Focusing on Learning Outcomes and Authentic Interdisciplinary Problems

  • Megan Yih Chyn A. Kek
  • Henk Huijser
Chapter
First Online:

Abstract

In Chap.  3, we have identified the challenge in designing a technology-supported agile PBL environment that stays true to the original intentions of PBL and that leverages technology to enhance the impact of learning in teams, rather than reducing it. We have also imagined what we called the ‘next generation of learners’ and began to identify the characteristics that they may bring to the formal learning environments. Of course, the flipside of considering student characteristics as they enter a particular learning environment is that we also need to define and clarify what we want them to learn and be able to do, once they have moved into and through this formal learning environment. In other words, what do we imagine their characteristics to be when they move out of the university? How do those characteristics align with what they are likely to encounter when they complete their university studies? And how do we ensure that we draw on students’ prior learning and strengths while simultaneously empowering them with the skills, dispositions and knowledges to engage meaningfully and productively in the present and future twenty-first-century context? In this chapter, we begin to imagine what curriculum design in an agile PBL context might look like, and we begin to imagine how interdisciplinary PBL problem may be conceived.

Keywords

Curriculum Design Disciplinary Boundary Transferable Skill Soft Skill Employability Skill 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Adamczyk, P.D., & Twidale, M.B. (2007). Supporting multidisciplinary collaboration: Requirements from novel HCI education. Paper presented at the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems.Google Scholar
  2. Altbach, P. G., Gumport, P. J., & Berdahl, R. O. (2011). American higher education in the twenty-first century: Social, political and economic challenges (3rd ed.). Baltimore: The John Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Amin, A. (Ed.). (2008). Post-Fordism: A reader. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.Google Scholar
  4. Baldwin, D. C., Jr. (2007). Some historical notes on interdisciplinary and interprofessional education and practice in health care in the USA. Journal of Interprofessional Care, 21(S1), 23–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Barnett, R., & Coate, K. (2004). Engaging the curriculum in higher education. Berkshire, UK: Mc-Graw Hill Education.Google Scholar
  6. Barrie, S. (2007). A conceptual framework for the teaching and learning of generic graduate attributes. Studies in Higher Education, 32(4), 439–458.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Beccaria, L., Kek, M., Huijser, H., Rose, J., & Kimmins, L. (2014). The interrelationships between student approaches to learning and group work. Nurse Education Today, 34(7), 1094–1103. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2014.02.006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bransford, J.D., Barron, B., Pea, R.D., Meltzoff, A., Kuhl, P., Bell, P., et al. (2006). Foundations and opportunities for an interdisciplinary science of learning. In K.R. Sawyer (Ed.), Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 19–34). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cooking, R. R. (Eds.). (2000). National research council: How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school: Expanded edition. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  10. Bransford, J. D., & Schwartz, D. L. (1999). Rethink transfer. A simple proposal with multiple implications. Review of Research in Education, 24(1), 61–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bridges, D. (2000). Back to the future: The higher education curriculum in the 21st century. Cambridge Journal of Education, 30(1), 37–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Bridgstock, R. (2009). The graduate attribute we’ve overlooked: Enhancing graduate employability through career management skills. Higher Education Research and Development, 28(1), 31–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Brown, T. (2008). Design thinking. Harvard Business Review, 86(6), 84.Google Scholar
  14. Cassidy, S. (2006). Developing employability skills: Peer assessment in higher education. Education + Training, 48(7), 508–517.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Chickering, A.W. (n.d.). The seven vectors: An overview. Retrieved April 26, 2014, from http://faculty.winthrop.edu/fullerb/QEP/7vectorsofdevelopment.pdf
  16. Chickering, A. W., & Reisser, L. (1993). Education and identity (2nd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  17. Clark, B., & Button, C. (2011). Sustainability transdisciplinary education model: Interface of arts, science, and community (STEM). International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 12(1), 41–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Cope, B., & Kalantzis, M. (2009). Ubiquitous learning. Champaign, IL: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
