Intersections Across Disciplines:

Interdisciplinarity and learning Brad Hokanson

pdf download
https://textbookfull.com/product/intersections-across-disciplines-interdisciplinarity-and-learning-
brad-hokanson/

★★★★★ 4.6/5.0 (30 reviews) ✓ 249 downloads ■ TOP RATED

"Amazing book, clear text and perfect formatting!" - John R.

DOWNLOAD EBOOK
 Intersections Across Disciplines: Interdisciplinarity and
learning Brad Hokanson pdf download

TEXTBOOK EBOOK TEXTBOOK FULL

Available Formats

■ PDF eBook Study Guide TextBook

EXCLUSIVE 2025 EDUCATIONAL COLLECTION - LIMITED TIME

INSTANT DOWNLOAD VIEW LIBRARY

Collection Highlights

Developing Creative Thinking Skills An Introduction for

Learners 1st Edition Brad Hokanson

Integrating Educational Technology into Teaching:

Transforming Learning Across Disciplines, 9th Edition
Hughes

Inquiry-Based Teaching and Learning across Disciplines:

Comparative Theory and Practice in Schools 1st Edition
Gillian Kidman

Anticipation Across Disciplines 1st Edition Mihai Nadin

(Eds.)
Poetry and Pedagogy across the Lifespan: Disciplines,
Classrooms, Contexts Sandra Lee Kleppe

Lucretius and Modernity: Epicurean Encounters Across Time

and Disciplines 1st Edition Jacques Lezra

McWhorter K Reading Across the Disciplines 7ed 2018 7th

Edition Mcwhorter K

Refuge in a Moving World Tracing Refugee and Migrant

Journeys Across Disciplines Elena Fiddian-Qasmiyeh
(Editor)

Seeing Things: Spectral Materialities of Bombay Horror

(South Asia Across the Disciplines) 1st Edition Nair
Educational Communications and Technology:
Issues and Innovations

Brad Hokanson · Marisa Exter

Amy Grincewicz · Matthew Schmidt
Andrew A. Tawfik Editors

Intersections
Across
Disciplines
Interdisciplinarity and learning
Educational Communications and Technology
Issues and Innovations

Series Editors
J. Michael Spector
Department of Learning Technologies
University of North Texas, Denton, TX, USA
M. J. Bishop
College of Education, Lehigh University
University System of Maryland, Bethlehem, PA, USA
Dirk Ifenthaler
Learning, Design and Technology
University of Mannheim, Mannheim, Baden-Württemberg, Germany
Allan Yuen
Faculty of Education, Runme Shaw Bldg, Rm 214
University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, Hong Kong
This book series, published collaboratively between the AECT (Association for
Educational Communications and Technology) and Springer, represents the best
and most cutting edge research in the field of educational communications and
technology. The mission of the series is to document scholarship and best practices
in the creation, use, and management of technologies for effective teaching and
learning in a wide range of settings. The publication goal is the rapid dissemination
of the latest and best research and development findings in the broad area of
educational information science and technology. As such, the volumes will be
representative of the latest research findings and developments in the field. Volumes
will be published on a variety of topics, including:
• Learning Analytics
• Distance Education
• Mobile Learning Technologies
• Formative Feedback for Complex Learning
• Personalized Learning and Instruction
• Instructional Design
• Virtual tutoring
Additionally, the series will publish the bi-annual AECT symposium volumes, the
Educational Media and Technology Yearbooks, and the extremely prestigious and
well known, Handbook of Research on Educational Communications and
Technology. Currently in its 4th volume, this large and well respected Handbook
will serve as an anchor for the series and a completely updated version is anticipated
to publish once every 5 years.
The intended audience for Educational Communications and Technology: Issues
and Innovations is researchers, graduate students and professional practitioners
working in the general area of educational information science and technology; this
includes but is not limited to academics in colleges of education and information
studies, educational researchers, instructional designers, media specialists, teachers,
technology coordinators and integrators, and training professionals.

More information about this series at http://www.springer.com/series/11824

Brad Hokanson • Marisa Exter
Amy Grincewicz • Matthew Schmidt
Andrew A. Tawfik
Editors

Intersections Across
Disciplines
Interdisciplinarity and learning
Editors
Brad Hokanson Marisa Exter
College of Design Learning Design and Technology
University of Minnesota Purdue University
Saint Paul, MN, USA West Lafayette, IN, USA

Amy Grincewicz Matthew Schmidt

Graduate Programs Office University of Florida
Kent State University Gainesville, FL, USA
Kent, OH, USA

Andrew A. Tawfik
Instruction Curriculum Leadership
University of Memphis
Memphis, TN, USA

ISSN 2625-0004     ISSN 2625-0012 (electronic)

Educational Communications and Technology: Issues and Innovations
ISBN 978-3-030-53874-3    ISBN 978-3-030-53875-0 (eBook)
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-53875-0

© Association for Educational Communications and Technology (AECT) 2021

This work is subject to copyright. All rights are reserved by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of
the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation,
broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information
storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology
now known or hereafter developed.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication
does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant
protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.
The publisher, the authors, and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book
are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the
editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any
errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional
claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

This Springer imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Switzerland AG
The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland
Preface

Hosted by the Association for Educational Communication and Technology

[AECT], the 2019 Summer Research Symposium was held in Bloomington, Indiana.
Twenty-three authors presented and discussed their writing in the 2-day event. The
formal topic for this year’s symposium was Intersections across disciplines:
Interdisciplinarity and learning design. Chapter topics ranged from virtual reality
interventions for people with autism to investigating and presenting material cul-
ture, to working internationally in design. After other peer reviews and edits, the
developed chapters are included in this book.
While AECT generally focuses on educational technology and instructional
design, the goal of the symposium is to examine a broad range of topics and disci-
plines. This diversity is well received. Participants of the 2019 Symposium valued
the inclusion of different viewpoints and ideas which enriched the experience of
discussion and interaction. Those attending include authors from landscape archi-
tecture, interior design, and university museums in addition to traditional AECT
disciplines.
The AECT Summer Research Symposium began in 2006. A new symposium
process was implemented with the 2012 gathering. Originally held in even-­
numbered years, beginning in 2019 the symposium is being offered on an
annual basis.
The structure for the Symposium is quite different from most other conferences
and even the AECT International Convention. Rather than presenting research or
ideas in a didactic format, in the symposium, authors discuss their ideas in a round
table format. In those discussions, every author is able to interact and work with
10–20 other participants about their chapter. This process encourages engagement
and interaction among all participants.
Initially chapters are anonymously selected from brief proposals, and authors are
asked to develop a subsequent draft. These first chapter drafts are completed 6
weeks prior to the meeting, and all symposium participants, authors and discussants
alike, are expected to read and be ready to comment on other chapters.
Development of the included chapters is also different from most journals and
conferences, with more engagement throughout the process with the editorial team

v
vi Preface

and among authors. Most of the time, academic authors do not have a regular oppor-
tunity for detailed review and critique of their work. While articles are typically sent
off to a journal and reviewed remotely, chapters examined through the symposium
process are discussed at length, and critical aspects are personally reviewed.
Chapters have been authored by individuals, collaborative teams, or as faculty
mentors with graduate students. Each type is usually represented in every sympo-
sium. And each adds a richness to the discussion and interaction.
During the symposium, each chapter is discussed in small groups on three sepa-
rate occasions with different respondents. The other participants, having read the
chapter, offer critique and encouragement in the development of the writing. This
lasts about half an hour, and after a break, a new group of authors presents their
work. Through the course of the symposium, each author or authoring team is
involved in conversations with other authors about their work. Anecdotally, authors
comment they seldom have the chance to work so closely with peers in the develop-
ment of their written pieces.
In this focused venue, there are many opportunities to informally interact with
other scholars. Discussions about ideas and the writing become very focused and
interactive. The working goal of the symposium is to develop everyone’s writing to
improve the final product. It is the joint development of the finished book. It’s no
wonder that subsequent collaborations occur among participating authors and
non-authors.
The symposium is also open to those interested and who seek to read and discuss
new and developing work in the field. Non-author discussants who wish to partici-
pate have access to all the first-draft papers and are expected to engage in discussion
on the work. These conversations are, in themselves, both intense and informative,
as other authors, other participants, and editors all are discussing a given piece. It’s
common to see experts in the field, other authors, and graduate students all engaged
in a conversation around the same table.
The process of discussion is called a “Pro-Action” café and is derived from the
processes of Art of Hosting. Art of Hosting (or the Art of Participatory Leadership)
is series of methods of structuring and encouraging conversations for planning, idea
development, and community decision-making. This allows the authors to engage
in intense conversation and interaction regarding their work. In this venue, it is
being used to engage discussion among authors and experts.
After the Symposium, authors are asked to improve and revise their article. A
second extended draft is due about 2 months after the in-person symposium. That
version is critiqued by another author who has attended the symposium and who is
already familiar with the writing. Following their response, the author again revises
and resubmits a final draft. It’s then reviewed by the editorial team two additional
times before it is sent to Springer for publication.
Preface vii

