A Qualitative Examination of Science Faculty Members’ Perceptions of Interdisciplinary Curriculum Development and Refinement
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In recent years there has been a movement towards offering interdisciplinary curricula within higher education. While there are numerous benefits associated with interdisciplinary learning, the disciplinarily focused structure and culture of higher education can constrain interdisciplinary activities, and the challenges associated with developing this type of learning experience have been less researched. Given that faculty are key figures in organizational change and curriculum development, this study sought to understand faculty members’ perspectives on interdisciplinary curriculum development and refinement, including their perceptions of what constitutes an interdisciplinary program, the value associated with interdisciplinarity, and the challenges they have experienced developing and/or refining interdisciplinary programs. Faculty members from the Faculty of Science at a mid-sized university in the province of Ontario, Canada were interviewed, and these data were subjected to a content analysis. Faculty perceived interdisciplinary academic programs as including a collection of courses that offer a combination of knowledge from different disciplines; however, only a few participants identified the integration of knowledge from different areas of study as key to interdisciplinarity. Participants perceived that interdisciplinary learning was important for students to develop diverse, but not necessarily integrated, skillsets. Challenges related to interdisciplinary curriculum development and refinement included navigating institutional structures and collaborating with other academic units. Suggestions for navigating interdisciplinary curriculum development are discussed.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.024 | 0.034 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".