Introduction

There is a well-recognized need to have social structures and human elements considered in the design and deployment of technological advancements. Otherwise known as socio-technical approaches, the increasing complexity of challenges facing society requires organizational structures and a workforce that are prepared to engage in innovation that understands human factors and community based needs (United Nations General Assembly, 2015). As institutions look to produce graduates with competencies that will allow them to jointly respond to the socio-technical implications of complex problems, bringing science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) and Non-STEM students together to collaboratively engage in curricular experiences has become a 21st century imperative (World Economic Forum, 2018). Given the historic discipline-centric design of higher education, institutions have had to rethink the design and implementation of curricular efforts. Moreover, they have had to consider redesigning at scale, beyond course-based approaches, as they to look prepare undergraduates for the workforce (Boyer Commission on Educating Undergraduates in the Research University, 1998; Kenny et al., 2001; Crow & Dabars, 2015; VIP Consortium, n.d.).

Conceptual Framework

Complex thinking skills are conceptualized as higher order processing skills along the learning continuum identified in Bloom’s Taxonomy (Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001). These are defined as the ability to demonstrate critical thinking, problem solving, conflict resolution, and moral and ethical reasoning. Additionally, these skills include the ability to make connections across technical and social contexts and cross-cultural competencies. These skills allow students to work with ill defined problems and with abstract content that may not have a specific correct answer (Grohs et al., 2018; Seifert & Sutton, 2019). Acquiring these skills allow students to apply them to a wide variety of situations beyond the immediate learning environment and further facilitates the acquisition of new knowledge and novel solutions. Complex thinking skills also allow students to collaborate with individuals in diverse socio-cultural contexts. Ideally, students with complex thinking skills have the ability to simultaneously consider multiple technical and contextual aspects of a given situation and communicate that information to a variety of stakeholders (Gibbs, 2003).

As higher education institutions look to develop graduates with complex thinking skills recent literature has highlighted the need for transdisciplinary approaches to facilitate learning opportunities for students (Institute for the Future, 2022; Kauffman et al., 2003; McGregor, 2017). The ultimate goal of transdisciplinary approaches is to advance complex thinking skills among students in a manner that allows them to utilize disciplinary depth, draw upon awareness of content from other disciplines and where it can be applied, have mastery and understanding of multiple disciplinary approaches to problem solving, and recognize the need to involve community stakeholders in the problem identification and solution (Clarke & Ashburst, 2018; Grohs et al., 2018; Van Merriënboer et al., 2003).

One step towards transdisciplinary learning goals is to use integrative and problem-based learning to advance students’ complex thinking skills (Selznick, 2019). Integrated learning typically involves intentionally designed learning experiences that create connections across STEM and non-STEM disciplines. Students gain mastery in a specific disciplinary field and also have opportunities to gain a broad understanding of other disciplinary methods, approaches, and concepts (Barber, 2020; Miller, 2005). Most universities have a general education requirement for their students that is designed to provide exposure to ideas and approaches outside of their primary major. Integrated learning experiences are distinguished from a general education approach by the manner in which they are designed to allow students to apply content and knowledge from their own field of study while simultaneously providing students opportunities to learn from other disciplinary areas and apply new content and approaches. Integrative approaches are designed to engage student directly in learning that does not prioritize one discipline over another. Integrated learning experiences are typically hands-on, problem-based learning experiences that require collaboration between learners (YounGerman & Culver, 2019). Other pedagogical models emphasize the importance of including community engagement through service learning to advance student learning outcomes in integrative coursework (Culhane et al., 2018). These models suggest that direct interaction with community members who are grappling with socio-technical problems can advance student learning and skills needed to contribute innovative solutions in future work place settings (Gupta, 2006). These community-engaged learning experiences also provide authentic examples of where transdisciplinary skills are needed to produce viable solutions and the learning environment can be structured where students develop these skills while mentored by faculty and community partners.

Research indicates that students that have integrated learning experiences develop complex thinking skills. For example, studies have shown that integrative learning allows them to understand and adapt different theories as well as abilities that allow them to reflect, apply, and contextualize what they are learning to new situations (Rhodes & Finley, 2013; YounGerman et al., 2021). In addition, studies have also identified secondary outcomes that result from student engagement in integrative learning, especially those conducted in team-based environments (Ranly et al., 2019). This includes improved written and oral communication skills, more expansive content knowledge, increased ability to solve problems by considering multiple factors, improved team collaboration skills, and capabilities that allows students to apply knowledge to solve real-world challenges (National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, 2018). Exposing students to integrated learning can broaden students’ perceptions of how work is accomplished in particular fields by increased understanding of approaches to problem solving (Foutz et al., 2015).