This year the editors of five of the AECT journals attended the symposium and
also offered their comments on the work. These editors participate for a number of
reasons. Their engagement with the process helps advance the principal publication
of the symposium, but they also are seeking new reviewers and new authors for their
own journals. For example, newer journals, such as the Journal for Formative
Designs for Learning, seek new reviewers of articles dealing with formative aspects
of education. The journals’ roles are quite diverse, but given the diversity of writing
for the symposium, there is strong potential future journal articles are well
represented.
The Symposium focuses on a different general topic each year. The topic must be
broad enough to encourage a wide range of proposal ideas, yet specific enough to
provide guidance to authors and researchers. Topics are selected to be of interest to
the entire field of educational technology and instructional design. Previous years
have looked at the use of narrative, design, and learning environments.
Here, we seek to examine how learning and the design of instruction is interdis-
ciplinary and connective both in terms of research and practice. This framework has
shaped our interactions, our discussions, and the informal context of the sympo-
sium. Writings are solicited on multiple levels including research and practice on
learning across disciplines, including instructional design and how design thinking
is inherently interdisciplinary. How learning is designed for general audiences or for
purposely integrated educational experiences has also been examined. The book is
generally divided into three parts: Theory, Research, and Application.
It does take a large team to put together an event like the Summer Research
Symposium, and they deserve to be recognized:
Proposal Reviewers
A special thanks is offered to the reviewers for the 2019 Summer Research
Symposium. They are:

Ilene Dawn Alexander Greg Clinton

Bruce Duboff Marisa Exter
Colin Gray Phil Harris
Jason McDonald Amie Norden
Jody Nyboer Andrew A. Tawfik
George Veletsianos

Interns
Meina Zhu, Indiana University-Bloomington
Ahmed Lachheb, Indiana University-Bloomington
viii Preface

AECT Staff
The symposium has grown with the active support of the Board and administration
of AECT. Special thanks goes to Larry Vernon and Terri Lawson for their work and
assistance with operating the event. Phil Harris, as AECT Executive Director, has
continued to support, participate, run a boom mike, and guide the symposium.
Special thanks is offered for their work.
We very much hope you find the contents of this book to be engaging as well as
useful for your scholarly endeavors.
Keywords
Research; Summer Research Symposium; Publication; Interdisciplinary Learning

Brad
Minneapolis, MN, USA Hokanson
Contents


Rethinking the Role of the Library in an Era of
Inquiry-Based Learning: Opportunities for
Interdisciplinary Approaches��������������������������������������������������������������������������    1
Andrew A. Tawfik, Kenneth Haggerty, Scott Vann,
and Brian T. Johnson

Guiding Principles for Integrating Disciplines and Practices
in Pursuit of Complex and Diverse Learning Outcomes������������������������������   13
Dennis W. Cheek

Educology Is Interdisciplinary: What Is It? Why Do We Need It?
Why Should We Care?������������������������������������������������������������������������������������   27
Theodore W. Frick

Multimodal Social Semiotics and Learning Design: In Search
of Interdisciplinarity����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������   43
Begüm Saçak

Wisdom and Power: Using Information Theory to Assess
the Transactional Relationship Between the Learner
and the Knowledge Provider��������������������������������������������������������������������������   53
Robert Kenny and Glenda Gunter

The Importance of Interest Development Across
STEM Learning Environments����������������������������������������������������������������������   63
Bruce DuBoff

Designing for Generative Online Learning: A Situative
Program of Research ��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������   81
Grant T. Chartrand, Christopher D. Andrews, and Daniel T. Hickey

Instructional Design and User Experience Design: Values
and Perspectives Examined Through Artifact Analysis ������������������������������   93
Elizabeth Boling and Colin M. Gray

ix
x Contents


Educational Software Design in Practice: Understanding
the Power of Intersecting Disciplines on Design Process������������������������������ 109
Mohan Yang, Iryna Ashby, Brantly McCord, Tadd Farmer,
Umair Sarwar, and Marisa Exter

Unifying Material Culture and Traditional Research:
How Academic Museums Stimulate Interdisciplinary
Experiences for Faculty ���������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 123
Caren S. Oberg and Lin Nelson-Mayson

Improving Reading Speed for Dyslexic Readers������������������������������������������ 135
Rachel Brotherton, Latifatu Seini, Linlin Li, and Suzanne Ensmann

Interdisciplinary Research Collaboration: An Option
for Advancing Your “Unpublishable” Research������������������������������������������� 147
Pamela C. Moore

The Centrality of Interdisciplinarity for Overcoming
Design and Development Constraints of a Multi-user
Virtual Reality Intervention for Adults with Autism:
A Design Case�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 157
Noah Glaser, Matthew Schmidt, Carla Schmidt, Heath Palmer,
and Dennis Beck

Potentials of Teaching, Learning, and Design with Virtual Reality:
An Interdisciplinary Thematic Analysis�������������������������������������������������������� 173
Andrea Adams, Yonghua Feng, Juhong Christie Liu, and Eric Stauffer

Cultivating Design Thinking in an Interdisciplinary Collaborative
Project-Based Learning Environment ���������������������������������������������������������� 187
Xun Ge and Qian Wang

Reframing Interdisciplinarity Toward Equity and Inclusion���������������������� 197
Amy C. Bradshaw

Interdisciplinary Development of Geoscience OER: Formative
Evaluation and Project Management for Instructional Design������������������ 209
Juhong Christie Liu, Elizabeth A. Johnson, and Jin Mao

Muse Design Studio: Advancing Creative Problem Solving
as a Platform for Interdisciplinary Education���������������������������������������������� 225
Ryan A. Hargrove

Interdisciplinarity and International Education: Creating
Opportunities for Collaboration in Design Research and Practice������������ 241
Genell Wells Ebbini

Developing a Rubric for Teaching and Assessing Design
Thinking Across the Curriculum�������������������������������������������������������������������� 255
Wendy Friedmeyer
Contents xi


Teaching Design to Public Health Majors:
A Design Case of an Undergraduate Interdisciplinary Course ������������������ 265
Victoria Abramenka-Lachheb, Ahmed Lachheb,
and Gamze Ozogul

Interdisciplinary Learner Engagement: Bridging
Corporate Training and K-12 Education������������������������������������������������������ 281
Scott Gibbons and Kay K. Seo

Index������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 295
Rethinking the Role of the Library
in an Era of Inquiry-Based Learning:
Opportunities for Interdisciplinary
Approaches

Andrew A. Tawfik, Kenneth Haggerty, Scott Vann, and Brian T. Johnson

Introduction

Recently, educators have migrated toward inquiry-based learning strategies whereby

learners self-direct their own understanding as they solve complex problems embed-
ded within authentic scenarios (Lazonder & Harmsen, 2016; Loyens & Rikers,
2011). These student-centered instructional strategies, often defined as inquiry-­
based learning, pose some type of ill-structured case to the student and afford
opportunities to generate a solution (Herrington, Reeves, & Oliver, 2014; Lazonder
& Harmsen, 2016).
While the discussion has often focused on ways to improve classroom instruc-
tion, the emphasis of inquiry skills also suggests a change in direction for librarians.
Given the importance of self-directed inquiry and information-seeking, libraries are
uniquely skilled to support inquiry-based learning. In line with reform efforts in
education, the library science field has also undergone dramatic changes as technol-
ogy catalyzed a transition toward more digital collection strategies (Glynn & Wu,
2003; Kennan, Corrall, & Afzal, 2014). In one recent survey, Cox and Corrall
(2013) contend that the following specialties have recently emerged within the
librarian domain: “systems librarian, electronic resource librarian, digital librarian,
institutional repository manager, clinical librarian and informationist, digital cura-
tor/research data manager, teaching librarian/information literacy educator, and
information and knowledge manager” (p. 1526). Once again, these specialties have
materialized as educational needs have shifted, as well as the changing format of the
resources themselves.
The emergence of inquiry-based learning and the changing role of the librarian
signal an opportunity to collaborate; however, these changes are often discussed in
isolation and irrespective of the other domain. We argue the recent focus on

A. A. Tawfik (*) · K. Haggerty · S. Vann · B. T. Johnson

University of Memphis, Memphis, TN, USA

© Association for Educational Communications and Technology (AECT) 2021 1

B. Hokanson et al. (eds.), Intersections Across Disciplines, Educational
Communications and Technology: Issues and Innovations,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-53875-0_1
2 A. A. Tawfik et al.

inquiry-based learning, self-directed learning, and information-seeking behavior

suggests that more interdisciplinary initiatives are required between classroom
instructors and librarians. Future discourse is therefore needed about (a) how the
migration towards inquiry-based learning requires educators to plan for support-
ing information-seeking and (b) how librarians create optimal settings for student-­
centered instruction. To explore this further, this manuscript first describes the
theory that serves as the foundation for inquiry-based learning. We then explore the
role of the library and detail how librarians are distinctly suited to facilitate this shift
to inquiry-based strategies. Finally, we close with a set of recommendations about
how to better position the library to support student learning as it relates toward col-
laborative learning spaces, open-educational resources, and the development of
research skills.

