The term discipline is used to describe types of knowledge, expertise, skills, people, projects, communities, problems, challenges, studies, inquiry, approaches, and research areas that are strongly associated with academic areas of study (academic disciplines) or areas of professional practice (profession) (Chettiparamb, 2007a). The term discipline can also be seen as a lens through which a phenomenon is examined. Each discipline affords the learner different viewpoints and a potentially different set of learning tools as well as subject matter material to be explored (Moss, Osborn, & Kaufman, 2008).
One impetus for the emergence of disciplines is the natural tendency of human beings to separate, classify and conceptualise the surroundings. For example, the phenomenon of gravitation is strongly associated with academic discipline of physics, and so gravitation is considered to be part of the disciplinary knowledge of physics (Chettiparamb 2007a).
43 However, the term ‘discipline’ is defined differently in different contexts. For example, within the engineering profession, the term ‘engineering discipline’ is often used to denote specialties such as electrical engineering, civil engineering and mechanical engineering. Within the discourse of curriculum development in higher education, on the other hand, the term often refers to the various academic disciplines that contribute to a course. In the case of engineering, this includes mathematics, basic sciences such as physics and chemistry, and engineering disciplines such as electronic engineering, electrical engineering, mechanical engineering, civil engineering, mining engineering and computer science engineering.
The notion of a discipline suggests boundaries around a body of knowledge. But these boundaries are, to a degree, arbitrary and many activities in real life necessarily cross these boundaries. For this reason, the emphasis in PBL on ‘real life’ professional problems means that crossing boundaries between academic disciplines is a characteristic of PBL. Many terms are used to describe when disciplines merge or the boundaries of existing disciplines are crossed. The most common are multi- disciplinary, inter-disciplinary, trans-disciplinary and cross-disciplinary.
2.6.2 Inter-disciplinary knowledge
Inter-disciplinary knowledge refers to new knowledge extensions that exist between or beyond existing academic disciplines or professions (Strathern, 2004). The new knowledge may be claimed by members of none, one, both or an emerging new academic discipline or profession, although it emerged as “bureaucratic shorthand” for research involving two or more professional societies (Chettiparamb, 2007b). Chettiparamb (2007b) also pointed out that the arguments for inter-disciplinarity comprise of two threads: normative; that is, filling the gap role of inter-disciplinarity, and phenomenological, which originated from observations of practice. She argued that inter-disciplinarity already exists within disciplines and quietly flourishes within. In some jurisdictions, interdisciplinary curriculum is explicitly described. For example, The Victorian Curriculum and Assessment Authority, has developed and implemented a common curriculum standard called “Victorian Essential Learning Standards (VELS)” across all schools from Prep to Year 10 in Victoria, Australia (Victorian Curriculum and Assessment Authority., 2008). VELS consists of three core
44 and interrelated strands for the Prep to Year 10 curriculum. Each strand has a number of domains which describe the essential knowledge, skills and behaviours students need to prepare for further education, work and life. The domains include the standards, organised by dimension, by which student achievement and progress is measured.
Inter-disciplinary learning is one of the three strands identified in VELS along with discipline-based learning and physical, personal and social learning. The domains of inter-disciplinary learning include learning communication; that is, listening, viewing, responding and presenting; design creativity and technology; that is, investigating, designing, producing, analysing and evaluating; information and communications technology; that is, ICT for visualising thinking, ICT for creating, ICT for communicating; and thinking processes; that is, reasoning, processing and inquiry, creativity, reflection, evaluation and meta-cognition.
2.6.3 Multi-disciplinary knowledge
Multi-disciplinary knowledge refers to the knowledge associated with more than one existing academic discipline or profession (Cupach & Spitzberg, 2004). People from different disciplines or professions work together in a multi-disciplinary team as equal stakeholders to address a common challenge (Fagin, 1995). However, Chettiparamb (2007b) notes that multi-disciplinarity may be seen as a juxtaposition of various disciplines, sometimes with no apparent connection between them, for example, music + mathematics + history.
2.6.4 Trans-disciplinary knowledge
Trans-disciplinary knowledge refers to knowledge that exists in every individual, thus eliminating the need for discipline boundaries. Trans-disciplinarity removes the notion that certain content matter is necessarily owned by any particular discipline. Trans-disciplinarity allows for viewing a problem from multiple perspectives and understanding it more fully than if it were observed from a single vantage point. This understanding inevitably leads to content learning and in the process of using the disciplines in the same ways that a discipline expert would use them to view the world, students and teachers learn the content that attracted subject-area scholars to the discipline in the first place (Moss et al., 2008).
45
2.6.5 Cross-disciplinary knowledge
Cross-disciplinary knowledge refers to knowledge that explains aspects of one discipline in terms of another. Common examples of cross-disciplinary approaches are studies of the physics of music or the politics of literature. The term “cross- disciplinarity” is frequently used in the psychology literature to describe any method, project or research activity that examines a subject outside the scope of its own discipline without co-operation or integration from other relevant disciplines (Strandburg & Raicu, 2006). It is clear that foreign methods of unrelated disciplines are used to benefit inquiry from the inclusion of other perspectives. Many research focus on the cultural impact of a discipline in the real world (Coiro, 2008; Tyler, 1994).