The literature demonstrates that problem-based learning using integrative and transdisciplinary approaches that involves community engagement can result in achievement of important learning outcomes (Biberhofer & Rammel, 2017). In some cases, transdisciplinary experiences that involve direct community engagement have been shown via alumni surveys and post-course evaluations to have long-standing impact on students’ perspectives on the importance of community based work as they move into their full-time careers (Kostell et al., 2021; Schuetze et al., 2019). Other studies document how community engagement can provide students with a deeper understanding of the complexity of issues as well as provide them with improved cultural competencies (Rooks, D., & Winkler, 2012).

While the literature provides numerous approaches to achieving complex thinking skills, to date many of these approaches lack widespread systemic impact. Efforts tend to be course based, allowing for a singular experience, or involve students self-selecting a specific major that is interdisciplinary in design (Budwig & Alexander, 2020; Remington-Doucette et al., 2013). Studies are limited but interventions have also been shown to benefit majors differentially based on the desired outcome of the integrative learning context (Selznick et al., 2022).

Since most studies have been conducted at the course level and focus on a specific theme or complex problem (i.e., sustainability, homelessness), little is known about the efficacy of university level transdisciplinary curricular efforts as it relates to development of complex thinking skills and whether these learning environments provide for similar benefits across student majors. This study was designed to address this gap in the literature by examining whether a multi-themed university level transdisciplinary learning initiative that was designed to advance undergraduate students’ complex thinking skills through integrated learning approaches was achieving desired goals.

Research Questions

What are students’ learning experiences in transdisciplinary courses that are intentionally designed to advance complex thinking skills and are there differences between STEM and non-STEM majors?

What impact do transdisciplinary courses that are intentionally designed to advance complex thinking skills have on students’ perceptions of preparedness to address socio-technical challenges and are there differences between STEM and non-STEM majors?

To what extent do students demonstrate complex thinking skills after participating in transdisciplinary courses designed to develop these skills and are there differences between STEM and non-STEM majors?

Background on Courses

This study was conducted at a Research I university that involved development of transdisciplinary minors by teams of faculty members representing STEM and non-STEM disciplines. The minors were designed to be offered to all undergraduates, with a focus on exposing non-STEM students to technical areas. The goal of the university wide effort was to advance complex thinking skills that are becoming increasingly attractive to employers. In order to achieve this goal, the university charged several working groups that involved teams of faculty members representing STEM and non-STEM disciplines to create a series of minors that focused on themes that were related to complex socio-technical challenges. Each minor was designed so that the introductory course for the minor would intentionally expose students to elements and content knowledge of the socio-technical thematic area, provide exposure to different disciplinary knowledge associated with that thematic area, and address initial approaches to problem solving based used by disciplinary areas. The introductory course was also intended to provide students with an understanding of how different communities are impacted by the socio-technical challenge. Following the common introductory course students could choose from a series of electives that were intended to provide disciplinary depth related to the socio-technical thematic area. Each minor had a final, common capstone course. The capstone course was intended to allow for direct application of the transdisciplinary approaches provided in the introductory course as well as the disciplinary depth garnered from the electives.

From a pedagogical perspective faculty were encouraged to consider utilizing real world problem-based approaches, team-based collaboration pairing STEM and non-STEM students together, and engagement with community stakeholders through experiential learning opportunities across the entire sequence of courses, especially in the introductory course and capstone course. A faculty led course peer review process was used to ensure that each course had elements of these approaches embedded in their course.

In total six minors were developed at the time of this study. The focus of each minor is outlined in the table below. This study focuses on the courses that were linked to the minors that are part of this effort.

Table 1 Overview of Transdisciplinary Learning Initiatives by Undergraduate Minor
Full size table

Methodology

When conducting educational research to explore the research questions framing this study we examined both student perceptions and student learning outcomes (Gall et al., 1996). A mixed methods approach was used to collect and analyze data related to these two elements. For this mixed methods study a concurrent triangulation strategy was used in order to examine factors from an inductive and deductive perspective. Qualitative and quantitative data were collected concurrently, equal priority was given to both methods. This approach is valuable in that using both methods can provide a more comprehensive picture of students’ perceptions as well as their demonstration of complex thinking skills. The results were then integrated during the data analysis (Creswell, 2009).