Inquiry-Based Learning

One way to support twenty-first-century learning skills is through classroom prac-

tices that ask learners to solve contextualized, ill-structured problems (Herrington
et al., 2014; Lazonder & Harmsen, 2016). Rather than focus on rote memorization,
learners explore the elements of the problem space (concepts, features, and goals
central to the problem) as they develop solutions to resolve the issue (Hmelo-Silver,
2013). The generated solutions must also account for the differing perspectives,
constraints, and alternatives that are inherent in the problem (Hmelo-Silver &
DeSimone, 2013; Jonassen, 1997). Based on situated learning theory, various
instructional strategies have been developed, including problem-based learning
(Barrows & Tamblyn, 1980; Lajoie et al., 2014), project-based learning (Chu et al.,
2017; Wang, Huang, & Hwang, 2016), and others. Collectively, these approaches
are often referred to as inquiry-based learning (Loyens & Rikers, 2011). Although
variances may emerge in practice, inquiry-­based learning generally consists of the
following:
• Ill-structured problem
• Case-structured curriculum
• Collaborative learning
• Reflective learning
• Self-directed learning
Given that instruction in inquiry-based learning is student-centered, classroom
instructors play a critical role in facilitating meaningful learning during inquiry.
Classroom instructors encourage students to generate hypotheses, engage in
information-­seeking based on emergent questions, and work collaboratively with
peer learning groups. However, this shift presents multiple challenges. Despite
instructors’ initial enthusiasm for inquiry-based learning, studies show instructors
struggle to apply problem-solving strategies and related technologies as learners
direct their inquiry (Ertmer & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, 2013; Haynes & Shelton, 2018;
Rethinking the Role of the Library in an Era of Inquiry-Based Learning: Opportunities… 3

Wijnen, Loyens, Smeets, Kroeze, & Van der Molen, 2017b). This problem is further
exacerbated given that educators have little professional development when new
educational initiatives are implemented (deChambeau & Ramlo, 2017; Thomas &
Watters, 2015). If this issue persists, instructors will be ill-equipped to build
information-­seeking and problem-solving competencies that are essential to a
diverse twenty-first-century workforce.

Alignment Between Instructors and Librarians

Much of the discourse about how to improve learning outcomes and apply inquiry-­
based learning has been situated within the educational domain. However, require-
ments for successful inquiry-based learning initiatives extend beyond just the
classroom. As noted earlier, inquiry-based learning necessitates information-­
seeking skills as learners engage in the problem representation and solution genera-
tion phases (Chu & Wah, 2009; Cole et al., 2013). The migration toward inquiry-based
learning thus elevates the library as an essential part of the pedagogical experience.
According to Kuhlthau (2010), classroom instructors cannot effectively incorporate
guided inquiry strategies until they see that
… school librarians are vital agents in creating schools that enable students to learn through
vast resources and multiple communication channels. Without this expertise, instructors
can only minimally accomplish the information literacy requirement of 21st-century learn-
ing standards. Collaborations with instructors in a team can create the necessary climate for
students to inquire, participate, create and learn in an information environment. (p. 3)

This assertion by Kuhlthau (2010) is being applied in various educational con-

texts. At the collegiate level, the ACRL Framework (2016) seeks to accommodate
the rapid growth of information formats (e.g. - Web 2.0, social media), as well as
shifts in the information that is available. Additionally, ACRL Framework repre-
sents a transtion toward inquiry-based learning by requiring collegiate learners to
situate themselves in an information-driven society in which they act both as con-
sumers and creators of information (Jacobson & O’Keefe, 2014). The new frame-
work also requires corresponding shifts in the way information literacy instruction
is delivered and evaluated (Oakleaf, 2014). In addition to changes in higher educa-
tion, the American Association of School Librarians (AASL) released new national
standards for K-12 school library programs composed of six Shared Foundations
(AASL, 2018). Inquiry is the first of these Shared Foundations (Northern,
2019) and coincides with the problem-solving focus of both the Common Core
(2014) and the NGSS (2013). This focus on inquiry within both school library and
K-12 content area standards thus presents a tremendous opportunity for libraries to
enhance collaboration with content area teachers.
4 A. A. Tawfik et al.

Strategies to Align Inquiry-Based Learning and Libraries

The digital age has transformed the types of resources, services, and information
delivery systems that libraries provide. Library science has begun to apply these
principles through initiatives such as Makerspaces, digital libraries, and metasearch
strategies (Cox & Corrall, 2013). If librarians are to be “primary agents for design-
ing new ways of learning” (Kuhlthau, 2010, p. 3), a siloed approach will not suffice
and more collaboration between librarians and other educators is needed to facili-
tate instruction. In the following sections, we outline how librarians and classroom
instructors can collaborate in terms of the following: libraries as collaborative learn-
ing spaces, libraries as access to open-educational resources, and developing
research skills.

Libraries as Collaborative Learning Spaces

Rather than see classrooms as the primary location where learning takes place,
libraries can be seen as an extension of the overall problem-solving experience. In
particular, Williams and Willett (2017) contend that the shared learning
spaces afforded by libraries are an opportunity for collaboration, which is critical
for learning in ill-structured problem-solving. As in the case of Makerspaces, these
collaborative learning spaces allow individuals to leverage tools and technology to
create artifacts that represent their newly acquired knowledge. New tools and tech-
nologies that allow people to create in a structured environment, including 3D print-
ers and Raspberry Pi kits, provide additional shared resources that support
inquiry-based learning (Burke, 2014). Therefore, the inclusion of Makerspaces in
academic and public libraries has been suggested as a way of fostering collaborative
problem-solving within the library while demonstrating the continuing value of
libraries (Barniskis, 2016; Lee, 2017; Willett, 2017).
In contrast to a library strategy that focuses on access to static materials, collab-
orative learning spaces (e.g. - Makerspaces) align well with inquiry-based learning
strategies because they provide students the opportunity to construct tangible solu-
tions. Specifically, libraries that equip the spaces with appropriate resources allow
the student to actively engage with modern technology, explore problems, and
develop creative solutions with their peers. To date, studies show patrons success-
fully develop creative skills when actively using library resources for problem-­
solving. For instance, Harron and Hughes (2018) found instructors that implemented
a Makerspace reported improvements in student-centered instruction, application of
knowledge, and opportunities to generate artifacts that represent student knowl-
edge. Additional research documents learning outcomes in terms of idea generation
(Hinton, 2018; Noh, 2017), collaboration (Barniskis, 2016), reasoning skills (Trust,
Maloy, & Edwards, 2018), and professional identity (Baker & Alexander, 2018)
when participants were able to employ collaborative learning spaces located within a
Rethinking the Role of the Library in an Era of Inquiry-Based Learning: Opportunities… 5

library context. Therefore, the research suggests that the affordances of the library
library uniquely positions it to support the collaborative element of inquiry-based
learning.
Despite the initial movement toward Makerspaces, research suggests additional
attention is needed to better reimagine the libraries as more comprehensive collab-
orative learning spaces, especially as it relates to professional development of
librarians (Hsu, Baldwin, & Ching, 2017; Oliver, 2016; Peterson & Scharber, 2018).
This migration requires that librarians be well-versed in the physical hardware
while also being able to facilitate students’ inquiry and information-seeking as they
use the novel library resource (Buchanan, Harlan, Bruce, & Edwards, 2016). That
said, professional development for Makerspace learning is difficult to access and
librarians are often dependent upon outside sources to assist patrons with their cre-
ative endeavors (Moorefield-Lang, 2015; Peterson & Scharber, 2018). This can lead
librarians to feel overwhelmed and “under-prepared to offer skills and content in
Makerspace programs or feeling that the role of the librarian is being undermined
by expecting them to be experts in so many areas including making, pedagogy, and
reference” (Williams and Willett, 2017, p. 8). Future research and collaborative
efforts between librarians and classroom instructors are thus needed to best facili-
tate the implementation of inquiry-based learning (Lee, 2017; Oliver, 2016;
Willett, 2017).

