_1 .

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Polanyi, M. (1967). The Tacit Dimension . Garden City, NY: Anchor Books.

Poltze, K. (2023). Review of Petar Jandrić, Alison MacKenzie, and Jeremy Knox (Eds.). (2023). Constructing postdigital research: Method and emancipation.  Postdigital Science Education . https://doi.org/10.1007/s42438-023-00438-0 .

Ramachandran, S. (2010). Engineering Education: Non-traditional Specialisms, and the Smart Economy. Paper presented at the 3rd International Symposium for Engineering Education. University College, Cork.

Rich, S. J. (2009). Interdisciplinary Learning: A stimulant for reflective practice. In R. K. Chhem, K. M. Hibbert, & T. Van Deven (Eds.), Radiology Education: The Scholarship of Teaching and Learning (pp. 51–61). Berlin: Springer.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-68989-8_5 .

Rikakis, T., Arnold, A., Keyel, J., & Clark, R. (2020). Adaptive lifelong learning for an inclusive knowledge economy. https://doi.org/10.21061/adaptive-learning-report .

Riskowski, J. L., Todd, C. D., Wee, B., Dark, M., & Harbor, J. (2009). Exploring the effectiveness of an interdisciplinary water resources engineering module in an eighth-grade science course. International Journal of Engineering Education , 25 (1), 181–195.

Rodgers, C. (2002). Defining reflection: Another look at john dewey and reflective thinking. Teachers College Record, 104 (4), 842–866. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9620.00181 .

Rolfe, G. (1997). Beyond expertise: theory, practice and the reflexive practitioner. Journal of Clinical Nursing, 6 (2), 93–97. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2702.1997.tb00290.x .

Schneider, N. (2019). A wantless, workless World: How the origins of the university can inform its future. In M. A. Peters, P. Jandrić, & A. J. Means (Eds.), Education and Technological Unemployment (pp. 29–44). Singapore: Springer. https://doi.org/10.31219/osf.io/jb3kq .

Schön, D. A. (1983). The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action . New York, NY: Basic Books.

Schön, D. A. (1987).  Educating the reflective practitioner: Toward a new design for teaching and learning in the professions . San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Simon, H. A. (1969).  The sciences of the artificial . Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

Stoller, A. (2018). The flipped curriculum: Dewey’s Pragmatic University. Studies in Philosophy and Education, 37 (5), 451–465.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11217-017-9592-1 .

Suchman, L. A. (1987). Plans and Situated Actions: The Problem of Human Machine Communication . Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

Tan, L., Kocsis, A., & Burry, J. (2023). Advancing Donald Schön’s Reflective Practitioner: Where to Next? Design Issues, 39 (3), 3–18. https://doi.org/10.1162/desi_a_00722 .

Tenenbaum, J. B., Kemp, C., Griffiths, T. L., & Goodman, N. D., (2011). How to grow a mind: statistics, structure, and abstraction. Science 331 (6022), 1279–1285. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1192788 .

The Workforce Board. (2019). Future of Work Task Force 2019 Policy Report . https://www.wtb.wa.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/Future-of-Work-2019-Final-Report.pdf . Accessed 2 March 2024.

Thomas, D., & Brown, J. S. (2011). A new culture of learning: Cultivating the imagination for a world of constant change . Mineola, NY: Dover.

Thompson, G., & Cook I. (2019). The lack of work and the contemporary University. In M. A. Peters, P. Jandrić, & A. J. Means (Eds.), Education and Technological Unemployment (pp. 29–44). Singapore: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-6225-5_3 .

Tsoukas, H. (2003). Do we really understand tacit knowledge? In M. Easterby-Smith & M. A. Lyles (Eds.), Handbook of Organizational Learning and Knowledge (pp. 410–427). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell.

Tsoukas, H. (2009). A dialogical approach to the creation of new knowledge in organizations. Organization Science , 20 (6), 941–957.  http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1090.0435 .

Van Herwegen, J., Costa, H. M., Nicholson, B., & Donlan, C. (2018). Improving number abilities in low achieving preschoolers: Symbolic versus non-symbolic training programs. Research in Developmental Disabilities , 77 , 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ridd.2018.03.011 .

Vygotsky, L. (1972). The Psychology of Art . Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

Wells, C. (2008). A Brief History of History: Great Historians and the Epic Quest to Explain the Past . Guilford, CT: Lyons Press.

World Bank Group. (2019). World Development Report 2019: The Changing Nature of Work. Washington, DC: World Bank. https://doi.org/10.1596/978-1-4648-1328-3 .

Walsh, M. (2020). Develop a “Probabilistic” Approach to Managing Uncertainty . Harvard Business Review, 20 February. https://hbr.org/2020/02/develop-a-probabilistic-approach-to-managing-uncertainty . Accessed 2 March 2024.

World Economic Forum. (2016). The Future of Jobs . Employment, skills and workforce strategy for the fourth industrial revolution. https://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_FOJ_Executive_Summary_Jobs.pdf . Accessed 2 March 2024.

World Economic Forum. (2023). Future of Jobs Report. https://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_Future_of_Jobs_2023.pdf . Accessed 2 March 2024.

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors express our gratitude to our colleagues at the Iovine and Young Academy (University of Southern California) for sharing their experiences at the Academy and providing valuable feedback on the conceptualization of this framework. We are deeply grateful to the Editor-in-Chief Petar Jandrić and the anonymous reviewers for the valuable comments provided on this manuscript. We thank Zoe Corwin (University of Southern California) for the constructive feedback on a previous version of the manuscript. We thank graduate assistant Ashley Wolpert Miller for the formatting and editing assistance.

Open access funding provided by SCELC, Statewide California Electronic Library Consortium Funding for this research was provided by Verizon, Inc. to help document and share innovative practices at the Iovine and Young Academy at the University of Southern California.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Iovine and Young Academy, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA

SeoYoon Sung, Doug Thomas & Thanassis Rikakis

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to SeoYoon Sung .

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest.