The quantitative approach included an online survey with Likert scaled items. The qualitative approach included open-ended survey questions. Additionally, a direct assessment of student performance was used through administration and quantitative analysis of student responses to a problem-based scenario. Recent work suggests that complementing research and evaluation efforts with more direct measures of assessment could be particularly important given an over-reliance on self-report measures and growing questions about students’ ability to accurately self-assess complex cognitive skills (Davis et al., 2023).

With approval from the Institutional Review Board a list of student email addresses enrolled in the transdisciplinary courses were obtained from the university. Within the last month of the semester students were sent an invitation by email inviting them to complete the online survey. The email included the title of the course they were being asked to complete the survey in reference to. If students were enrolled in more than one course they received multiple survey links, each in a separate email. Two reminders were used to collect additional information. Faculty teaching the courses were informed about the aims and goals of the study and were also made aware that a survey would be going out to the students. Faculty were asked to encourage their students to complete the survey but were advised not to make the survey a requirement or an assignment.

Instrumentation

The online survey was designed to collect data on students’ learning experience in courses that are intentionally designed to advance complex thinking skills and understand whether there were differences in experiences between STEM and non-STEM majors. A series of Likert scale items asked participants whether they felt the course improved their understanding of disciplines outside their major field of study, how the course helped them think about multiple disciplines and perspectives, the extent that the course helped them feel prepared to solve complex problems facing the world, whether faculty and other instructional staff emphasized the importance of working across disciplines and perspectives to solve complex problems in the specific course, how the course connected with things learned in other classes, how different disciplines have strengths that could be considered in solving complex problems, and whether courses that encouraged students to learn how to use knowledge from different disciplines was important. In addition, questions asked participants whether they valued input from other disciplines in solving problems and asked the contribution of STEM and non-STEM disciplines when solving complex problems. Finally, a set of questions asked participants about the course design. For instance, questions asked them whether the course had activities and experiences that were related to problem-solving, whether the course exposed them to tools and knowledge that can be used to solve problems, and whether the course exposed them to ways that different stakeholders could be involved in solving complex problems. Questions used a five-point rating scale ranging from 1 = Strongly Disagree to 5 = Strongly Agree.

In addition to the Likert scale items, the survey asked students three open-ended questions addressing their perspectives on whether participation in transdisciplinary courses prepared them to address socio-technical challenges. Specifically, the open-ended questions asked students to reflect on:

  • what benefits there are from transdisciplinary collaborations in solving problems.

  • what challenges emerge within transdisciplinary collaborations.

  • what learning experiences would help develop complex thinking skills.

In order to understand the extent to which students demonstrate complex thinking skills after participating in courses designed to develop these skills, a third instrument was used. This tool allowed differences to be examined between STEM and non-STEM students on complex skill development. The third instrument was the Systems Thinking Assessment Tool (STAT), a problem-based scenario, that was developed based on the Dimensions of Systems Thinking Framework (DSTF) (Grohs et al., 2018). The tool provides a direct method of assessment to determine the extent to which students demonstrate six complex thinking skills needed to effectively respond to socio-technical challenges. Skills and further description are summarized in Table 2 and include: problem identification, information needs, stakeholder awareness, goals, unintended consequences, implementation challenges, and alignment.

Table 2 Complex Thinking Skills Examined by Systems Thinking Assessment Tool and Related Rubric Criteria
Full size table

Students provide a written response to the scenario and responses are analyzed using a detailed rubric. For each skill the rubric has criteria related to the construct assigns a score of 0 (no response was provided or response was not relevant) to 3 (response comprehensively addresses relevant criteria).

Sample

Survey data were collected in two waves: Fall 2020 and Spring 2021 semesters. In both instances a list was generated of students who were enrolled in a one of 150 transdisciplinary designated courses for that semester. A total of 5,760 students received the survey for Fall 2020, generating 436 survey responses, a 7.5% response rate. A total of 8,592 students received the survey in Spring 2021, generating 466 surveys, a 5.4% response rate. Survey responses were then inspected for completeness. This process included checking to make sure all items on the survey had a response and removing any duplicate responses if more than one response was submitted for the same course per student. A total of 296 survey responses were complete and are included in analyses for Fall 2020 and a total of 296 survey responses were complete and are included in analyses for Spring 2021 for a combined sample size of 592.