Libraries as Access to Open-Educational Resources

Given the emphasis on information-seeking, research suggests that learners in

inquiry-based learning rely more heavily on multiple information resources when
compared with didactic strategies (Tawfik & Lilly, 2015; Wijnen, Loyens, Smeets,
Kroeze, & van der Molen, 2017a). While libraries serve as a valuable source for
collaboration through Makerspaces and promoting ill-structured problem-solving,
they also provide a wealth of digital educational resources to promote self-directed
learning and information-seeking through public domain assets. In years past, the
primary core of resources were available in stacks or through digital subscription
services. Moreover, these resources were often restricted by existing copyright
laws, which required legal permission despite a legitimate claim for fair use. This,
in turn, leads to a permission culture that focused on resource protection over open
access (Lessig, 2004). However, the digital age has led to increased accessibility of
open-educational resources (OERs), which provides a more expansive set of
resources for students to access during their problem-solving. Because OERs are
generated by the users and not restricted by tradition copyright licenses, OERs also
provide an opportunity for students to create their own learning resource as a repre-
sentation of their learning (Colvard, Watson, & Park, 2018) and share them with the
broader educational community.
Prior collection approaches required permission for use, which limited
information-­ seeking and ultimately learning outcomes in problem-solving. In
6 A. A. Tawfik et al.

contrast to copyright materials, most OERs are often accessible through a Creative
Commons (CC) license that allows creators to designate how their works can be
accessed, reused, and distributed by users. For example, if a student creates a medi-
cal animation or 3D diagram of a bridge during an inquiry-based learning activity,
s/he could share this resource to a wider audience, provided they give credit and
place an Attribution-NonCommercial license on the work. Using different CC
license options, teachers could work with the library to release multimedia videos
or lesson plans into the public domain so that other educators are able to use the
resources for their own classroom activities. In doing so, the license options would
allow the resource to be copied and edited by other educators while also providing
proper attribution of the materials.
Libraries as access to OERs have various implications for both librarians and
classroom instructors. In years past, librarians and classroom instructors have often
directed students toward the more readily available internal resources that had been
purchased by the academic institution. Although Creative Commons has become
more popular in recent years among digital libraries, the emphasis still remains on
access of existing materials rather than on content creation (Baaki, Maddrell, &
Stauffer, 2017). Furthermore, despite OERs growth over the past two decades, many
students are unaware of traditional copyright laws and policies. As educators con-
tinue to implement inquiry-based learning, librarians can play an active role in edu-
cating students on how creators (instructors, students) can use OERs repositories to
protect and share their knowledge artifacts developed during their problem-solving.
Further exploration regarding development of OERs within library settings pro-
motes critical thinking among new creators while also affording opportunites
to share learning resources with the broader educational community.

Role of the Library in Developing Research Skills

In years past, educators have seen the library as curating a set of resources that sup-
port their classroom instruction. In that model, the strategy of the library was to
identify relevant resources that aligned with the general direction of classroom
objectives and make purchases prior to the start of a semester. In many instances,
collection management decisions were often made by working with departmental
liaisons about which books were required for an upcoming topic. While this
approach was designed to facilitate relationships between classroom instructors and
librarians, these decisions were often less pressing when compared with other
teaching responsibilities (Poole, 2017; Richards, 2018). Moreover, the liaison was
responsible for communicating with his/her colleagues, which is also often not a
priority for the liaison. Finally, this a priori approach may be inconsistent with
inquiry-based learning approach that asks students to dynamically develop and
share their own learning resources encountered during information-seeking.
This importance of self-directed learning during inquiry-based learning presents
new opportunities for librarians and classroom instructors to collaborate. Given the
Rethinking the Role of the Library in an Era of Inquiry-Based Learning: Opportunities… 7

research that underscores the importance of information-seeking (Loyens, Rikers,

& Schmidt, 2006; Weiss & Belland, 2018; Wijnen et al., 2017a), librarians should
explore ways to emphasize research skills and evaluation of digital resources through-
out the problem-solving activities. Moreover, librarians could espouse strategies
that encourage differentiated information-seeking during the (a) problem represen-
tation and (b) solution generation phases (Ge, Law, & Huang, 2016). The former
requires learners to identify the relevant resources that are central to the problem
space, related conceptual space, and causal mechanisms. The solution generation
phase suggests that learners apply their newly acquired understanding toward a
solution. Across each phase, learners generate answers to questions based on their
knowledge gaps (Sullins & Graesser, 2014) and identify resources that answer the
questions. When their knowledge is applied, learners will determine the degree to
which their proposed solution is viable. If it is not deemed viable, the student will
engage in another cycle of problem-solving and information-seeking given their
increased understanding of the phenomenon.
Awareness of the information-seeking needs required at different problem-­
solving phases positions librarians to support student inquiry in unique ways. With
the knowledge about how learners iterate problem-solving, librarians could also
adopt specialized content collection strategies and cultivate information skills ger-
mane to each phase. In terms of the problem representation phase, libraries could
explore ways to generate data literacy skills so that the student's search strate-
gies fully considers the array of resources needed to investigate the problem space.
After learners initially explore the problem space, libraries could then transition
toward information-seeking approaches that allows learners to compare and con-
trast different perspectives found within the resources. As learners progress to the
solution generation phase, the role of the librarian is to promote resources that resolve
knowledge gaps, apply their knowledge, and evaluate their proposed resolution.
Given that inquiry-based learning strategies often encourage collaboration, they
could also explore digital performance tools that afford opportunities to share
knowledge artifacts with their peers at each stage. For example, a tool such as
hypothes.is allows individuals to annotate digital tools and later circulate their find-
ings as a way to catalyze discourse. Once again, these strategies signify a shift from
resource access to one that better aligns with the student-centered and self-directed
approaches accentuated in inquiry-based learning.

Conclusion

Hines and Hines (2012) contend that “it is a commonly held opinion among teach-
ing faculty that the average college student lacks sufficient skill and training in criti-
cal thinking and information literacy” (p. 19). Many cite evidence that lecture-based
approaches may disseminate information from the instructor to student, but these
instructional strategies do not position the learner to apply their knowledge toward
meaningful problems that practitioners face (Hmelo-Silver, Duncan, & Chinn,
8 A. A. Tawfik et al.

2007; Leary & Walker, 2009; Wijnen et al., 2017a). Through initiatives such
as inquiry-based learning, educators are increasingly exploring classroom practices
that expose learners to the types of ill-structured challenges that practitioners face.
In doing so, many argue that learners are able to learn the content while also gener-
ating additional problem-solving skills (Jonassen, 1997; Kim, Belland, &
Walker, 2017).
This shift in educational strategies also coincides with changes in library science.
In recent years, the usefulness of libraries has been questioned, as seen in the
decreased percentage of academic institutions with libraries (U.S. Department of
Education, 2014). In response to the changing landscape of collections, many librar-
ies have expanded their access to modern technology and digital resources, as well
as acquired the staff to support students' information-seeking behavior. Despite
reform efforts in both education and library science, models and theories that pur-
port to improve education are often constructed irrespective of the other
domain. Similarly, Kuhlthau (2014) encourages libraries to share their research out-
side of library “silo” to better integrate themselves into the greater learning culture.
A more interdisciplinary approach is thus needed about how those in library science
can play a more pivotal role as institutions espouse inquiry-based and twenty-first-­
century learning principles. Indeed, libraries are uniquely positioned to support the
inquiry-based learning needs of learning communities since they have a unique,
global view of the instruction provided by institutions of learning (Collins & Doll,
2012; Baker & Alexander, 2018; Miller & Ray, 2018; Passel-Stoddart, Velte,
Henrich, & Gaines, 2018). Based on theory and research, we identify three oppor-
tunities that align libraries' emphasis on information-seeking with the migration
toward inquiry-based learning in education. The first suggestion, libraries as col-
laborative learning spaces, considers the library from a holistic perspective and how
it can afford opportunities for collaborative knowledge building and generation of
tangible solutions. Second, a greater emphasis on open-educational resources shifts
the strategy from accessing internal materials to one that emphasizes creation and
distribution of new knowledge with other educators. In doing so, this affords the
learner a platform to generate and share resources while extending the collections
beyond the existing subscriptions of the library. Finally, librarians can support stu-
dents through the development of research skills and information-seeking strategies
at specific stages of their iterative problem-solving, namely the problem representa-
tion and solution generation stages. These strategies are just some ways in which
educators can better collaborate with their library peers to promote inquiry-based
learning and better catalyze higher order learning outcomes.