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Sung, S., Thomas, D. & Rikakis, T. Enacting Transdisciplinary Values for a Postdigital World: The Challenge-Based Reflective Learning (CBRL) Framework. Postdigit Sci Educ (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s42438-024-00485-1

Download citation

Accepted : 05 June 2024

Published : 22 June 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s42438-024-00485-1

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Reflective practice
• Challenge-based reflective learning (CBRL)
• Transdisciplinary education
• Postdigital
• Learning frameworks
• Learning innovation
• Interdisciplinary
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

• Games & Quizzes
• History & Society
• Science & Tech
• Biographies
• Animals & Nature
• Geography & Travel
• Arts & Culture
• On This Day
• One Good Fact
• New Articles
• Lifestyles & Social Issues
• Philosophy & Religion
• Politics, Law & Government
• World History
• Health & Medicine
• Browse Biographies
• Birds, Reptiles & Other Vertebrates
• Bugs, Mollusks & Other Invertebrates
• Environment
• Fossils & Geologic Time
• Entertainment & Pop Culture
• Sports & Recreation
• Visual Arts
• Demystified
• Image Galleries
• Infographics
• Top Questions
• Britannica Kids
• Saving Earth
• Space Next 50
• Student Center
• Introduction & Top Questions

Prehistoric and primitive cultures

• Mesopotamia
• North China
• The Hindu tradition
• The introduction of Buddhist influences
• Classical India
• Indian influences on Asia
• Xi (Western) Zhou (1046–771 bce )
• Dong (Eastern) Zhou (770–256 bce )
• Qin autocracy (221–206 bce )
• Scholarship under the Han (206 bce –220 ce )
• Introduction of Buddhism
• Ancient Hebrews
• Education of youth
• Higher education
• The institutions
• Physical education
• The primary school
• Secondary education
• Early Roman education
• Roman modifications
• Education in the later Roman Empire
• Ancient Persia
• Elementary education
• Professional education
• Early Russian education: Kiev and Muscovy
• Influences on Muslim education and culture
• Aims and purposes of Muslim education
• Organization of education
• Major periods of Muslim education and learning
• Influence of Islamic learning on the West
• From the beginnings to the 4th century
• From the 5th to the 8th century
• The Irish and English revivals
• The cultural revival under Charlemagne and his successors
• Influences of the Carolingian renaissance abroad
• Education of the laity in the 9th and 10th centuries
• Monastic schools
• Urban schools
• New curricula and philosophies
• Thomist philosophy
• The Italian universities
• The French universities
• The English universities
• Universities elsewhere in Europe
• General characteristics of medieval universities
• Lay education and the lower schools
• The foundations of Muslim education
• The Mughal period
• The Tang dynasty (618–907 ce )
• The Song (960–1279)
• The Mongol period (1206–1368)
• The Ming period (1368–1644)
• The Manchu period (1644–1911/12)
• The ancient period to the 12th century
• Education of the warriors
• Education in the Tokugawa era
• Effect of early Western contacts
• The Muslim influence
• The secular influence
• Early influences
• Emergence of the new gymnasium
• Nonscholastic traditions
• Dutch humanism
• Juan Luis Vives
• The early English humanists
• Luther and the German Reformation
• The English Reformation
• The French Reformation
• The Calvinist Reformation
• The Roman Catholic Counter-Reformation
• The legacy of the Reformation
• The new scientism and rationalism
• The Protestant demand for universal elementary education
• The pedagogy of Ratke
• The pedagogy of Comenius
• The schools of Gotha
• Courtly education
• The teaching congregations
• Female education
• The Puritan reformers
• Royalist education
• The academies
• John Locke’s empiricism and education as conduct
• Giambattista Vico, critic of Cartesianism
• The condition of the schools and universities
• August Hermann Francke
• Johann Julius Hecker
• The Sensationists
• The Rousseauists
• National education under enlightened rulers
• Spanish and Portuguese America
• French Québec
• New England
• The new academies
• The middle colonies
• The Southern colonies
• Newfoundland and the Maritime Provinces.
• The social and historical setting
• The pedagogy of Pestalozzi
• The influence of Pestalozzi
• The pedagogy of Froebel
• The kindergarten movement
• The psychology and pedagogy of Herbart
• The Herbartians
• Other German theorists
• French theorists
• Spencer’s scientism
• Humboldt’s reforms
• Developments after 1815
• Girls’ schools
• The new German universities
• Development of state education
• Elementary Education Act
• Secondary and higher education
• The educational awakening
• Education for females
• New Zealand
• Education under the East India Company
• Indian universities
• The Meiji Restoration and the assimilation of Western civilization
• Establishment of a national system of education
• The conservative reaction
• Establishment of nationalistic education systems
• Promotion of industrial education
• Social and historical background
• Influence of psychology and other fields on education
• Traditional movements
• Progressive education
• Child-centred education
• Scientific-realist education
• Social-reconstructionist education
• Major trends and problems
• Early 19th to early 20th century
• Education Act of 1944
• The comprehensive movement
• Further education
• Imperial Germany
• Weimar Republic
• Nazi Germany
• Changes after World War II
• The Third Republic
• The Netherlands
• Switzerland
• Expansion of American education
• Curriculum reforms
• Federal involvement in local education
• Changes in higher education
• Professional organizations
• Canadian educational reforms
• The administration of public education
• Before 1917
• The Stalinist years, 1931–53
• The Khrushchev reforms
• From Brezhnev to Gorbachev
• Perestroika and education
• The modernization movement
• Education in the republic
• Education under the Nationalist government
• Education under communism
• Post-Mao education
• Communism and the intellectuals
• Education at the beginning of the century
• Education to 1940
• Education changes during World War II
• Education after World War II
• Pre-independence period
• The postindependence period in India
• The postindependence period in Pakistan
• The postindependence period in Bangladesh
• The postindependence period in Sri Lanka
• South Africa
• General influences and policies of the colonial powers
• Education in Portuguese colonies and former colonies
• German educational policy in Africa
• Education in British colonies and former colonies
• Education in French colonies and former colonies
• Education in Belgian colonies and former colonies
• Problems and tasks of African education in the late 20th century
• Colonialism and its consequences
• The second half of the 20th century
• The Islamic revival
• Migration and the brain drain
• The heritage of independence
• Administration
• Primary education and literacy
• Reform trends
• Malaysia and Singapore
• Philippines
• Education and social cohesion
• Education and social conflict
• Education and personal growth
• Education and civil society
• Education and economic development
• Primary-level school enrollments
• Secondary-level school enrollments
• Tertiary-level school enrollments
• Other developments in formal education
• Literacy as a measure of success
• Access to education
• Implications for socioeconomic status
• Social consequences of education in developing countries
• The role of the state
• Social and family interaction
• Alternative forms of education

What was education like in ancient Athens?

How does social class affect education attainment, when did education become compulsory, what are alternative forms of education, do school vouchers offer students access to better education.

Our editors will review what you’ve submitted and determine whether to revise the article.

• National Geographic - Geography
• World History Encyclopedia - Education in the Elizabethan Era
• Table Of Contents

What does education mean?

Education refers to the discipline that is concerned with methods of teaching and learning in schools or school-like environments, as opposed to various nonformal and informal means of socialization .

Beginning approximately at the end of the 7th or during the 6th century, Athens became the first city-state in ancient Greece to renounce education that was oriented toward the future duties of soldiers. The evolution of Athenian education reflected that of the city itself, which was moving toward increasing democratization.