Demographics of the sample were explored to understand the nature of the students enrolled. The subset that provided the sample for the problem-based scenario analysis included 162 students enrolled in two courses, an entry level course in the Human Development department and a more advanced level course in the Statistics Department. Among the 162 students, 48 identified as being enrolled in one of 9 different STEM majors, with the majority being Psychology majors. There are 118 students in non-STEM majors, with the majority of students enrolled in Human Development, Childhood Pre-Education, and Environmental Policy and Planning. Four students double-majored in both Psychology and Human Development, and so are represented in both counts. The sample exhibits coverage across a range of STEM and non-STEM disciplines which enable comparisons to be made. The sample also included a comprehensive group of students by class year and by discipline. However, we do not report on demographic or academic performance variables of the respondents so we cannot specifically claim the sample is broadly representative of the full undergraduate population.

Table 3 Survey Responses by College of Student’s Major
Full size table
Table 4 Survey Responses by College of Course Where Survey Was Completed
Full size table
Table 5 Survey Responses by STEM and Non-STEM Majors
Full size table
Table 6 Survey Responses by STEM and Non-STEM Course Where Survey Was Completed
Full size table
Table 7 Survey Responses by STEM and Non-STEM Disciplines by Class Year Where Survey Was Completed
Full size table

The goal of this study was to examine the differences between STEM and Non-STEM majors on development of complex thinking skills as a result of transdisciplinary learning experiences. Because the learning experiences ranged from entry level courses to capstone experiences and the transdisciplinary experiences were designed to reduce barriers to access, such as alleviating pre-requisite courses and allowing more advanced students to enroll in entry-level courses, the study focused on capturing and analyzing data about differences in students perceptions between STEM and Non-STEM majors in courses they were enrolled in during the two semesters of interest.

Data Analysis

Scaled survey items were analyzed by first categorizing respondents by major as STEM or Non-STEM. Mean scores on each survey item were calculated and compared by major group using an independent samples t-test.

Open-ended responses were analyzed using open-coding. Each researcher reviewed the open-ended responses and examined the recorded answers by STEM and non-STEM responses to identify themes. Following an initial coding that was done separately the researchers compared categories and reached agreement on major themes. The next step entailed grouping responses by theme and further reviewer confirmation.

The problem-based scenario, STAT, responses were analyzed using the STAT associated rubric. Two reviewers conducted the analysis and separately scored each written response. Inter-rater reliability was established by comparing scores and discussing discrepancies in scores assigned. Discrepancies were resolved following discussion and an average of the two rater scores was assigned. Following score assignments student respondents were assigned to a STEM Major or Non-STEM Major group based on their identified major. Mean scores were calculated for each group for each of the six constructs.

Findings

Results provide insights from STEM and Non-STEM Majors as it relates to their experiences in the transdisciplinary learning environments and students’ perceptions of the integrated learning approaches that were used to develop complex thinking. Findings also reveal the demonstrated impact the courses had on complex thinking skills.

Survey

Non-STEM and STEM majors reported similar perceptions regarding transdisciplinary course impact and importance as it relates to complex thinking skills. Both groups expressed agreement with the manner in which the transdisciplinary approaches improved their understanding of disciplines outside their major of study and felt the course was preparing them to solve complex problems in the world today. STEM and Non-STEM majors also agreed that what they learned in the course connects well with other things they are learning in their classes. They also agreed that in terms of the way the course was designed to advance transdisciplinary approaches, they understood how different disciplines have strengths that should be considered in solving complex problems and that it is important to have courses and experiences that provide an opportunity to learn about and use knowledge from several disciplines in addition to courses that are discipline-specific.

STEM and Non-STEM majors responded similarly to a few other items on the survey, but were more neutral in their responses about the extent to which the transdisciplinary course: (1) was designed so that they had experiences that involve problem-solving activities (e.g., defining the problem, identifying current and needed resources/information, outlining constraints), (2) exposed them to a variety of tools, knowledge and processes that can be used to solve problems, and (3) exposed them to ways to consider different stakeholders that are involved and how to interact with different stakeholders when presented with complex problems. Without strong expressions of agreement from either group it was not clear that students from either major were heavily exposed to these activities.

STEM and Non-STEM majors were both neutral in responding about the extent to which their faculty and graduate assistant(s) involved in the course emphasized the importance of working across disciplines to solve complex problems and whether the students felt their discipline/major can solve problems without much help from other disciplines/majors.

Significant differences were seen between groups on two items. STEM majors were significantly less likely to report that the transdisciplinary content was helping them think across multiple disciplines and perspectives. STEM majors were also significantly more likely to agree that STEM disciplines are more important than other non-STEM disciplines in solving the problems of the world today.