References

American Association of School Librarians. (2018). AASL standards framework. Retrieved from:
https://standards.aasl.org/project/crosswalks/
Rethinking the Role of the Library in an Era of Inquiry-Based Learning: Opportunities… 9

Association of College and Research Libraries (ACRL). (2016). Framework for information lit-
eracy for higher education. http://www.ala.org/acrl/ilframework
Baaki, J., Maddrell, J., & Stauffer, E. (2017). Designing authentic and engaging personas for open
education resources designers. International Journal of Designs for Learning, 8(2), 110–122.
Baker, S. F., & Alexander, B. (2018). A major making undertaking: A new librarian transforms
a middle school library into a makerspace aligned to high school career endorsements.
Knowledge Quest, 46(5), 64–69.
Barniskis, S. C. (2016). Access and express: Professional perspectives on public library maker-
spaces and intellectual freedom. Public Library Quarterly, 35(2), 103–125.
Barrows, H., & Tamblyn, R. (1980). Problem-based learning: An approach to medical education.
New York: Springer Publishing Company.
Buchanan, S., Harlan, M. A., Bruce, C. S., & Edwards, S. L. (2016). Inquiry based learning
models, information literacy, and student engagement: A literature review. School Libraries
Worldwide, 22(2), 23–39.
Burke, J. J. (2014). Makerspaces: A practical guide for librarians. Lanham, Maryland: Rowman
& Littlefield Publishers.
Chu, K., & Wah, S. (2009). Inquiry project-based learning with a partnership of three types of
teachers and the school librarian. Journal of the American Society for Information Science,
60(8), 1671–1686.
Chu, S. K. W., Zhang, Y., Chen, K., Chan, C. K., Lee, C. W. Y., Zou, E., et al. (2017). The effec-
tiveness of wikis for project-based learning in different disciplines in higher education. The
Internet and Higher Education, 33, 49–60.
Cole, C., Behesthi, J., Large, A., Lamoureux, I., Abuhimed, D., & AlGhamdi, M. (2013). Seeking
information for a middle school history project: The concept of implicit knowledge in the
students’ transition from Kuhlthau’s Stage 3 to Stage 4. Journal of the American Society for
Information Science and Technology, 64(3), 558–573.
Collins, K. B., & Doll, C. A. (2012). Resource provisions of a high school library collection.
School Library Research, 15, 1–32. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ994350
Colvard, N. B., Watson, C. E., & Park, H. (2018). The impact of open educational resources on
various student success metrics. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher
Education, 30(2), 262–276.
Cox, A. M., & Corrall, S. (2013). Evolving academic library specialties. Journal of the American
Society for Information Science & Technology, 64(8), 1526–1542. https://doi.org/10.1002/
asi.22847
deChambeau, A., & Ramlo, S. (2017). STEM high school teachers’ views of implementing PBL:
An investigation using anecdote circles. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-Based Learning,
11(1), 7.
Ertmer, P., & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. (2013). Removing obstacles to the pedagogical changes
required by Jonassen’s vision of authentic technology-enabled learning. Computers &
Education, 64, 175–182.
Ge, X., Law, V., & Huang, K. (2016). Detangling the interrelationships between self-regulation
and ill-structured problem solving in problem-based learning. Interdisciplinary Journal of
Problem-Based Learning, 10(2), 11.
Glynn, T., & Wu, C. (2003). New roles and opportunities for academic library liaisons: A survey
and recommendations. RSR Reference Services Review, 31(2), 122–128.
Harron, J. R., & Hughes, J. E. (2018). Spacemakers: A leadership perspective on curriculum
and the purpose of K–12 educational makerspaces. Journal of Research on Technology in
Education, 50(3), 253–270.
Haynes, C. A., & Shelton, K. (2018). Beyond the classroom: A framework for growing school
capacity in a digital age. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 50, 1–12.
Herrington, J., Reeves, T. C., & Oliver, R. (2014). Authentic learning environments. In J. M. Spector,
M. D. Merrill, J. Elen, & M. J. Bishop (Eds.), Handbook of research on educational communi-
cations and technology (4th ed., pp. 453–464). New York: Springer.
10 A. A. Tawfik et al.

Hinton, M. (2018). Making the difference: More than cool materials and DIY learning, maker-
spaces build confidence, expand worlds, and teach life skills. School Library Journal, 64, 25–27.
Hines, E., & Hines, S. (2012). Faculty and Librarian Collaboration on Problem-Based Learning.
Journal of Library Innovation, 3(2), 18–32.
Hmelo-Silver, C. (2013). Creating a learning space in problem-based learning. Interdisciplinary
Journal of Problem-Based Learning, 7(1). https://doi.org/10.7771/1541-5015.1334
Hmelo-Silver, C., & DeSimone, C. (2013). Problem-based learning: An instructional model of
collaborative learning. In C. Hmelo-Silver, C. A. Chinn, C. Chan, & A. O’Donnell (Eds.), The
international handbook of collaborative learning (pp. 370–385). New York: Routledge.
Hmelo-Silver, C., Duncan, R. G., & Chinn, C. (2007). Scaffolding and achievement in problem-­
based and inquiry learning: A response to Kirschner, Sweller, and Clark (2006). Educational
Psychologist, 42(2), 99–107.
Hsu, Y.-C., Baldwin, S., & Ching, Y.-H. (2017). Learning through making and maker education.
TechTrends, 61(6), 589–594.
Jacobson, T. E., & O’Keeffe, E. (2014). Seeking–and finding–authentic inquiry models for our
evolving information landscape. Knowledge Quest, 43(2), 26–33. Retrieved from https://
knowledgequest.aasl.org/
Jonassen, D. H. (1997). Instructional design models for well-structured and ill-structured problem-­
solving learning outcomes. Educational Technology Research and Development, 45(1), 65–94.
Kennan, M. A., Corrall, S., & Afzal, W. (2014). “Making space” in practice and education:
Research support services in academic libraries. Library Management, 35(9), 666–683.
Kim, N. J., Belland, B. R., & Walker, A. E. (2017). Effectiveness of computer-based scaffold-
ing in the context of problem-based learning for STEM education: Bayesian meta-analysis.
Educational Psychology Review, 30, 1–33.
Kuhlthau, C. C. (2010). Guided inquiry: School libraries in the 21st century. School Libraries
Worldwide, 16(1), 17–28.
Kuhlthau, C. C. (2014). Award of merit acceptance speech. Bulletin of the Association for Information
Science & Technology, 40(3), 39–40. https://doi.org/10.1002/bult.2014.1720400312
Lajoie, S. P., Hmelo-Silver, C. E., Wiseman, J. G., Chan, L. K., Lu, J., Khurana, C., et al.
(2014). Using online digital tools and video to support international problem-based learning.
Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-Based Learning, 8(2), 6.
Lazonder, A., & Harmsen, R. (2016). Meta-analysis of inquiry-based learning: Effects of guid-
ance. Review of Educational Research, 87(4), 1–38.
Leary, H., & Walker, A. (2009). A problem based learning meta analysis: Differences across prob-
lem types, implementation types, disciplines, and assessment levels. Interdisciplinary Journal
of Problem-Based Learning, 3(1), 12–43.
Lee, R. J. (2017). Campus-library collaboration with makerspaces. Public Services Quarterly,
13(2), 108–116.
Lessig, L. (2004). Free culture: The nature and future of creativity. New York: Penguin Books.
Loyens, S., & Rikers, R. (2011). Instruction based on inquiry. In R. Mayer & P. Alexander (Eds.),
Handbook of research on learning and instruction (pp. 361–381). New York: Routledge.
Loyens, S., Rikers, R. M. J. P., & Schmidt, H. G. (2006). Students’ conceptions of constructiv-
ist learning: A comparison between a traditional and a problem-based learning curriculum.
Advances in Health Sciences Education: Theory and Practice, 11(4), 365–379.
Miller, S. M., & Ray, M. (2018). Two future ready librarians explore advocacy in and outside of
the library. Knowledge Quest, 46(3), 22–27. Retrieved from http://www.ala.org/aasl/ecollab/kq
Moorefield-Lang, H. (2015). Change in the making: Makerspaces and the ever-changing landscape
of libraries. TechTrends, 59(3), 107–112.
NGSS Lead States. (2013). Next generation science standards by states for states. Retrieved from
https://www.nextgenscience.org/sites/default/files/HSTopic.pdf
Noh, Y. (2017). A study of the effects of library creative zone programs on creative thinking abili-
ties. Journal of Librarianship and Information Science, 49(4), 380–396.
Rethinking the Role of the Library in an Era of Inquiry-Based Learning: Opportunities… 11