Research has found that education is the strongest determinant of individuals’ occupational status and chances of success in adult life. However, the correlation between family socioeconomic status and school success or failure appears to have increased worldwide. Long-term trends suggest that as societies industrialize and modernize, social class becomes increasingly important in determining educational outcomes and occupational attainment.

While education is not compulsory in practice everywhere in the world, the right of individuals to an educational program that respects their personality, talents, abilities, and cultural heritage has been upheld in various international agreements, including the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948; the Declaration of the Rights of the Child of 1959; and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights of 1966.

Alternative forms of education have developed since the late 20th century, such as distance learning , homeschooling , and many parallel or supplementary systems of education often designated as “nonformal” and “popular.” Religious institutions also instruct the young and old alike in sacred knowledge as well as in the values and skills required for participation in local, national, and transnational societies.

School vouchers have been a hotly debated topic in the United States. Some parents of voucher recipients reported high levels of satisfaction, and studies have found increased voucher student graduation rates. Some studies have found, however, that students using vouchers to attend private schools instead of public ones did not show significantly higher levels of academic achievement. Learn more at ProCon.org.

Should corporal punishment be used in elementary education settings?

Whether corporal punishment should be used in elementary education settings is widely debated. Some say it is the appropriate discipline for certain children when used in moderation because it sets clear boundaries and motivates children to behave in school. Others say can inflict long-lasting physical and mental harm on students while creating an unsafe and violent school environment. For more on the corporal punishment debate, visit ProCon.org .

Should dress codes be implemented and enforced in education settings?

Whether dress codes should be implemented and enforced in education settings is hotly debated. Some argue dress codes enforce decorum and a serious, professional atmosphere conducive to success, as well as promote safety. Others argue dress codes reinforce racist standards of beauty and dress and are are seldom uniformly mandated, often discriminating against women and marginalized groups. For more on the dress code debate, visit ProCon.org .

Recent News

education , discipline that is concerned with methods of teaching and learning in schools or school-like environments as opposed to various nonformal and informal means of socialization (e.g., rural development projects and education through parent-child relationships).

(Read Arne Duncan’s Britannica essay on “Education: The Great Equalizer.”)

Education can be thought of as the transmission of the values and accumulated knowledge of a society. In this sense, it is equivalent to what social scientists term socialization or enculturation. Children—whether conceived among New Guinea tribespeople, the Renaissance Florentines, or the middle classes of Manhattan—are born without culture . Education is designed to guide them in learning a culture , molding their behaviour in the ways of adulthood , and directing them toward their eventual role in society. In the most primitive cultures , there is often little formal learning—little of what one would ordinarily call school or classes or teachers . Instead, the entire environment and all activities are frequently viewed as school and classes, and many or all adults act as teachers. As societies grow more complex, however, the quantity of knowledge to be passed on from one generation to the next becomes more than any one person can know, and, hence, there must evolve more selective and efficient means of cultural transmission. The outcome is formal education—the school and the specialist called the teacher.

As society becomes ever more complex and schools become ever more institutionalized, educational experience becomes less directly related to daily life, less a matter of showing and learning in the context of the workaday world, and more abstracted from practice, more a matter of distilling, telling, and learning things out of context. This concentration of learning in a formal atmosphere allows children to learn far more of their culture than they are able to do by merely observing and imitating. As society gradually attaches more and more importance to education, it also tries to formulate the overall objectives, content, organization, and strategies of education. Literature becomes laden with advice on the rearing of the younger generation. In short, there develop philosophies and theories of education.

This article discusses the history of education, tracing the evolution of the formal teaching of knowledge and skills from prehistoric and ancient times to the present, and considering the various philosophies that have inspired the resulting systems. Other aspects of education are treated in a number of articles. For a treatment of education as a discipline, including educational organization, teaching methods, and the functions and training of teachers, see teaching ; pedagogy ; and teacher education . For a description of education in various specialized fields, see historiography ; legal education ; medical education ; science, history of . For an analysis of educational philosophy , see education, philosophy of . For an examination of some of the more important aids in education and the dissemination of knowledge, see dictionary ; encyclopaedia ; library ; museum ; printing ; publishing, history of . Some restrictions on educational freedom are discussed in censorship . For an analysis of pupil attributes, see intelligence, human ; learning theory ; psychological testing .

Education in primitive and early civilized cultures

The term education can be applied to primitive cultures only in the sense of enculturation , which is the process of cultural transmission. A primitive person, whose culture is the totality of his universe, has a relatively fixed sense of cultural continuity and timelessness. The model of life is relatively static and absolute, and it is transmitted from one generation to another with little deviation. As for prehistoric education, it can only be inferred from educational practices in surviving primitive cultures.

The purpose of primitive education is thus to guide children to becoming good members of their tribe or band. There is a marked emphasis upon training for citizenship , because primitive people are highly concerned with the growth of individuals as tribal members and the thorough comprehension of their way of life during passage from prepuberty to postpuberty.

Because of the variety in the countless thousands of primitive cultures, it is difficult to describe any standard and uniform characteristics of prepuberty education. Nevertheless, certain things are practiced commonly within cultures. Children actually participate in the social processes of adult activities, and their participatory learning is based upon what the American anthropologist Margaret Mead called empathy , identification, and imitation . Primitive children, before reaching puberty, learn by doing and observing basic technical practices. Their teachers are not strangers but rather their immediate community .

In contrast to the spontaneous and rather unregulated imitations in prepuberty education, postpuberty education in some cultures is strictly standardized and regulated. The teaching personnel may consist of fully initiated men, often unknown to the initiate though they are his relatives in other clans. The initiation may begin with the initiate being abruptly separated from his familial group and sent to a secluded camp where he joins other initiates. The purpose of this separation is to deflect the initiate’s deep attachment away from his family and to establish his emotional and social anchorage in the wider web of his culture.

The initiation “curriculum” does not usually include practical subjects. Instead, it consists of a whole set of cultural values, tribal religion, myths , philosophy, history, rituals, and other knowledge. Primitive people in some cultures regard the body of knowledge constituting the initiation curriculum as most essential to their tribal membership. Within this essential curriculum, religious instruction takes the most prominent place.

Education as a Discipline and its Interdisciplinary Nature, Multi Disciplinary Nature with Importance 

Back to: Educational Studies UGC NET – Unit 1

Education as a Discipline

Education is a discipline that is concerned highly with the methods of teaching and learning in school as opposed to various formal and informal means of socialization. Educational skill is furthermore not instinctive but rather the product of training and experience leading to mastery. It is a relatively new discipline that combines aspects of psychology, history, philosophy, sociology and some practical studies. Not only does education have its own set of problems, questions and knowledge bases and approaches to the inquiry but also that which is borrowed from other disciplines often becomes transformed within the study of education.