Table 8 Differences in Learning Environment and Exposure to Activities for Complex Thinking Skill Development by Major
Full size table

Previous studies that have explored related skills, such as innovative thinking, among undergraduates have indicated that class year can impact how and whether students perceive classes impact the development of those skills (Amelink et al., 2019). While we attempted to examine whether the class year (first year/freshmen, second year/sophomore, third year/junior, fourth year/senior) by discipline impacted students’ experiences in transdisciplinary courses that are intentionally designed to advance complex thinking skills low cell counts prevented the ability to provide a quantitative analysis of the results. Descriptive statistics identified trends (Appendix A) such as STEM and Non-STEM seniors noting that collaboration between disciplines was necessary for solving complex problems. While interesting these trends should be interpreted with caution and it would not be advisable to extrapolate findings to a larger population.

Findings from the open-ended survey identified several key themes related to students’ perceptions of the learning environment in the transdisciplinary courses and the extent to which course activities were developing complex thinking skills. STEM and Non-STEM majors noted that they were exposed to different perspectives allowing new insights to be gained. Another theme that was identified was how different perspectives often result in conflict that in some cases students felt ill prepared to address. Finally, another theme that emerged was the importance of hands-on experiences that allowed for interaction between majors as an important learning opportunity.

Exposure to different perspectives. The first question asked respondents to describe in their own words what benefits there are from disciplines working together to solve problems. Across STEM (n = 122) and Non-STEM students (n = 104) responses emphasized that the transdisciplinary approaches brought together different disciplines and this allowed for different perspectives to be shared which they felt would lead to improved solutions. Respondents suggested that ‘a variety of minds and ideas working to help solve problems allows fresh perspectives to be introduced into the problem-solving process.’ Different perspectives were explained as background knowledge, training, strengths, and opinions. In some cases, the respondents explained that different disciplines allowed for different tools and approaches to be brought forward that would ultimately lead to creative and more holistic problem solving. As one student explained, ‘different disciplines develop different skillsets and different ways of approaching problems, so combining them as a team allows for a more holistic solution.’ Respondents also noted that that in a transdisciplinary approach different disciplines could help draw attention to flaws in a solution that one area might be ‘blind’ to. In a few instances, respondents also saw value in bringing different disciplines together because it created efficiency and allowed the work to get done faster. A few students relied on real-world complex problems to demonstrate the values of a transdisciplinary approach to solving complex problems: ‘in order to solve complex problems, several disciplines must be considered in order to come to a solution. For example, the rising issue of obesity has to do with race, education, equality, psychological factors, socioeconomic factors, etc.’ Other students drew connections that were specific to their major(s) or minor(s). For example, one student discusses how this applies to studying human nutrition, food, and exercise (HNFE) and the multiple disciplines that inform it:

From my point of view in HNFE, the human body is not completely understood. From what we do understand, we know that most interactions within the body and between the body and environment are complex and involve at minimum many of the sciences that are studied at [Institution]. It is also highly likely that psychology, sociology and their associated fields play major roles in the way our body receives and disseminates information. The benefits we reap from having so many disciplines involved with learning about the body are mostly gained from having more perspectives. Breakthroughs are made one step at a time, not all at once, and at each step in a discovery a new insight must often be made. Having numerous perspectives gives a wide range of insights that can be made.

Working through conflict. The second question asked respondents to explain what challenges they could identify when disciplines work together to solve complex problems. There was strong alignment in responses across STEM (n = 121) and Non-STEM students (n = 103). Challenges with transdisciplinary approaches frequently identified were disagreements on how to approach solutions given different methods used by different disciplines. Students pointed out that, ‘even though diversity and multiple perspectives are great for solving different aspects of a problem, it is a great challenge that requires a lot of cognitive effort to understand other people’s perspectives and embrace the unknown.’ Responses also suggested that disagreements arise because a solution or approach would need to be ‘picked’ and given preference and consensus would be difficult to be reached. For example, ‘if two disciplines have very polarized views of the topic, then it may be hard or nearly impossible to come to a consensus’. This student uses an example of architects and engineers having different goals:

Because each discipline approaches the problem from a different perspective, their goals may not be aligned. Misaligned goals lead to conflict and can also lead to mistrust between groups. I often think of the example of architects and engineers. Architects typically want the building to be aesthetically pleasing whereas engineers typically care primarily about functionality. These different goals lead to conflict. However, both approaches are needed because if a building is not aesthetically pleasing, no one will want to use the building but if it’s not functional, no one can use the building, at least not safely.