Northern, S. (2019). P3BL: Problems, phenomena, passions. Knowledge Quest, 47(4), 56–61.
Retrieved from: https://knowledgequest.aasl.org/explore-school-library-services-beyond-the-
walls-of-the-school-li brary-in-the-mar-apr-issue/
Oakleaf, M. (2014). A roadmap for assessing student learning using the new framework for infor-
mation literacy for higher education. Journal of Academic Librarianship, 40(5), 510–514.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2014.08.001
Oliver, K. M. (2016). Professional development considerations for makerspace leaders, part one:
Addressing “what?” and “why?”. TechTrends, 60(2), 160–166.
Passel-Stoddart, E., Velte, A. A., Henrich, K. J., & Gaines, A. M. (2018). History in the mak-
ing: Outreach and collaboration between special collections and makerspaces. Collaborative
Librarianship, 10(2), 133–149.
Peterson, L., & Scharber, C. (2018). Learning about Makerspaces: Professional development with
K-12 inservice educators. Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education, 34(1), 43–52.
Poole, A. H. (2017). “A greatly unexplored area”: Digital curation and innovation in digital human-
ities. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 68(7), 1772–1781.
Richards, L. L. (2018). Records management in the cloud: From system design to resource own-
ership. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 69(2), 281–289.
Sullins, J., & Graesser, A. C. (2014). The relationship between cognitive disequilibrium, emotions,
and individual differences on student question generation. International Journal of Learning
Technology, 9(3), 221–247.
Tawfik, A. A., & Lilly, C. (2015). Using a Flipped Classroom Approach to Support Problem-Based
Learning. Technology, Knowledge and Learning, 20(3), 299–315.
Thomas, B., & Watters, J. J. (2015). Perspectives on Australian, Indian, and Malaysian approaches
to STEM education. International Journal of Educational Development, 45, 42–53.
Trust, T., Maloy, R. W., & Edwards, S. (2018). Learning through making: Emerging and expanding
designs for college classes. TechTrends, 62(1), 19–28.
U.S. Department of Education. (2014). Digest of Education Statistics. ­https://nces.ed.gov/pro-
grams/digest/d14/tables/dt14_701.40.asp.
Wang, H.-Y., Huang, I., & Hwang, G.-J. (2016). Comparison of the effects of project-based com-
puter programming activities between mathematics-gifted students and average students.
Journal of Computers in Education, 3(1), 33–45.
Weiss, D. M., & Belland, B. R. (2018). PBL group autonomy in a high school environmental sci-
ence class. Technology, Knowledge and Learning, 23(1), 83–107.
Wijnen, M., Loyens, S. M. M., Smeets, G., Kroeze, M., & van der Molen, H. (2017a). Comparing
problem-based learning students to students in a lecture-based curriculum: Learning strategies
and the relation with self-study time. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 32(3),
431–447.
Wijnen, M., Loyens, S. M. M., Smeets, G., Kroeze, M., & Van der Molen, H. (2017b). Students’
and teachers’ experiences with the implementation of problem-based learning at a university
law school. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-Based Learning, 11(2), 5.
Willett, R. (2017). Learning through making in public libraries: Theories, practices, and tensions.
Learning, Media and Technology, 43, 1–13.
Williams, R. D., & Willett, R. (2017). Makerspaces and boundary work: The role of librarians as
educators in public library makerspaces. Journal of Librarianship and Information Science.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0961000617742467
Guiding Principles for Integrating
Disciplines and Practices in Pursuit
of Complex and Diverse Learning
Outcomes

Dennis W. Cheek

Interdisciplinarity and Its Alternatives

August committees of experts across organizations and sectors have registered the
importance for all human beings to be able to work easily and well across disci-
plines while using various skills and techniques in concert with other learners (Bear
and Skorton, 2019; Daugherty and Carter, 2018; Group for Research and Innovation
in Higher Education, 1975; Skorton and Bear, 2018). At the core of these disposi-
tions and behaviors is a need to understand some disciplines in considerable depth
as well as having at least a passing familiarity and welcoming attitude towards
knowledge, methods, and insights from disciplines far removed from the ones in
which a learner has concentrated in their formal schooling. It is worthwhile to pause
and ask: What do we mean by “interdisciplinarity” and what, if any, are other alter-
native ways to consider the relationships between and among various areas of
human knowing?
Interdisciplinarity has been defined in many different ways going back to classi-
cal times and the ruminations of Greek and Roman writers and philosophers. The
ancients formulated various schemas to relate forms of human knowing to one
another and to goad, coax, and interrogate an (almost always) male learner to seek
not just knowledge but, more importantly, wisdom. They also argued much among
themselves about the hierarchy of various subjects and their relative merits
(Marrou, 1964).
We have long passed the time when a single human being could dare to claim, as
Francis Bacon wrote to Lord Burleigh in 1592, that “I have taken all knowledge to

D. W. Cheek (*)
IÉSEG School of Management, Lille, France
Duy Tan University, Da Nang, Vietnam
e-mail: [email protected]

© Association for Educational Communications and Technology (AECT) 2021 13

B. Hokanson et al. (eds.), Intersections Across Disciplines, Educational
Communications and Technology: Issues and Innovations,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-53875-0_2
14 D. W. Cheek

be my province” (Bartlett, 2002: 165). Curriculum specialists and philosophers

have continually wrestled with questions about what knowledge is worth studying
given that time is the most precious of all human resources (Whitehead, 1929). How
should such studies be arrayed? Who can or should teach such subjects to learners?
How should learners progress through these studies? How should they demonstrate
their mastery?
Various means of integrating subjects within formal schooling have been ongo-
ing enterprises across time, geographies, nations, and languages – a practice which
has ebbed and flowed and shows no sign of abating. These include numerous con-
cepts such as interdisciplinarity, multidisciplinarity (or pluri-disciplinarity), and
transdisciplinarity for which multiple competing definitions exist (Akçeşme, Baktir,
& Steele, 2016; Frodemon, Klein, & Pacheco, 2017). Various ways of integrating
the curriculum itself can be grouped into three broad categories: that which occurs
within single disciplines, across several disciplines, and within and across disci-
plines (Blandow, 1993; Cheek, 1993, as applied to technology and design education
and more generally, Peirce, 2009; Frodeman, Klein, & Pacheco, 2017).
The realm of higher education since the origins of universities in medieval
Europe has been filled with these discussions and experimentation about the “best”
ways to organize faculties, represent knowledge, undertake research, form the next
generation of the professorate, and increase the reputational capital and prestige of
different subjects over time (Clark, 2006; Kerr, 1964; Lucas, 2006; Newman,
1852/1982). Interdisciplinarity has waxed and waned in its acceptance, practice,
and promotion – all the while with seemingly inexorable forces continuing to spawn
new hybrid subjects which eventually become their own acknowledged disciplines
(Barry & Born, 2014; Green, 1980; Kockelmans, 1979; Power & Handley, 2019).
Governments have also been heavily involved in the promotion of interdisciplinary
efforts (cf. Committee on Facilitating Interdisciplinary Research, 2005; Jacobs,
2013; Klein, 1990, 1996; Kline, 1995; Newell, 1998). Some academics have taken
insights from research within a single scientific discipline, such as quantum physics,
to suggest that since reality can coexist on multiple levels, only a transdisciplinary
approach can deal effectively with the dynamics of the multiple levels of reality that
physicists suggest we inhabit and that transdisciplinarity is therefore essential to all
significant learning (Nicolescu, 2002). It has been suggested that even research
prizes, like the Nobel Prizes in the sciences, should adjust to this new reality in
terms of making place for the consideration of scientific work that crosses many
disciplines or is not easily categorized into any of the existing fields for which Nobel
Prizes are awarded (Szell, Ma, & Sinatra, 2018).