Education as Interdisciplinary and Multidisciplinary

Today, we have so many social problems that their solution is not possible in one discipline, therefore, the interaction between different disciplines is needed to solve this problem. This interaction between two or more disciplines is called an interdisciplinary approach. Through an interdisciplinary approach, students can make connections between disciplines in education and see the correlation which improves overall learning. Education is a process of human development as well as an independent field of study or discipline. Most of the content of education is the result of an interdisciplinary approach. 

Multidisciplinary education is a unique educational approach that allows students to learn and explore distinct subjects or curricula from various disciplines. Education is not limited to a particular discipline. It is a curriculum integration that highlights the diverse perspectives that different disciplines can bring.

• Education and Philosophy
• Education and Psychology
• Education and Anthropology
• Education and Sociology

Importance of Multidisciplinary Education

The importance of multidisciplinary education is as follows:

● With multidisciplinary education in colleges, students get the right to choose their favourite subject.

● It allows your students to understand the power of new ideas.

● It helps sharpen student’s personal growth

Therefore, it is important in today’s world for limitless learning to have a unique education system that promotes a multi-disciplinary approach to help students follow their passion.

The Importance of Discipline in Students’ Life

Discipline plays a vital role in shaping the lives of students. It is essential for their personal growth, academic success, and overall well-being. Without discipline, students may struggle to stay focused, manage their time effectively, and develop the necessary skills to navigate through life’s challenges.

The Importance of Discipline in Students’ Life cannot be overstated. It provides a solid foundation for their future endeavors and helps them become responsible and productive individuals.

Examples of Self-Discipline For Students

The importance of Discipline in Students’ Life can manifest in various ways in a student’s life. Here are some examples:

1. Consistent Study Habits :

Students who practice self-discipline allocate regular time for studying, avoid distractions, and maintain a focused mindset to enhance their learning .

2. Time Management :

Discipline enables students to prioritize their tasks, set realistic goals, and allocate time efficiently, ensuring they meet deadlines and achieve academic success .

3. Maintaining a Healthy Lifestyle:

Self-discipline promotes habits such as regular exercise, proper nutrition, and adequate sleep, ensuring students have the physical and mental energy to perform well in their studies.

4. Setting Priorities :

Discipline helps students identify their goals, differentiate between important and trivial tasks, and make informed decisions regarding their academic and personal lives.

5. Respecting Rules and Authority : Discipline instills a sense of respect for rules, regulations, and authority figures, enabling students to navigate social environments and maintain harmonious relationships.

How To Build Self-Discipline?

Building self-discipline is a gradual process that requires conscious effort and practice.  Here are some strategies to develop self-discipline in students:

1. Set Clear Goals :

Students should identify their short-term and long-term goals to stay motivated and focused. Breaking down these goals into smaller, manageable tasks can make them more attainable.

2. Create a Routine:

Establishing a consistent daily routine helps students develop good habits and ensures they allocate time for studying recreation, and personal growth.

3. Eliminate Distractions :

Minimizing distractions, such as social media notifications or excessive noise, can enhance students’ concentration and allow them to fully engage in their tasks.

4. Practice Time Management:

Learning to prioritize tasks, create schedules, and allocate time effectively empowers students to manage their responsibilities and avoid procrastination.

5. Seek Support :

Encouraging students to seek support from mentors, teachers, or peers can provide guidance, accountability, and motivation on their journey to developing self-discipline.

How Does Discipline Affect Learning?

Discipline has a profound on students’ learning experiences. Here’s how it influences their academic journey Importance of Discipline in Students’ Life:

1. Improved Focus:

Discipline helps students stay focused on their studies, minimizing distractions and enabling them to absorb information more effectively.

2. Enhanced Time Management:

With discipline, students can allocate time appropriately for studying, homework, and extracurricular activities, ensuring a balanced approach to their education.

3. Better Academic Performance :

Discipline fosters consistent study habits, perseverance, and a strong work ethic, leading to improved grades and academic achievements.

4. Development of Self-Control :

Through discipline, students learn self-control and the ability to resist immediate gratification, which is crucial for long-term academic success.

5. Reduced Stress :

Discipline allows students to stay organized, manage their workload efficiently, and alleviate the stress associated with last-minute deadlines or incomplete assignments.

Benefits and Advantages of Discipline In Students’ Life

The discipline offers numerous benefits and advantages that contribute to the holistic development of students.  Here are some key advantages of the Importance of Discipline in Students’ Life:

1. Time Management:

Discipline equips students with the skills to manage their time effectively, ensuring they can balance academics, extracurricular activities, and personal commitments.

2. Staying Active :

By practicing discipline, students are more likely to engage in physical activities and maintain a healthy lifestyle, which enhances their overall well-being.

3. Being Focused:

Discipline helps students maintain a focused mindset, allowing them to concentrate on their studies and absorb knowledge more efficiently.

4. Self-Control :

Discipline cultivates self-control, empowering students to make responsible decisions, resist temptations, and overcome challenges.

5. Relieve Stress :

The structured nature of discipline reduces stress by providing students with a clear roadmap for managing their tasks and responsibilities.

6. Better Academic Performance :

Students who embrace discipline often experience improved academic performance due to consistent study habits, effective time management, and a strong work ethic.

7. Healthy and Active:

Discipline encourages students to prioritize their physical and mental well-being , leading to a healthier and more active lifestyle.

8. Role Model for Others :

Students who demonstrate discipline become role models for their peers, inspiring them to adopt similar behaviors and habits.

9. Limits Negativity :

Discipline helps students avoid negative influences, such as procrastination or peer pressure, which can hinder their personal and academic growth.

10. Creates a Safe Space for Students :

Discipline fosters an environment of structure and accountability, ensuring students feel safe, supported, and motivated to succeed.

Are There Any Potential Challenges Or Barriers To Implementing Discipline In Students’ Daily Routines?

While discipline is highly beneficial, some challenges and barriers may hinder its implementation in students’ daily routines. These challenges include:

1. Lack of Motivation :

Students may struggle with maintaining motivation, especially when faced with challenging tasks or subjects that they find less interesting.

2. Procrastination :

Students may be tempted to delay tasks, resulting in last-minute cramming or incomplete assignments.

3. Distractions:

The abundance of digital distractions, such as social media or online gaming, can divert students’ attention away from their studies.

4. Peer Influence :

Students may be influenced by peers who prioritize socializing or engaging in activities that are not conducive to their academic progress.

5. Overwhelming Workload :

An excessive workload, combined with multiple responsibilities, can make it challenging for students to allocate time effectively and maintain a disciplined approach.