  19. Davies, A., Fidler, D., & Gorbis, M. (2011). Future work skills 2020 (pp. 1–14). Palo Alto, CA: Institute for the Future for the University of Phoenix Research Institute. Retrieved September 26, 2016, from http://www.iftf.org/uploads/media/SR-1382A_UPRI_future_work_skills_sm.pdf
  20. Deakin-Crick, R. (2007). Learning how to learn: The dynamic assessment of learning power. The Curriculum Journal, 18(2), 135–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Deakin-Crick, R., Broadfoot, P., & Glaxton, G. (2004). Developing an effective lifelong learning inventory: The ELLI project. Assessment in Education, 11(3), 247–272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Dearing, R. (1997). Higher education in the learning society: Report of the National Committee of Inquiry into Higher Education. Norwich, UK: HMSO.Google Scholar
  23. Dewey, J. (1980). The school and society. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Dillon, P. M., Noble, K. A., & Kaplan, L. (2009). Simulation as a means to foster collaborative interdisciplinary education. Nursing Education Perspectives, 30(2), 87–90.Google Scholar
  25. Dolmans, D., & Schmidt, H. (2010). The problem-based learning process. In H. van Berkel, A. Scherpbier, H. Hillen, & C. van Der Vleuten (Eds.), Lessons from problem-based learning. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  26. Elli. (n.d.). Learning power evaluations for pupils. Retrieved April 27, 2014, from http://www.thelearningpartnership.com/elli-26082-0.html
  27. Fineberg, I. C., Wenger, N. S., & Forrow, L. (2004). Interdisciplinary education: Evaluation of a palliative care training intervention for pre-professionals. Academic Medicine, 79(8), 769–776.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Flew, T. (2012). Creative industries. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  29. Flew, T. (2013). Global creative industries. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  30. Foubert, M. (1980). Power/knowledge: Selected interviews and other writings, 1972–1977 (Trans C. Gordon, C.). New York: Pantheon.Google Scholar
  31. Foucault, M. (1980). Power/knowledge: Selected interviews and other writings, 1972–1977 (Trans C. Gordon, C.). New York: Pantheon.Google Scholar
  32. Furco, A., & Billig, S. (Eds.). (2002). Service-learning: The essence of the pedagogy (Vol. 1). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.Google Scholar
  33. Hall, P., & Weaver, L. (2001). Interdisciplinary education and teamwork: A long and winding road. Medical Education, 35(9), 867–875.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Hartley, J. (2005). Creative industries. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  35. Hatano, G., & Inagaki, K. (1984). Two courses of expertise. Research and Clinical Center for Child Development Annual Report, 6, 27–36.Google Scholar
  36. Hatano, G., & Oura, Y. (2003). Commentary: Reconceptualising school learning using insight from expertise research. Educational Researcher, 32(8), 26–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Healey, M., Flint, A., & Harrington, K. (2014). Engagement through partnership: Students as partners in learning and teaching in higher education (pp. 1–76). New York: The Higher Education Academy, UK.Google Scholar
  38. Helle, L., Tynjala, P., & Olkinuora, E. (2006). Project-based learning in post-secondary education-theory, practice and rubber sling shots. HIgher Education, 51(2), 287–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Hmelo-Silver, C. E. (2004). Problem-based learning: What and how do students learn? Educational Psychology Review, 16(3), 235–266.Google Scholar
  40. Hmelo-Silver, C. E., & Barrows, H. S. (2006). Goals and strategies of a problem-based learning facilitator. The Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-Based Learning, 1(1), 21–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Hooyman, N. R., & Kiyak, H. A. (2008). Social gerontology: A multidisciplinary perspective. New York: Pearson Education.Google Scholar
  42. Huijser, H. (2006). Refocusing multiliteracies for the net generation. International Journal of Pedagogies and Learning, 2(1), 21–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Jacobs, H. (2002). Integrated curriculum design. In J. T. Klein (Ed.), Interdisciplinary education in K-12 and college: A foundation for K-16 dialogue (pp. 21–44). New York: College Board Publications.Google Scholar
  44. Jaros, M., & Deakin-Crick, R. (2007). Personalized learning for the post-mechanical age. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 39(4), 423–440.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Kalantzis, M., & Cope, B. (2001). ‘Multiliteracies’ as a framework for action. In M. Kalantzis & B. Cope (Eds.), Transformations in language and learning: Perspectives on multiliteracies (pp. 19–32). Melbourne, Australia: Common Ground.Google Scholar