By this definition, cross-disciplinarity is distinctly different from inter-disciplinarity because of the relationship that the disciplines share. Within a cross-disciplinary relationship, disciplinary boundaries are crossed but no techniques or ideals are exchanged while inter-disciplinary relationships combine the practices and assumptions of each discipline involved. An example is the combination of media and politics.
Of these terms, cross-disciplinary is used very differently in different contexts, often being used as a synonym for multi-disciplinary or inter-disciplinary. For example, in the health professional education setting, cross-disciplinary learning is widely used for the clustering of inter-disciplinary perspectives on health, illness and medicine. This term is also used to represent the collaboration between specialities to pursue knowledge about complaints that are common or intertwined between two or more specialities (disciplines) for example, obstetrics and internal medicine. Occasionally, it also used to imply a blend of disciplines that are significant to the ethical practice of medicine including law, sociology, philosophy and psychology (Brannigan, 2001).
2.6.6 Cross-disciplinarity and Engineering
Integration in engineering has many facets, and can be expressed in many ways: the integration of engineering research and development, of design and manufacturing; the closer interplay of universities and industry; the greater exposure of engineering students to practical, hands-on, apprenticeship aspects of education. However, it is
46 argued that the underlying theme can be narrowed down to the need for a new cross- disciplinary approach to solve complex engineering problems as long-established individual disciplines of engineering such as civil, mechanical, electrical alone are not always suited to the complex nature of the problem (Cross-disciplinary Engineering Research Committee, 1986).
In the engineering literature, cross-disciplinarity is also used when referring to a systems approach or systems thinking. A systems approach to problem-solving refers not just to systems engineering, but to the need for attention to the systems aspects of the engineering enterprise and its products, and for optimizing the overall process by considering every element, looking for tradeoffs, incorporating diverse kinds of expertise, taking the broadest possible view (Skyttner, 1996). This not only suggests an understanding of other engineering disciplines but an understanding of disciplines outside of engineering so that the socio-political context of the problem is appreciated.
2.6.7 Conditions that help fostering cross-disciplinary learning
It is often claimed in the PBL literature that PBL develops cross-disciplinary knowledge that helps professionals expand their scope of knowledge and skills beyond the confines of their own professional disciplines (Streichert et al., 2005). It is claimed that knowledge of cross-disciplinary resources and learning to apply cross- disciplinary skills help to enhance preparedness to approach ideas or methods from other disciplines in difficult and often unusual situations. The notion of discipline here is that of the engineering discipline or specialty rather than the academic discipline. A common idea that emerges from the literature of cross-disciplinarity is seeing beyond what appears to be isolated and independent problems or incidents to gain a deeper and holistic understanding. Biggs (2003) noted this as functioning knowledge, which is within the experience of a learner who integrates declarative, procedural and conditional knowledge to solve problems, design buildings or perform surgery. PBL in engineering, on the other hand, has the potential to integrate disciplines in several ways. PBL problems often require the integration of several academic disciplines so they are cross-disciplinary in the academic sense. PBL can also support the development of the functioning knowledge referred to above by putting academic declarative knowledge to work. PBL can also require a consideration of the socio-
47 political context of problems, so it may be cross-disciplinary in the sense of incorporating disciplines outside of engineering. Finally, PBL problems in engineering may involve more than one engineering discipline or specialty so they may cross boundaries in this sense.
The challenge for PBL designers and PBL practitioners is to realise this potential. The PBL literature is limited in terms of specific guidance in this area. How can we design a curriculum that encourages students to integrate academic disciplines? How can we design a curriculum that encourages students to put their academic knowledge to work? How can we convince students that an understanding of the socio-political context is essential for engineers? How can we foster cross-disciplinary conversations among students especially when they have already decided their speciality?
There are some very general answers to questions such as these. Most approaches that emphasise cross-disciplinary learning are based on active learning strategies and are designed to promote higher-order creative and critical thinking skills. These strategies include collaborative and co-operative learning (Hmelo-Silver, 2002), creative learning, inventive learning (Tornkvist, 1998), reflective learning (Uden & Beaumont, 2006), writing and mathematics across the curriculum, transformative learning (Schoner, Gorbet, Taylor, & Spencer, 2007) and methods of assessment that are multi-dimensional, including quantitative and qualitative measures, normed measures and self assessments (University of New South Wales, 2007).
A legendary approach suggested to manage knowledge across disciplines is to cultivate a community of practice (Lave & Wenger, 1991; Wenger, McDermott, & Snyder, 2002). The use of information and communication technology is also encouraged to enhance learner interactions across disciplines (Wenger, Huysman, & Wulf, 2003).
Many universities in Australia and around the world have started to adopt a common first year model in engineering to foster cross-disciplinary learning. As students learn about a range of disciplines and not just specialise in one area, they become exposed to the breadth of engineering as well as the application of engineering in servicing the community.
48 A problem-based or project-based approach can support cross-disciplinary learning along with the development of a strong disciplinary knowledge base. However, it depends on the use of problems to create a situation where students must confront and resolve real, cross-disciplinary situations. If the solution path is not immediately obvious and the disciplinary domains that might be applicable are not within a single domain students will tend to broaden their perspective and liberate creative ideas while working on the problem (OECD, 2003).