6. Lack of Support:

Insufficient support from parents, teachers, or mentors may hinder students’ ability to develop and maintain discipline.

How Can Parents And Teachers Collaborate To Reinforce Discipline In Students’ Lives?

Collaboration between parents and teachers is crucial in reinforcing discipline in students’ lives.  Here are some strategies they can employ:

1. Establish Open Communication:

Parents and teachers should maintain open lines of communication to discuss students’ progress , behavior, and areas that require improvement.

2. Consistent Expectations :

Parents and teachers should set clear and consistent expectations regarding students’ behavior, academic performance, and adherence to rules.

3. Lead by Example:

Adults should model disciplined behavior, demonstrating the values and habits they expect students to adopt.

4. Provide Structure :

Establishing routines, schedules, and systems within the home and classroom environment can help students develop discipline and time management skills.

5. Collaborate on Reinforcement Strategies :

Parents and teachers can collaborate to develop consistent reinforcement strategies, such as rewards for positive behavior or consequences for non-compliance.

6. Regular Progress Monitoring:

Periodic assessments and progress reports allow parents and teachers to identify areas where students may require additional support or intervention.

Q: How does discipline benefit students academically?

A: Discipline improves study habits, time management, focus, and self-control, resulting in better academic performance and achievements.

Q: Can discipline help students in other areas of life besides academics?

 A: Absolutely! Discipline instills valuable life skills such as time management, self-control, and goal setting, which are beneficial in all aspects of life.

Q: Is it possible to develop discipline later in life if it was lacking during childhood?

A: Yes, discipline can be developed at any stage of life with conscious effort, self-reflection, and the adoption of strategies that promote discipline.

Q: How can parents support the development of discipline in their children?

A: Parents can set clear expectations, establish routines, provide guidance and support, and serve as role models for disciplined behavior.

Q: Are there any long-term benefits of discipline beyond the student years?

 A: Yes, discipline contributes to personal and professional success, as it cultivates skills such as self-control, time management, and perseverance.

Q: Can discipline be seen as restrictive or inhibiting for students?

A: While discipline may have boundaries, it provides structure and guidance that ultimately empowers students to achieve their goals and succeed.

Conclusion:

Discipline is of utmost importance in students’ lives. It shapes their character, enhances academic performance, and prepares them for future challenges. By embracing discipline, students can develop self-control, time management skills, and a strong work ethic, setting them on a path to success. 

Collaborative efforts between parents and teachers play a vital role in reinforcing discipline and ensuring students thrive both academically and personally.

Related Posts

25 WAYS TO HELP STUDENTS WHO ARE IN DANGER Of ACADEMIC FAILURE

25 Best Ways to Help Failing Students

Leave a comment cancel reply.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

School Life Diaries

Our website provides interesting and informative content related to school life, teachers, and students. Our articles are written by experienced professionals and provide valuable insights into the world of education.

Whether you’re a student looking for advice or a teacher searching for new ideas, our website is a great resource for anyone interested in learning more about the school experience.

• Teachers Tote

Legal Pages

• Privacy Policy
• Terms of Use

Social Media

By continuing to browse the site you are agreeing to our use of cookies and similar tracking technologies described in our privacy policy .

Supporting Educators & Students

Teaching & learning.

As part of its broad-based teaching mission, the AHA develops and shares resources for educators and students. From regional teaching conferences and online programs to pathbreaking research projects, AHA initiatives foster a community grounded in our shared commitment to understanding the past. We support and convene people who share a love of history and historical thinking.

Resources for Educators & Students

K–12 Education

The AHA strives to ensure that every K–12 student has access to high quality history instruction. We create resources for the classroom, advise on state and federal policy, and advocate for the vital importance of history in public education.

Undergraduate Education

Teaching and learning are at the foundation of the AHA’s mission to promote historical thinking in public life. What do students learn in undergraduate history courses? How and why are history majors so successful in a variety of careers?

Graduate Education

Many historians will pursue graduate training at some stage in their career. To meet the needs of both students and graduate programs, the AHA creates resources, provides platforms, and convenes conversations about student success from application to completion.

For Academic Departments

History department chairs are on the front lines of the discipline, defending historians’ work and supporting their professional lives at all stages of their academic careers. The AHA strives to strengthen this work and provide resources and opportunities that make chairs’ work easier and valued. The AHA provides resources and hosts a variety of events and opportunities to benefit department chairs and build community, including webinars, sessions at the annual meeting, and an in-person workshop.

Current Events in Historical Context

Essential, carefully researched resources by historians providing context for conversations about current events.

Regional Conferences on Introductory History Courses

What do students learn in introductory history courses? How can historical thinking support student learning and success across the curriculum? Our regional conferences endeavor to strengthen the community of practice focused on introductory history courses, both in secondary and higher education.

Standards & Guidelines

June 10, 2024

Guidelines for Academic Tenure-Track Job Offers in History

June 9, 2024

Statement on Age Discrimination

Aha historical collections.

The AHA has made primary sources available for research purposes, along with AHA archival reports and documents.

Vetted Resources

Vetted Resources compiles in a central location materials and tools that have been professionally vetted by historians, offering instructors access to high-quality materials that meet professional standards

AHA Resource Library

June 20, 2024

16 Months to Sumter: Newspaper Editorials on the Path to Secession

June 16, 2024

The History of Racism and Racist Violence: International Contexts and Comparisons

The history of racism and racist violence: monuments and museums, join the aha.

The AHA brings together historians from all specializations and all work contexts, embracing the breadth and variety of activity in history today.

• Professional
• International

Select a product below:

• Connect Math Hosted by ALEKS
• My Bookshelf (eBook Access)

Sign in to Shop:

My Account Details

• My Information
• Security & Login
• Order History

Log In to My PreK-12 Platform

• AP/Honors & Electives
• my.mheducation.com
• Open Learning Platform

Log In to My Higher Ed Platform

• Connect Math Hosted by Aleks

Business and Economics

Accounting Business Communication Business Law Business Mathematics Business Statistics & Analytics Computer & Information Technology Decision Sciences & Operations Management Economics Finance Keyboarding Introduction to Business Insurance & Real Estate Management Information Systems Management Marketing

Humanities, Social Science and Language

American Government Anthropology Art Career Development Communication Criminal Justice Developmental English Education Film Composition Health and Human Performance

History Humanities Music Philosophy and Religion Psychology Sociology Student Success Theater World Languages

Science, Engineering and Math

Agriculture & Forestry Anatomy & Physiology Astronomy & Physical Science Biology - Majors Biology - Non-Majors Chemistry Cell/Molecular Biology & Genetics Earth & Environmental Science Ecology Engineering/Computer Science Engineering Technologies - Trade & Tech Health Professions Mathematics Microbiology Nutrition Physics Plants & Animals

Digital Products

Connect® Course management ,  reporting , and  student learning  tools backed by  great support .