  46. Kek, M. Y. C. A., & Huijser, H. (2011). The power of problem-based learning in developing critical thinking skills: Preparing students for tomorrow’s digital futures in today’s classrooms. Higher Education Research and Development, 30(3), 317–329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Kek, Y.C., & Wee, L.K.N. (2000). Triumphs and trials of using problem-based learning in marketing communications education: Perspectives from educators and students. Paper presented at the International Advertising Association Conference, Miami, Florida.Google Scholar
  48. Klein, J. T. (2006). A platform for a shared discourse of interdisciplinary education. Journal of Social Science Education, 5(2), 10–18.Google Scholar
  49. Lamancusa, J. S., Zayas, J. L., Soyster, A. L., Morell, L., & Jorgensen, J. (2008). The learning factory: Industry-partnered active learning. Journal of Engineering Education, 97(1), 5–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Mason, G., Williams, G., & Cranmer, S. (2006). Employability skills initiatives in higher education: What effects do they have on graduate labour market outcomes? Education Economics, 17(1), 1–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Moon, J. A. (2013). A handbook of reflective and experiential learning. London/New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  52. Newell, W. H. (2010). Educating for a complex world: Integrative learning and interdisciplinary studies. Liberal Education, 96(4), 6–11. https://aacu.org/liberaleducation/le-fa10/LEFA10_Newell.cfm.Google Scholar
  53. Nicolescu, B. (2005). Towards transdisciplinary education. TD: The Journal for Transdisciplinary Research in Southern Africa, 1(1), 5–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. O’Grady, G., & Alwis, W.A.M. (December, 2002). One day, one problem: PBL at the Republic Polytechnic. Paper presented at the 4th Pacific Conference in PBL, Hatyai, Thailand.Google Scholar
  55. O’Grady, G., Yew, E. H. J., Goh, K. P. L., & Schmidt, H. G. (Eds.). (2012). One day, one problem: An approach to problem-based learning. Singapore, Singapore: Springer.Google Scholar
  56. Oka, H. (2010). Design thinking: Integrating innovation, customer experience, and brand value. bookforfree.us.Google Scholar
  57. Partnership for 21st Century Learning. (2007). Framework for 21st century learning. Tucson, AZ: Partnership for 21st Century Skills.Google Scholar
  58. Ribeiro, L. (2011). The pros and cons of problem-based learning from the teacher’s standpoint. Journal of University Teaching & Learning Practice, 8(1), 4.Google Scholar
  59. Robinson, K. (2006). How schools kill creativity. Retrieved April 27, 2014 from http://www.ted.com/talks/ken_robinson_says_schools_kill_creativity
  60. Savin-Baden, M. (2014). Using problem-based learning: New constellations for the 21st century. Journal on Excellence in College Teaching, 25(3&4), 197–219.Google Scholar
  61. Schmidt, H., & Moust, J. (2010). Designing problems. In H. van Berkel, A. Scherpbier, & C. van der Vleuten (Eds.), Lessons from problem-based learning. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  62. Star, C., & Hammer, S. (2008). Teaching generic skills: Eroding the higher purpose of university, or an opportunity for renewal. Oxford Review of Education, 34(2), 237–251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Stark, R., Renkl, A., Gruber, H., & Mandl, H. (1998). Indeed, sometimes knowledge does not help: A replication study. Instructional Science, 26(5), 391–407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Tapscott, D., & Williams, A. D. (2010). Innovating the 21st century university: It’s time! Educause Review, 45(1), 16–29.Google Scholar
  65. Tew, M., Crick, R. D., Broadfoot, P., & Claxton, G. (2004). Learning power: A practitioner’s guide. Manchester, UK: Lifelong Learning Foundation.Google Scholar
  66. The New London Group. (1996). A pedagogy of multiliteracies: Designing social futures. Harvard Educational Review, 66(1), 60–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Wee, L. K. N., Kek, M. Y. C. A., & Kelley, C. A. (2003). Transforming the marking curriculum using problem-based learning: A case study. Journal of Marketing Education, 25(2), 150–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Wickramasinghe, V., & Perera, L. (2010). Graduates’, university lecturers’ and employers’ perceptions towards employability skills. Education + Training, 52(3), 226–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Singapore 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Megan Yih Chyn A. Kek
    • 1
  • Henk Huijser
    • 2
    • 3
  1. 1.University of Southern QueenslandToowoombaAustralia
  2. 2.Xi’an Jiaotong-Liverpool UniversitySuzhouChina
  3. 3.Batchelor InstituteBatchelorAustralia

Personalised recommendations