Additional challenges transdisciplinary contexts that the students identified were communication issues between groups because of different skillsets and knowledge bases. Many students described the challenges of aligning and communicating differing perspectives to solve a complex problem:

Each discipline has its own perspective, and these perspectives may not always align. In fact, sometimes they may even be at odds with one another. Learning to understand the perspectives of those outside your field and communicate with them in a constructive way that makes the most use out of each of your unique skillsets is the primary hurdle and first step to disciplines working together.

Beyond communication issues, respondents also identified different opinions that groups may have that can result in conflict and result in delayed progress. When coming to a consensus when disciplines have different beliefs and values, students often pointed out that, ‘it can be difficult to manage the many approaches and perspectives people have - deciding which points of view to give more weight to as opposed to others can be challenging.’ Some respondents indicated that this could be due to the egos of individuals involved while others suggested that lack of consensus would be caused by beliefs about superiority of one discipline over another. In particular, biases between STEM and non-STEM disciplines were highlighted. Students commonly cited ‘negative bias towards non-stem fields’ or that ‘stem majors don’t know how to think outside just numbers and struggle to conceptualize and communicate ideas that are more abstract.’

Importance of hands-on learning. Next, we asked students what kinds of learning experiences would help them to develop complex thinking skills, focusing on the characteristics of that experience. A prominent theme that emerged across STEM (n = 121) and Non-STEM (n = 100) respondents is providing a hands-on experience with enough structure to understand the end goal but not too much structure that disallows creativity and innovation. As an example, one student suggested, ‘complex thinking skills can only be developed through application of lessons learned in class. That being said it is critical to create a well-structured guide for these projects and applications, otherwise the students will be left confused and with no more knowledge gained by finishing the work.’ Another student emphasized, ‘hands on learning, and learning where the problems that are applicable to the real world are the best ways to learn that will help develop complex thinking skills.’ A different student explains how they ‘believe long-term learning and raw experience are great ways to develop complex learning skills. Many times I learn the fastest and most effectively by simply doing whatever I was asked, versus it being explained to death.’ Several more students emphasized the need for ‘going from start to finish without constraints and letting the creative process go to work without being forced down one path.’ Another prominent theme was the need for students to be exposed to experiences that are transdisciplinary, ‘having to combine disciplines in order to solve a problem rather than just doing it the original way that it was learned because it forces you to think deeply about how different techniques can be used together to solve the problem.

Another common suggestion was to design transdisciplinary coursework full of ‘interactive activities’ and ‘a learning experience that allows for a stronger focus on critical thinking and ‘‘big idea’’ thinking.’ Many students listed the multiple phases of problem solving such as ‘identifying the problem, understanding the process of attaining a solution, naming constraints and limitations of the solution, and having real-life applications.’ There were several instances where students cited experiences within a specific transdisciplinary course they had taken, such as this student’s experience in an engineering course where students were ‘assigned to create a hypothetical intervention to solve a drinking water quality crisis but the intervention had to be novel. This forced us to critically apply what we had learned in the class - even if our interventions were impractical we still were forced to see a problem for as many angles as possible to come up with a solution.’ Finally, in the absence of opportunities to develop skills through real-world experiences,

Providing real-world examples both of problems and their solutions (whether they worked well or failed miserably) is always going to be helpful. It’s also extremely important to make the effort to teach the problem from as many different perspectives as possible - if it affects different groups of people differently, talk about that. Brainstorm, discuss and provide kind feedback so that everyone can really explore an issue instead of just seeing one part of it and thinking it’s an easy fix.

Across all of the open-ended responses there was considerable agreement and synergy in thinking across the STEM and Non-STEM students. Both groups identified the benefits and challenges of working across disciplines to solve complex problems, and cited similar kinds of transdisciplinary learning experiences that advance student’s ability to and experience with solving complex problems. The relative alignment in student’s responses may be indicative of the influence of the university-wide effort to help student’s think critically across disciplines to solve complex problems through the implementation of transdisciplinary courses.

Problem Based Scenario

The problem-based scenario, STAT, provided a direct measure of students’ complex thinking skill development in a transdisciplinary contenxt. Data were analyzed and results were compared by STEM and Non-STEM major groups. The construct scores were compared across groups using a wilcoxon rank-sum test to determine if these score differences were significant. STEM students on average scored slightly higher than non-STEM students across all seven systems thinking constructs. Only the score differences for Information Needs and Unintended Consequences were significant. However, the effect sizes remain small (|r| < 0.3).

