Search

Engineering education has become increasingly multidisciplinary in order to prepare future experts to transcend disciplinary boundaries and to co-construct solutions to solve grand challenges. However, faculty members' perspectives and experiences have been largely ignored in the literature. To understand and support faculty members, the present study investigated faculty members' conceptualisations of multi-, inter-, and transdisciplinary education. We conducted semi-structured interviews with 13 faculty members from engineering, business, art and design with varied experiences with multidisciplinary teaching, course design, and programme management. We found that while some faculty members conceptualised multidisciplinary education as an encompassing concept, most used disciplinary integration to distinguish multi-, inter-, and transdisciplinary education. However, their conceptualisations of the differences between multi-, inter-, and transdisciplinary education were nuanced. Summarising the perceived nuances in different aspects of course design, we propose a typology to demonstrate the variety of types in faculty members' course design. By identifying the diversity and complexities of faculty members' conceptualisations, this study attempts to help faculty members achieve an in-depth understanding of their conceptualisations and practices, as well as support engineering educators in designing courses with disciplinary integration.

Interdisciplinary engineering programs have many perceived benefits including developing broader skills and an ability to work with complex real-life problems. However, the development of interdisciplinary programs faces many challenges including how to balance breadth and depth, how to integrate interdisciplinary learning into existing studies and how to work across university structures. In the development work and in communicating interdisciplinarity, T-, Y- and Pi-shaped visualisations are often used. We develop an improved model by using biomimetic analogy from genetics to aid in interdisciplinary curriculum planning. We map analogies between how genes and chromosomes act in the evolution of species and how similar mechanisms can aid in evolving curricula. We identify three genetic mechanisms to include interdisciplinarity in the curriculum: mutations as unplanned changes, DNA inserts as modular curriculum structures, and crossing chromosomes as cross-disciplinary programs. We use examples from two universities to detail how this analogy helps to reframe curriculum planning.

Interdisciplinary engineering programs have many perceived benefits including developing broader skills and an ability to work with complex real-life problems. However, the development of interdisciplinary programs faces many challenges including how to balance breadth and depth, how to integrate interdisciplinary learning into existing studies and how to work across university structures. In the development work and in communicating interdisciplinarity, T-, Y- and Pi-shaped visualisations are often used. We develop an improved model by using biomimetic analogy from genetics to aid in interdisciplinary curriculum planning. We map analogies between how genes and chromosomes act in the evolution of species and how similar mechanisms can aid in evolving curricula. We identify threegenetic mechanisms to include interdisciplinarity in the curriculum: mutations as unplanned changes, DNA inserts as modular curriculum structures, and crossing chromosomes as cross-disciplinary programs. We use examples from two universities to detail how this analogy helps to reframe curriculum planning. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]