MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3193120559 · doi:10.82251/ycdx-qt85

Interdisciplinary education: Memorialising learning experiences

2025· article· en· W3193120559 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Julie Harvie

Bibliographic record

VenueENLIGHTEN (Jurnal Bimbingan dan Konseling Islam) · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicInterdisciplinary Research and Collaboration
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCurriculumDisciplineExperiential learningGlobeCreativityPedagogySociologyMathematics educationPsychologySocial scienceSocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Over the past few decades, global institutions such as the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) have helped homogenize educational policy and similarities can now be seen in curricula across the globe (Priestley, 2002: Sahlberg, 2007). One feature of many new curricular models is the emphasis placed on giving students transferable, generic skills through a focus on studying ‘cross cutting themes’ which blur disciplinary boundaries e.g. France (Baillat & Niclot, 2010), Spain (Segovia et al., 2010), Canada (Hasni et al., 2015) and Australia (Long et al., 2010). It could be said that in preparing students for life in the post-industrial information age, the “what” that students require to know has now changed (Virtue et al., 2019). Interdisciplinary learning (IDL) is promoted as something which allows educators to facilitate this change and develop skills building and conceptual creativity in their pupils, factors which are crucial for the twenty-first century education system (Khadri, 2014; Kolmos, 2016).
\nCritics of an integrated approach to learning argue that this can be detrimental to students because it dilutes and weakens the powerful knowledge contained within the disciplines (Young and Muller, 2010, Young et.al, 2014). The assumption, here, is that the acquisition of this ‘powerful knowledge’ is dependent on it being delivered through discrete, specialised subjects. However, others argue that the opposite it true and that by making learning experiential and allowing students to explore relevant problems and questions, knowledge is actually enhanced, memorials of events are created through the experiences and students are prepared more holistically for life beyond the school gates (Dewey: 1938, Guissani, 1995: Beane, 1997). This paper considers the purpose of schools, the nature of IDL in relation to knowledge and explores its usefulness as a tool to help educators to offer students “a response to a question one lives” (Guissani, 1995). It argues that rather than memorising facts for the purpose of passing exams for example, interdisciplinary approaches enable pupils to unitise digital technologies and memorialise learning which they can then use and apply in real life contexts.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Scholarly communication
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.471
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.035
GPT teacher head0.412
Teacher spread0.377 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueENLIGHTEN (Jurnal Bimbingan dan Konseling Islam)Same topicInterdisciplinary Research and CollaborationFrench-language works237,207