Table 9 Differences in Demonstrated Complex Thinking Skills by Student Major
Full size table

STEM Major responses were more likely to include slightly more technical and contextual information needs than Non-STEM Major responses that focused primarily on contextual information needs. However, neither group successfully integrated those information needs. Similarly, with regard to Unintended Consequences STEM Majors were more likely to cite both technical and contextual consequences in response to the solutions identified. Neither group of students included integration of these aspects when considering potential blind spots or unforeseen implications of the solutions proposed.

Discussion and Implications

Collectively, these results suggest that the university initiative to create transdisciplinary learning experiences that can advance the skills needed to address socio-technical issues is having a modest impact on the development of students’ complex thinking skills. While STEM and Non-STEM Majors had similar learning experiences and the impact of the learning opportunities were similar across groups there were some notable differences between these two groups of undergraduates. The differences between groups and the implications of those differences suggest that practitioners and university leadership can consider a number of improvements to support institutional transdisciplinary learning initiatives designed to support student outcomes related to complex thinking skill development.

Benefits of Transdisciplinary Learning Experiences for Students

With regard to the efficacy of the effort, undergraduates reported that the transdisciplinary courses were relevant to their current field of study and their career despite being outside of their college or major. For example, STEM and Non-STEM students noted that they were able to connect what they were learning back to their major field of study and the transdisciplinary courses were providing them with exposure to different disciplines outside of their own major. Undergraduates enrolled in the courses also expressed developing a fundamental appreciation for transdisciplinary approaches in describing an understanding of how different disciplines contribute to solving complex problems. Both groups of students demonstrated awareness of contributions beyond disciplinary knowledge to be able to solve complex problems. This knowledge across multiple disciplines is critical to solving complex problems (Jonassen, 2010) and critical thinking (Ormrod, 2020). More importantly, findings underscore that the transdisciplinary learning experiences helped students understand that different disciplines had unique perspectives, training, and informed opinions that could be useful when addressing challenges presented by socio-technical advancements. In some cases, the respondents explained that different disciplines allowed for different tools and approaches that would ultimately lead to creative and more holistic problem solving. STEM and Non-STEM students explained that exposure to transdisciplinary approaches and opportunities to develop complex thinking skills was critically important for their success in the future workforce. These findings reinforce the importance of varying the conditions and disciplinary framing of learning, as varying these conditions make for better learning (Halpern & Hakel, 2003). Indeed, other studies have similarly shown the positive affect of transdisciplinary and integrative learning on student development and complex thinking (Ranly et al., 2019; Selznick et al., 2022). The benefits of transdisciplinary courses for both STEM and non-STEM students are clear, and demonstrate the importance of these courses in preparing students with specific skills that can be deployed for addressing challenges that are socio-technical in nature. While it is clear that students can identify important skills and outcomes of their transdisciplinary experiences, results also underscore that students may not fully comprehend the holistic approaches that are needed when designing solutions that address both societal and technical needs.

Calls for Further Improvements and Innovations to Transdisciplinary Learning

Results show that the courses in this transdisciplinary initiative would benefit from increasing the number of opportunities for direct use and further development of complex thinking skills in order to fully advance the ability to address socio-technical challenges. Both STEM and Non-STEM majors noted only moderate inclusion of activities and transdisciplinary pedagogical approaches that allowed them to grapple with real-world problems, including understanding how to engage with community stakeholders as the problem context was fully understood, information was collected, and solutions were generated. Highlighting limited opportunities for transdisciplinary learning and complex thinking and the need to more intentionally prioritize these efforts aligns with similar claims from work on interdisciplinary learning (Lattuca et al., 2017) and systems thinking (Norris et al., 2022). Continued efforts to prepare students to address socio-technical challenges with transdisciplinary learning approaches will need to better integrate direct engagement with stakeholders at the community level. Findings also suggest that the transdisciplinary courses would also benefit from increased emphasis by faculty and graduate teaching assistants on the importance of collaborating with other disciplines to solve complex problems. Both STEM and Non-STEM majors indicated that this was not a major element that was emphasized during course activities.