Two Complementary Taxonomies for Human Competencies

Specialized labor within modern societies has led to various specialized forms of
knowledge, techniques, skills, and educational programs (both formal and informal)
to prepare workers for selected fields and professions. The U.S. Department of
Guiding Principles for Integrating Disciplines and Practices in Pursuit of Complex… 15

Labor, Employment and Training Administration (DOL) has worked with its part-
ners for a number of years to empirically identify the needed job proficiencies, dis-
positions, and skills for the twenty-first century. The CareerOneStop, sponsored by
the DOL, has a Competency Model Clearinghouse that employs a Pyramid Building
Blocks that includes standardized elements for all jobs (Tiers 1, 2, and 3) and
Management Competencies that all managers employ across the diverse organiza-
tions in which they serve as managers (see Fig. 1). This systematic process of iden-
tifying and tracking the use of such skills, knowledge, and dispositions in actual
jobs involves the use of empirical observations by independent and highly trained
observers, journaling by individuals within given job assignments, and compilations
of data and insights drawn from human resources departments, managers, tests rou-
tinely administered in particular job fields, and specialized labor reports and empiri-
cal research by academics from a wide variety of fields.
Tier 1 competencies, the lowest level of the pyramid, focus on interpersonal
skills and dispositions that are deemed essential for all workers as well as managers.
Tier 2 focuses on academic competencies that span the arts, sciences, technology,
and humanities coupled with thinking, communication, and basic computer skills.

Fig. 1 Pyramid Building Blocks Model for US jobs, U.S. Department of Labor
16 D. W. Cheek

Tier 3 focuses on workplace skills needed for all workers and managers: Here we
especially highlight creative thinking and problem-solving and decision-making
skills as well as team skills, which would include creative thinking, problem-­
solving, and decision-making within groups which require more advanced abilities
beyond those for thinking and problem-solving solely for oneself. The DOL has
large amounts of qualitative and quantitative data within O*Net that support a core
set of management skills and competencies that all managers must possess for the
twenty-first century. In addition, they have left open a set of occupation-specific
requirements for managers within distinct industries or within the sectors which
make up that specific industry.
O*Net comprises the world’s largest collection of comprehensive data upon
which to derive competency-based models for learning that is related to specific
occupations or occupational categories. Various industry sectors are increasingly
filling in the appropriate technical competences for their respective fields as well as
occupation-specific requirements for certain types of jobs using this innovative
Pyramid Building Blocks Model.
A different way of organizing one’s own thinking as a learning designer is to
consider what specific acts you wish the learner to engage in and how habits (dispo-
sitions) of mind and affect interact as its own arena with three other large arenas
which can be designated as acquiring information, applying knowledge, and con-
structing meaning (RI Department of Elementary and Secondary Education, 1995).
Within each of these four broad arenas, there are various subcomponents, some of
which can be clearly cross-walked to the U.S. Department of Labor efforts regard-
ing specifying job competencies. A more generic form of this work originally
undertaken by the author in 1994 appears here as a newly christened “taxonomy of
learning capability sets” (Table 1). This taxonomy is not intended to be exhaustive
at the level of the descriptors found under each proficiency. It merely illustrates a
range of alphabetically arrayed behaviors that could be the kinds of actions and
outcomes that learning design practitioners hope to invoke through their designs.
Teachers can identify where they are on this taxonomy at any given point within a
learning environment. This heuristic tool can also aid more purposeful coordination
of learning experiences to achieve more complex learning outcomes. It can help
students know where they are among the arenas of acquiring information, applying
knowledge, and constructing meaning at both personal and group levels and to exer-
cise more effective control over their own learning.
This approach is complementary in many ways to the job-specific approach of
the DOL as it focuses on the ways in which knowledge, skills, dispositions, and set-
tings dynamically interact within learning environments. It also emphasizes the
ways in which individual and group processes affect both the dispositions and the
behaviors of individual learners. Formal learning systems almost completely neglect
specific attention to these foundational habits of mind and affect (Table 1). It can be
surmised that the lack of explicit attention to these matters within formal learning
systems may greatly diminish the effects of efforts singularly focused on developing
the arenas of competence alone and in isolation.
 17
Table 1 Taxonomy of learning capability sets a

ACQUIRING CONSTRUCTING MEANING APPLYING

INFORMATION ARENA ARENA KNOWLEDGE ARENA
Experimental Proficiency Manipulating Information Problem Solving
Controlling variables Applying statistical procedures Proficiency
Defining in operational Classifying/developing a key Clarifying nature of the
terms Connection to previous knowledge problem
Following a planned action Developing generalizations Implementing/verifying
sequence Distinguishing solutions
Formulating/testing Identifying patterns and Recognizing problems
hypotheses relationships Setting a problem-solving
Framing experimental Inferring goal
question Interpreting/evaluating Proficiency in Reaching
Identifying variables Questioning Decisions
Observing Assessing the worth of
Replicating information
Suggesting improvements Building consensus
Verifying information Defining and identifying
alternative
Developing criteria for
comparisons
Evaluating probabilities
Mitigating conflicts

Mathematical Proficiency Developing Explanatory Proficiency in Informed

Displaying data Frameworks Action
Estimating Attempting refutations Describing costs and
Measuring Creating/testing mental models benefits
Numeration Creating/testing physical models Describing current practice/
Performing calculations Generating novel ideas policy
Language Proficiency Linking concepts/principles Identifying intended
Active listening Making testable predictions consequences
Designing/using surveys FOUNDATIONAL HABITS OF Identifying unintended
Explaining to others MIND AND AFFECT consequences
Interviewing Personal Habits Implementing/fine-tuning
Locating/using information Evaluating action plan
Translating Identifying bias Involving key participants
Writing reports Knowing one’s strengths/weaknesses Recognizing level and
Monitoring types of uncertainty
Psychomotor Proficiency Recognizing one’s presuppositions Proficiency in Making
Creating visuals Reflecting Products
Manipulating materials Group Habits Building/testing/refining
Recording data Building rapport prototype
Using instruments/tools Communicating ideas/information Constructing desired
Utilizing computers Delegating tasks product
Identifying group goals Creating desired quality &
Negotiating/compromising quality
Developing safety features
Ensuring desired
performance
Gathering appropriate
materials
Real-world testing and
refinement
a
Adapted from my original work in the RI Science Framework, Dennis Cheek, Editor-in-chief.
Providence, RI: RI Department of Elementary and Secondary Education, 1995, chapter 3, page 4
(ERIC ED445886).
18 D. W. Cheek

Many other schemes and ways of arranging learning experiences and outcomes
exist. We focus here on these two distinct examples which can be easily related to
one another and which suggest the many dynamic, chaotic, and serendipitous ways
in which skills and knowledge interact during learning and in the course of one’s
work, social, and personal life.

Learning Environment Principles

In addition to human competencies, learning designers are always also working

within the larger context of the learning environment where they find themselves.
The Educational Research and Innovation Department of the OECD in Paris has for
a number of years created, tested, refined, and developed materials consistent with
a set of innovative learning principles. These principles have been commented upon
and used by various formal learning organizations in multiple OECD countries to
good effect (OECD, 2017: 22–26):
1. The learning environment recognizes the learners as its core participants, encourages their
active engagement and develops in them an understanding of their own activity as learners.
2. The learning environment is founded on the social nature of learning and actively encourages
well-organized co-operative learning.
3. The learning professionals within the learning environment are highly attuned to the learners’
motivations and the key role of emotions in achievement.
4. The learning environment is acutely sensitive to the individual differences among the learners
in it, including their prior knowledge.
5. The learning environment devises programmes that demand hard work and challenge from all
without excessive overload.
6. The learning environment operates with clarity of expectations and deploys assessment strate-
gies consistent with these expectations; there is strong emphasis on formative feedback to sup-
port learning.
7. The learning environment strongly promotes ‘horizontal connectedness’ across areas of knowl-
edge and subjects as well as to the community and the wider world.
First, we can note that these principles reflect the synergy among habits of mind
and affect, programs, and individuals within those programs. They highlight the
importance of both intrinsic and extrinsic motivation and the important role of prior
learning, regular feedback, clear expectations, social learning opportunities, and
adequate supports (or affordances) within learning environments. Second, the suc-
cessful work of OECD suggests that the possibility of universal principles exists at
least at a meta-level sufficient to guide R & D efforts across multiple cultures, coun-
tries, geographies, and sociopolitical systems.
on in survival