McGraw Hill GO Greenlight learning with the new eBook+

ALEKS® Personalize learning and assessment

ALEKS® Placement, Preparation, and Learning Achieve accurate math placement

SIMnet Ignite mastery of MS Office and IT skills

McGraw Hill eBook & ReadAnywhere App Get learning that fits anytime, anywhere

Sharpen: Study App A reliable study app for students

Virtual Labs Flexible, realistic science simulations

Inclusive Access Reduce costs and increase success

LMS Integration Log in and sync up

Math Placement Achieve accurate math placement

Content Collections powered by Create® Curate and deliver your ideal content

Custom Courseware Solutions Teach your course your way

Professional Services Collaborate to optimize outcomes

Remote Proctoring Validate online exams even offsite

Institutional Solutions Increase engagement, lower costs, and improve access for your students

General Help & Support Info Customer Service & Tech Support contact information

Online Technical Support Center FAQs, articles, chat, email or phone support

Support At Every Step Instructor tools, training and resources for ALEKS , Connect & SIMnet

Instructor Sample Requests Get step by step instructions for requesting an evaluation, exam, or desk copy

Platform System Check System status in real time

McGraw Hill Education offers instructors and students a rich selection of digital courseware, finance textbooks, and step-by-step support to accommodate your needs.

Education Products by Course

• Administration and Supervision - Education
• Curriculum and Instruction
• Early Childhood Education
• Educational Psychology
• Foundations of Education
• Special Educational Needs/Inclusion
• Technology in Education

Find your rep.

Smarter Software. Bigger Breakthroughs.

Education for all: what it takes to get there., education features.

A digital learning environment that saves instructors time and provides personalized adaptive resources that help students raise their grades, Connect is a single destination for all course content. Connect is available with all Education titles.

Connect Reports

Available within Connect, SmartBook personalizes learning to individual student needs, continually adapting to pinpoint knowledge gaps and focus learning on concepts requiring additional study. For instructors, SmartBook tracks student progress and provides insights that guide teaching strategies and advanced instruction, for a more dynamic class experience.

Save time and gain student insights. Connect provides customizable reports on student performance, learning outcomes, at-risk students, and integrates easily with LMS gradebooks.

Tegrity is a video capture and remote proctoring solution available within Connect that drives student engagement in traditional, flipped, hybrid, or fully online courses.

Featured Education Textbooks

The NEA Faces an Unexpected Labor Adversary—Its Own Staff Union

• Share article

Staff for the nation’s largest teachers’ union picketed at the organization’s Washington headquarters Thursday, striking for the first time in decades over what they say are unfair labor practices.

Outside of the National Education Association’s building on the city’s busy 16th Street thoroughfare, staff members marched with signs reading “Uphold union values” and “NEA: practice what you preach.” Other staffers made runs supplying snacks and water in the sweltering heat; staffers had organized shifts to keep the strike on pace until 5 p.m.

The one-day work stoppage comes ahead of the NEA’s upcoming Representative Assembly, which will draw thousands of union members to Philadelphia over the Fourth of July weekend to vote on the union’s budget and priorities for 2024-25.

It is rare that disagreements between the union and its own staff rise to a strike—in part because of the public relations nightmare it presents—and it’s the first time NEA union staff have walked off the job in 50 years.

NEA Staff Organization President Robin McLean said the national teachers’ union was failing to protect its own staff and follow labor law. The organization filed an unfair labor practice charge with the National Labor Relations Board earlier this week, alleging that a manager physically assaulted a staffer and later retaliated after the staff member reported the assault. It also claimed the NEA has unilaterally changed working conditions without bargaining them.

“NEA’s actions shock the conscience, and NEA members should question how NEA lives up to its union values at its headquarters,” McLean said in a statement.

A spokesperson for the NEA said that it “is fully committed to and respects the bargaining process.” It rejected the staff’s accusations of unfair practices, saying it had not been notified or cited by the National Labor Relations Board for the staff organization’s allegations.

Typically, when the NLRB receives a charge of an unfair labor practice, its agents gather evidence and take statements from the parties, which can take months. An upheld charge can result in a settlement, or a complaint adjudicated by an administrative law judge. The labor relations board did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

“NEA has engaged in negotiations in good faith, and continues to apply a solutions-based approach to resolve any outstanding issues in a manner that addresses articulated priorities of NEASO while also balancing the strategic priorities of NEA and its members,” the NEA said in a statement.

The union employs about 500 staff members at its headquarters; about 350 are NEASO members, a staff union spokesperson said. NEASO is one of three bargaining units at NEA. The walkout covered employees working in three of the union’s internal divisions: communications, conference and facilities management, and the center for professional excellence, which handles issues like teacher quality.

Tensions within the union include wages and discipline

It’s not the first time negotiations between the national union and its staff members have reached a boiling point. The staff organization has voted several times in recent years to authorize a strike. In the most recent vote, in April, 97 percent of the staff bargaining unit voted to authorize one, a spokesperson for the staff union said.

A strike authorization is a step towards an actual strike, though this is the first time the union has stopped work after its vote since 1971.

The staff organization’s contract, which is renewed every three years, expired at the end of May. It covers measures like salaries, health care benefits, retirement policy, and healthy working environments.

The one-day stoppage is limited to NEASO’s claim of unfair labor practices—it does not directly concern negotiations over the expired contract. But the two issues are linked: The contract contained a labor peace clause preventing work stoppages, which is no longer in force until a new contract is inked, NEASO representatives said.

Another expired clause gave managers latitude over working conditions, such as how offices are assigned; that is no longer in force, either, and it’s the basis of the NEASO’s claim that the union is violating labor law by failing to bargain over material changes in working conditions, a spokesperson said.

The staff organization declined to extend the current contract while it negotiated its next, according to the NEA.

Sticking points in contract negotiations, representatives of the staff union say, include wages, working conditions, and discipline.

Assistant Managing Editor Stephen Sawchuk reported from Washington.

Sign Up for EdWeek Update

Edweek top school jobs.

Sign Up & Sign In

Misguided Tennessee policies, not students, are root of classroom discipline problems, report says

Sign up for Chalkbeat Tennessee’s free daily newsletter to keep up with statewide education policy and Memphis-Shelby County Schools.

Tennessee schools are increasingly punishing and excluding special education students with behavioral issues instead of providing them with evidence-based interventions to support their academic and behavioral growth, a new report says.

And it’s not the fault of teachers, school staff, or the students themselves, the author says.