Addressing socio-technical challenges requires the ability to collaborate across disciplines and the ability to navigate different disciplinary perspectives. While the transdisciplinary courses provided students with exposure to different disciplines in the context of complex problems, quantitative and qualitative results suggest that students completed transdisciplinary courses without a strong understanding of how to collaborate across disciplines to solve complex problems. This result is further underscored by findings that indicate students are challenged to fully understand the mechanics of how to manage transdisciplinary collaboration in the context of complex problems. These results further support the calls by Budwig and Alexander (2020) and Dugan et al. (2022) for increased transdisciplinary learning opportunities and more comprehensive teaching and learning frameworks that value and operationalize aspects of transdisciplinary collaboration. While students noted that bringing in different disciplinary perspectives could expose weaknesses in solutions being generated, they described the process as cumbersome and inefficient. Student responses in open-ended items lacked recognition that solutions could be co-generated or collaboratively designed, which is an important aspect of solving problems in transdisciplinary contexts and aligns with professional practice in transdisciplinary workplace settings (Clarke & Ashburst, 2018; Grohs et al., 2018). Results suggest that students needed more time and exposure to different disciplinary approaches to truly develop the complex thinking skills to understand and use transdisciplinary approaches in various contexts. This could also help alleviate bias in students as STEM majors were significantly more likely to agree that STEM disciplines are more important than other non-STEM disciplines in solving the problems of the world today.

Innovations for Teaching in Transdisciplinary Contexts

When considering further development of transdisciplinary courses, additional exposure to real-world problems and increased hands-on problem solving in cross-disciplinary groups will be important moving forward for this initiative to develop complex thinking skills among undergraduates. From this study across multiple subjects and thematic areas, findings underscore that in order to transition to organizational settings that are providing innovative solutions to socio-technical challenges, transdisciplinary educational approaches need to provide training and preparation to manage divergent viewpoints. In addition, increased faculty training on how comprehensively develop transdisciplinary coursework that includes modules on guiding cross-disciplinary teams and exposing them to project management skills will be important so students are able to manage conflict. For example, faculty teaching these transdisciplinary courses and other courses with students enrolled across disciplines would benefit from understanding that students will struggle with how to effectively communicate with one another to arrive at solutions that integrate disciplinary contributions.

In their literature review of assessments for systems thinking, Dugan et al. (2022) emphasize the need for more comprehensive measures that consider stakeholder agency as collaborators. Faculty teaching transdisciplinary courses might consider using specific pedagogical approaches in transdisciplinary courses that would give students more hands-on opportunities to engage with stakeholders to solve complex problems, such as the scaffolding and complex design models discussed by Van Merriënboer et al. (2003). Results from this study suggest that across thematic areas, opportunities such as these in transdisciplinary courses would better equip students across majors with cross-cultural competencies and deeper context about the human condition that would allow them to address socio-technical problems.

Findings also suggest that among the student population for this study STEM Majors may have prior exposure to technical solutions given their disciplinary course of study. In his book Learning to Solve Problems, Jonassen (2010) identifies prior experience and relevant knowledge as being fundamental to addressing socio-technical challenges irrespective of discipline. This exposure may explain why STEM students scored slightly higher on the systems thinking skills which required identifying both technical and contextual elements of problems in order to score highly. Faculty teaching transdisciplinary courses associated with a given minor might also benefit from exploring how to address gaps in knowledge that different majors bring into course contexts so that STEM and Non-STEM majors can understand both technical and contextual elements of complex problems.

Limitations

While there are a number of useful findings, this study had limitations. This study examined a snapshot of students demonstrated complex thinking skills through one problem-based scenario in two courses. It may be the case that as students from STEM and non-STEM disciplines progress through courses in the minor, differences between groups would decrease as further integration would occur. This study was conducted in the early stages of the transdisciplinary learning initiative, exploring specific minors that were newly formed and had newly introduced courses. It could be the case that following consecutive years of teaching the courses and using outcomes data gathered from future course offerings modifications are made to course delivery, instructor preparation, and pedagogical approaches. These modifications may lead to reduced differences in the experiences between STEM and Non-STEM majors and overall increased attainment of transdisciplinary learning goals. The early stages of the transdisciplinary initiative also prevented examination of cumulative effects of the effort and whether there were differences between majors and by class year (i.e., first year compared to senior level STEM and Non-STEM majors).

Conclusion

This study used direct and indirect measures of students’ complex thinking skill development to understand whether a university level transdisciplinary learning initiative was achieving desired goals. Findings demonstrate that the effort is having positive impacts with regard to student exposure to important and relevant skills for grappling with socio-technical advancements. Undergraduates are developing a greater awareness of the complexities of challenging real-world problems and how different disciplines can contribute knowledge, skills, and perspectives to advance solutions. As the effort moves forward there are opportunities to bring additional real-world problems into the classroom, involve community stakeholders, and provide students with the project management skills that will allow for deep and meaningful cross-disciplinary collaboration.