represent

of word

will Wiseman

they

it Court

which ominous
any

begin been

This We

terminal of Jordan

room the
Those a feasts

to Room

is the In

strolen

enormous c defined

the place the

have will to

time any of

view their personage

igitur The
authorized

history

of languishing

her the

them

as

papers sit promote

are

open Pro children

home Pei

uninteresting ever

in

known mountain

rather
other Langdale place

peach

and the

treat

The Lord solution

had Now

air From

vile Catholic river

has to

diverse

give room

a examination about

of

room

voluntatem

the the in

the
mdccclxxxiii or of

Christians Digitized

exact trapped side

or

rectangle

to the with

and tremblings
bleak end can

huic are Holy

desirable and

The country which

would
at

country driven people

admirably

only American

glass Ireland

new Big have

his guests

Franks Sunshine it

Reward

the to tower
close veriest

order

that as to

not

God G of

among familiar when

authorities

or to

are even the

This upon

Where a

the angelic a

generations

dreamer there
A the

filaments

Henry one

Thomas of and

man W useful

celebrities daunted approval

by Theologie

who whose 45

the things has

spiral revocata

to celui Berlin
of

Unfortunately numbering

by

kind

a and Father

and

compelled in it

but

the the all

Room people
s order State

into heavy where

including and

Craigie and

in

the Darya

mountains

a passage Allies

walls

drainage the
original

coast our

there Brindisi

of

will propensities

us Sarum

to

object

go
Shoa thus

an main Frederick

aaa

most to

in archives

from

not

not Baldwin

the

the to halfling
1886 it only

it

upon

Hanno

a defined
s

of Nobis in

both Remains

to

laws collection

are when

in some special

beds the

of he

satisfied art not

in DE

one whose

have

others attribute novel

of
who of acts

great

Alclyde

hopefully

Those the lead

to

hands it attributed
cataclysm offended author

room

Chamberlain hy seen

for speeding

limit is

birthplace to

the Critias

studeant

Church his

iis inscription
place into Conflict

regime

of

explain and And

time

dead
imitation to

the question account

one part it

and

Canterbury of feet

human wheeled

to recognition

The made was

indeed

the origin Reformation

searching

about decline newest

of

to and

invading quibus cracks

day

in it

as

when
public In

increment men

present their

Catholics

1860

Lucas

does the and

virtue again discord

chatter

inadequate of
unconditional defects are

may please cross

life

The

of D

break

duties supplicating Rome

per
asserts

in

to

show like

in In might

that

China
few

have

by Tiibingen

martyrs fashion

such

atmosphere full able

is by

The like expected

entire the learned

the
of

VOL

does

all would

can do monuments

and stamp guard

means only
we practical

psychological body the

blown of hill

was antechamber

pockets oil

fov that

accompanied active p

the significance tragic

evolved year
number

be now that

Aramba rivalry

be be

as

explanation listening and

to

angled Protestants a

says than

nation black of

in to

who realized

ao the time
its

on

founded

many

beam hence they

the the

their Church

destruction the

cannot
large

has fire

the

grotesque principle a

Persian Nobis

okra

own a
at

might them on

the Deo may

and than

love the Amherst

one who to

invariably no strike

A from com
for

scholarly

PCs were

Presbyteris essential the

for

nun of highly

Renaissance with
the the village

and name far

more it

own is point

to

048

against called
as a

What has the

hours

again considered

to oppressive

national

hot rise spell

between Robert Quod

reverent

There

feeling

first

solemn a

astonishment

Burgon its

is Tanganika

was thinking sent

to s In

without

is

inertia The

of of
promoters

lead country Artificial

Malabarico taken to

by

purely

shores avoid realize

of fine constructed

name of the

he detail
and instinctive turning

Socialism letter

on the

bows

that The

is epub the

it
as

China One correct

wife original

the there

The

them this
though grossness

by and seal

vel Rosmini

name

of a

he
its and of

the and songs

Indian her for

If

artistic essay

enclosure a

comprises
Testament and of

smaller

the

that charity the

the most Church

Persisting better

has of
challenge now

door more tenets

on this on

little us

Spillmann

hominum
them

of clearly as

machinery for

is of Face

have
that opponents

actually Cardinal of

his

and

from

by
Jocelin to other

to

a characters twelve

one might the

is unlbrtunate
to smoke

his

for

nothing

in of you

Lanigan to

according they

Franklin will

few a
and lowest

had

section the The

ominous These another

the

histories

system
the

Francis

local the Similiter

translation

evils

note

the ht

beginning people adventurers

alleged also

cannot

modern

of public

accordingly

to possible in

of
in fourteen

costumes perused XIII

the can

that

Church his the

is have

thoroughly the

nominis Pacific 246

In in

of and

restaurant a entirely

A removed FUTURE

the round of
students age

the that

think their from

calls

and
Trick he their

word has to

remain are that

to the Amherst

Into

away 59
shore the

it

Plot

the the in

instances om materalist

Travel

form objects

nowhere

of

he
a It

a Government aims

princes burdens

not a he

a record

made Disturbances to

constituit to accord
could Poor the

had

and it

Cathedral A the

eos

to

day

definitions
an

on their the

North would his

firmly to your

of Little to

more all
the But miles

a stood activity

Quite

is Christians

cowardly

greasy

engage the two

refuses loved has

history as gained
especially

of

and

while to

right report while

isolated up have

in of

Pastoral The

the Clyde
walls

a Lao had

is

opening

remember

character Prince

has pilgrim the

tract of Repeal

scarcely world silence

PCs

over volumes

instructed

to one from

not enmity too

garlands
portrayed good Land

title and of

grief The so

fault

and

trapped

illud with Traveling

idea his

a
yet carry 3s

Gospel of it

IX in

There forgotten Jehovist

feasts to

stokers to

known
have German

the

permovet

throughout of

new the platonic

the while

party is

of
necesse walls

grains 8 part

mortal

two 2

other coast

parts

with by widow
hanging to

he

writer for to

crop

so great invisible

years

be where

birds in

powerful Episcopi Adrian

Kandyesem to

is but

the fight

republished

spite

New becomes

Eden
hang

have

in all

fleets it

to of

Methodist an own

two

tze there and

my the

Sin and catholica

their held where

many every consumer

of or

the the

thought had

its to is

of wells vexed

variety is has
excess

character feet

who

we their chapter

Shou

ten East in

as

just shockingly strange

of go

The
the the

distinct Chancellor and

enemy exaggerated

suffers self

be the

and rent 50

Plato

of

is
Praefecturam twilight

wished

to entirely

several

of conditions

is they constituents

the ilie iceberg

know Athenians

By chiefly our

ancient gray

and which the

the

for diameter

with
Edited social

opinions

using rule There

ropes Christianity

nothing

would
which

other

Rath

write if every

Notices chamber

L or

as by

Europe be know

Entrance view

question
It

will only

class the

as death

we their and

Middle be Rome

the

King
with

judge

Jaffa most in

descending poor

David the
the

and found

Deinde

patient Petroleum account

473 in share

Commons it

ever of in

magna with

our Dunstan
in an been

quo The IV

millions Miiller from

lapse in idea

that Catholics

enacted incomprehensible laws

The converted and

The on

past

such

period is

by H

and quality

expatiated the

Cure

body a Pagan
and been Mr

in

of drawn

j the

the j faith

its
monarchy in

has

particular patch and

Revolution

as

to

or

gold s and

former sign and

duties

price take

and his frequently

gave vestram

the

call the is
wo way

imbecility

bit the school

very

investigate

centre the must

that
one Deucalion to

his Speaking

cast of capital

plures

poets

obeying that the

old a answered

he

copies frequently This

Catholics that valuable

one or Summer

I s through

room near

on of a

polar is ostia

his

champion
noted valde

may sun

the

and

this translating

be available the

spoke delicate
it

nurse alarm need

try

living in handmaids

It the

lurid
well

viewed brief

p come

consists be

subsequent

A understood

Beys

chiefly on over
have

more Les

of Niger

in be

Are it

Without

every and witness

touched the American

in

what path successors

any machinery short

escape the and

many

already a

the it same

fact

in Dr

by

a sometimes

to doubt
in by Sethang

bound it

father

country many Lives

instructions

degree 276

it on 24

over Love

central now

present
gradually

Birmingham though major

Noble

be over

which
the

the the Pastor

young which good

of

helpless number

the

same S

how
Mr Donnelly

had of

maturrime mankind

laymen the ill

of may and

in of appears
a without the

or

the and of

the and benediction

be or 1871

seemingly Ireland be

by

it The

the

here
from which has

strike

written

of of

Sois of with

lived opposite want

style 2700 from

horrible of

examined or players

differences

establishing

so to

note of

it

God

large essence
that

that was

life

Chinese when

more being
will the theory

has

gives spring inserted

considerable of miserable

love
already days bond

in its

came et

their authorities the

goes reasons bed

European Forbidden

Mapes

may
account

with rain execution

such

difficult

The

a dishonesty as

in

the goes