In its report , released Friday, the Tennessee Disability Coalition blamed state policymakers for setting priorities and adopting policies that are ineffective at best, and likely harming thousands of the state’s most vulnerable students.

As a result, the coalition says, educators are using “ineffective, dangerous, counter-productive, and rights-violating practices” in the classroom.

The criticisms come after Tennessee enacted a string of increasingly stringent laws aimed at tightening discipline in the classroom — from the 2021 Teacher’s Discipline Act empowering teachers to remove chronically unruly students to a 2024 law requiring a one-year suspension for students who assault teachers at school.

Such policies, the report says, disproportionately affect students with disabilities, particularly those with behavioral issues, thereby restricting their educational opportunities.

“These policies not only sweep students with behavior needs into more restrictive settings, alternative school placements, and the juvenile justice system, they cast a net over other marginalized communities, including students of color and students in poverty,” the report says.

Jeff Strand, the coalition’s public policy director, said recent Tennessee laws also show a lack of understanding about special-needs students with behavioral challenges, leading to policies that are poorly suited to address the root causes of disciplinary issues.

“Good teachers know behavior issues are a child’s cry for help,” said Strand, a former special educator who authored the report. “What we’re doing in Tennessee is only making the problem worse.”

Specifically, the report calls out a shortage and high turnover of special education teachers; systemic gaps in training and support for special and general education teachers and administrators on the needs of students with behavior issues; a trend toward punitive and exclusionary practices; and a lack of student access to effective school-based supports and therapies, including enough school psychologists, counselors, speech-language pathologists, and board-certified behavior analysts.

Families say educators are under-trained and overwhelmed

Chris and Angela Powell’s family has experienced gaps in school services firsthand as parents of a child with autism and ADHD.

They describe their son Charlie as intelligent, caring, and kind. But his behaviors — whether shouting out answers, failing to complete worksheets, or fighting — often resulted in lost recess, hours in the principal’s office, or even being physically restrained or placed in a padded room during his first few years of elementary school in Williamson County, south of Nashville.

“These are invisible disabilities, and his behavior was his form of communicating. But he was being excluded and punished based on his disability,” said Angela Powell, now a special-needs advocate . “His general education teachers didn’t seem to understand how to work with children who have needs like ADHD or autism.”

Keep learning.

Get the latest news on Memphis-Shelby County Schools and education policy across Tennessee delivered to your inbox for free every weekday morning.

By signing up, you agree to our Privacy Notice and European users agree to the data transfer policy. You may also receive occasional messages from sponsors .

The Powells say Williamson County’s two school districts lacked qualified therapists and other specialized support staff, leaving teachers with few tools to tackle classroom misbehavior. Charlie eventually was placed on homebound instruction, receiving his lessons in a home setting and missing out on the opportunity to attend school with his non-disabled peers. Now 12, he is being homeschooled.

“If the richest district in Tennessee can’t help my son learn,” said Chris Powell, “I shudder to think what families deal with in the other 94 counties.”

Meanwhile, the report identified only three of the state’s 10 largest teacher training programs — at the University of Memphis, University of Tennessee-Knoxville, and University of Tennessee-Chattanooga — as offering more than two courses on teaching students with disabilities.

Also, while the state recently switched to a new K-12 education funding formula to provide more resources for students with higher needs, such as students with disabilities, the change did not require that districts designate such extra funds for special education services.

And while the state promised to inject an extra $1 billion annually in the K-12 funding pool, Tennessee remains in the bottom fifth of states in per-pupil funding.

Exclusion policies gave way to inclusion movement

Tennessee was once one of the many states that had laws formally excluding children with disabilities from public schools, on the premise that those kids would not benefit from a public school education. Before the passage of a 1975 federal law establishing the right to a public education for kids with disabilities, only 1 in 5 of those children were educated in public schools.

The expanded Individuals with Disabilities Education Act of 1990 marked the advent of the inclusion movement and the belief that children with disabilities, with some individualized support, can thrive in educational settings with their non-disabled peers.

But despite clear research on the benefits of inclusion for students with disabilities, surveys show general education teachers feel ill-prepared to work with them and struggle especially with special needs students with behavioral issues.

In Tennessee, about a tenth of the state’s public school students use an individualized education plan, or IEP, intended to ensure that the student receives specialized instruction and related services for their disability.

But according to data from the state education department, those same students receive a disproportionate share of formal disciplinary actions that include in-school and out-of-school suspension, expulsion, and transfer to alternative settings. In 2021-22, the most recent school year for which data are available, 12.5% of students with disabilities were removed from their classrooms, even though federal law limits excessive exclusionary discipline.

In addition, informal exclusionary disciplinary practices — which are difficult to quantify — are almost exclusively directed toward students with disabilities, the coalition says. They can include directing parents or guardians to take the student home for the day, inappropriate homebound placement, excessive use of threat assessments, inappropriate use of in-school suspension, and exclusion from school transportation.

Pending review of the report, a spokesperson for the state education department declined to comment on its assertions.

The leader of Professional Educators of Tennessee, which lobbied for the Teacher’s Discipline Act, acknowledged the challenges and nuances of disciplining students, especially those with special needs.

“We have seen since the pandemic an increase in mental health issues. That is why we at Professional Educators of Tennessee have worked hard to get additional funding for mental health in Tennessee,” said Executive Director JC Bowman.

He added that he’s open to new ideas that “ensure classrooms are safe and orderly, and every child has an opportunity to learn.”

The state comptroller is looking into the “informal removal” issue, also called “off-book suspensions.” Its Office of Research and Education Accountability has commissioned a report, which is expected to be released later this year, to better understand the use of informal removal, which often violates the rights of students with an IEP.

Strand says both pathways — formal and informal — can allow schools to avoid developing effective plans to correct bad behavior so they can stay in class and learn.

He recommends that Tennessee parents learn as much as they can about the rights of children with disabilities, including those with behavioral issues.

The coalition is hosting a free webinar at 5:30 p.m. Central time on Tuesday, June 25, on Facebook.

Marta Aldrich is a senior correspondent and covers the statehouse for Chalkbeat Tennessee. Contact her at [email protected] .

The new study from the University of Chicago Consortium on School Research comes ahead of a July school board vote to remove police from all schools.

As ESSER money expires, new research suggests that pandemic dollars helped academic recovery, but a lot more will be needed for a full recovery.

St. Isidore, a virtual charter school, would teach Catholic doctrine and require attendance at mass. School leaders say they are considering their next legal steps.

If the city doesn’t allocate additional funding, officials “will have an all out war with parents, teachers, and the Albany legislature,” the teachers union warned.

Board of education members approved the appointment of four district employees to executive leadership roles and hired a new communications director.

As NYC closes the books on a school year marked by curriculum changes, political strife, and budget woes, we’re already looking ahead to the first day of school on Sept. 7.

The Use of Robotics and Simulators in the Education Environment

Advances in technology continue to push the envelope in healthcare, travel, communication and education. The use of robotic and simulation technologies have proven themselves to be worthy components of available educational resources. These technologies use in the education environment have shown their value in everyday learning and in the specialized education of students with disabilities.

Robotics and Simulators in Education

The use of robotics has allowed complicated medical procedures to be simplified, the work of dangerous construction projects to be safer and the discovery of our universe to be possible. When applied to education, robotics and simulators can change the way students learn and ultimately create a more knowledgeable and well-adjusted student.

Elementary and High School Education

• Robotics – Robots can be used to bring students into the classroom that otherwise might not be able to attend. In New York, a second grader with severe, life-threatening allergies was unable to attend school due to his condition. A four-foot-tall robot provided a ‘real school’ experience for the boy, ‘attending’ school and bringing the boy with him via an internal video conferencing system. Robots such as the one mentioned are able to ‘bring school’ to students who cannot be present physically.
• Simulators – High school sees the strongest example of simulators within drivers’ education courses. Simulators provide a true-to-life experience while removing any real dangers or risk from scenarios. In drivers’ education, students can experience the feeling of being behind the wheel without ever leaving the safety of the classroom. Simulators offer a chance for ‘what if’ scenarios, which can better prepare student drivers for real-life hazards and obstacles on the roadway.

Higher Education

• Robotics – Many careers require specialized knowledge in delicate practices, specifically in the realm of healthcare. When receiving a medical education, many students find benefits in the use of robotics. When learning to perform complicated medical procedures, a human subject isn’t feasible, so educators are employing the use of robots as stand-ins. Robots can be created and programmed to give off all indications of human life, including breath and heartbeat. Their use can also be seen in such procedures as injections, surgeries and even delivering children.
• Simulators – Simulation technology is utilized in a variety of college degree focuses, offering 360 degree real-life scenarios and 3D projections of real experiences. In addition to providing medical students with the means for thorough exploration of the human body, simulators also provide exceptional methods of crisis and disaster training for emergency response and law enforcement trainees. These types of all-encompassing simulators offer a choice and response technology, requiring officers to make split-second decisions and immediately see the ramifications of their actions. These types of scenarios can include violent altercations or behind-the-wheel high-speed chases.

Special Education

• Robotics – Students with special requirements are reaching new levels of learning through the use of robotics in the classroom. With these technologies children with autism are learning communication and social skills and students with developmental issues and attention disorders are learning focus. Individuals with severe physical disabilities are also offered a constant companion and health monitoring system – all through the use of robotics. Robots can be programmed to suit each individual child’s need, offering special education in a much simpler, accessible format.
• Simulators – Simulators are able to offer students with special needs an introduction to real-world scenarios in a non-threatening environment. Everyday lessons can be taught at a comfortable pace, including subjects ranging from basic self-care to stay-safe techniques in emergency situations. Simulators have also provided a way for special education educators to see the world from their students’ perspectives, including hearing-impaired or blind simulations.

Assistive technology is growing, and the abilities it provides to special education students are limitless. Simulation and robotics technologies offer a range of possibilities within education, with a helpful solution for every student’s learning needs. As the technological world unveils new innovations daily, the educational world will continue to benefit from the opportunities offered with these groundbreaking tools.

You can help shape the influence of technology in education with an Online Master of Science in Education in Learning Design and Technology from Purdue University Online. This accredited program offers studies in exciting new technologies that are shaping education and offers students the opportunity to take part in the future of innovation.

Learn more about the online MSEd in Learning Design and Technology at Purdue University today and help redefine the way in which individuals learn. Call (877) 497-5851 to speak with an admissions advisor or request more information.

Recommended

Nyc launching new learning tool to help kids conquer ‘fear of math’ in public schools next fall.

• View Author Archive
• Get author RSS feed

Thanks for contacting us. We've received your submission.

The Big Apple is trying out a new equation to help boost sagging math scores.

City officials unveiled a new public school math curriculum Monday aimed at helping students overcome their “fear of math” by emphasizing open-ended discussions.

“Students develop a fear of math from the earliest grades, and we have kids who will say, ‘I’m not a math person… but even worse than that we have teachers who say ‘I’m not a math person,’” Schools Chancellor David Banks said.

“We’ve got to turn this around.”

Starting in the fall, the initiative known as “NYC Solves” will have nearly all of the city’s more than 400 high schools and 93 of its 600 middle schools adopt a standardized “Illustrative Math curriculum.”

The curriculum differs from traditional mathematical learning by emphasizing classroom discussions of problems, so kids understand concepts, over technical terms and step-by-step equations.

It builds off the “NYC Reads,” the sweeping, phonics-based overhaul of elementary literacy instruction rolled out in half of city school districts by Mayor Eric Adams’ administration last May .

“With ‘NYC Solves,’ our classrooms will be focused on deeply understanding math concepts, connecting these concepts to each other, and applying these concepts to the real world,” Banks told reporters from the Samara Community School in the Bronx.

He noted that half of students in grades 3-8 were not proficient in math in 2023 — and that was an improvement from the prior year.

“And nearly 66% of black students and approximately 64% of Latino students scored below proficiency,” Banks added. “I don’t know about you, but I think that is wholly unacceptable.”

The troubling trend has persisted into high school, with 42% of students not passing the Algebra 1 Regents exam by the end of the ninth grade last year, Banks said.

Get all the stories that move New York to your inbox

Sign up for our Metro Daily newsletter!

Thanks for signing up!

Please provide a valid email address.

By clicking above you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy .

Never miss a story.

The mayor drew on his personal experience as someone who “suffers from dyslexia,” saying he can empathize with struggling students.

“But the equation we’re announcing today is simple: When you take good policy and multiply it by hard work, the net result will always be positive,” Adams said.

The new uniform math curriculum — which is expected to cost the city $32 million over five years — has already rolled out to high schools for algebra instruction.

One teacher who participated in the pilot program called it “the most difficult year of my career.”

The teacher, who asked to remain anonymous, noted that students who don’t already have a certain understanding of math concepts had a hard time catching on, as did those who faced language barriers.

“Students who are English language learners struggle … Also, any kid coming in lacking prerequisite skills suffers because those skills aren’t covered,” the source said.

City officials on Monday also unveiled a new division to support multilingual learners and students with disabilities.

The Division of Inclusive and Accessible Learning (DIAL) comes as the city grapples with an influx of 38,000 migrant students into the school system.

Deputy Chancellor Christina Foti — who has been promoted to chief of special education — will be at the helm of the division of 1,300 staffers, with a $750 million budget.

Share this article:

Advertisement