Three strategies for interdisciplinary teaching: contextualizing, conceptualizing, and problem‐centring

Abstract

This paper distinguishes among contextualizing, conceptualizing, and problem‐centring as three basic approaches to interdisciplinary curriculum. This typology is based on the type of inquiry that takes place in the classroom. For example, if the guiding epistemology in the interdisciplinary work is that of the humanities, the mode of connecting disciplinary material is likely to be contextualizing, or embedding the facts and ideas in the cultural, historical, or ideological fabric. If the scientific method guides and sets the standard for integration, conceptualizing work typically takes place. Finally, if the spirit and mode of inquiry is that of the applied sciences or creative product‐development, the integrative process will take the form of problem‐based investigation of urgent or tangible issues. Using empirical data from exemplary university, pre‐university, and professional programmes in the US, I describe three integrative strategies and comment on their strengths. This basic typology provides alternative approaches to interdisciplinary material based on the purpose of the class inquiry. In the hands of a good instructor, several interdisciplinary strategies could be used together for mutual benefit.

Keywords:

• epistemology
• instructional methods
• interdisciplinary approach
• problem‐oriented instruction

Acknowledgements

Research on interdisciplinary strategies was made possible by support from the Atlantic Philanthropies. This paper is the product of collective thinking and active discussion among members of the Harvard Interdisciplinary Study at Project Zero. My colleagues, Howard Gardner, Veronica Boix Mansilla, Kaley Middlebrooks, Jeff Solomon, Caitlin O'Connor, Michelle Cheuk, Liz Dawes, Matt Miller, and Michael Schacter, have all contributed to the development of the ideas contained in this paper. I am also grateful to faculty members and students at participating secondary, university, and professional institutions for their willingness to share their thoughts about the effectiveness of different interdisciplinary approaches.

Notes

1. Very generally, this typology invokes Habermas's (1971: 308) classification of knowledge systems into three main categories: (1) a humanities (hermeneutic) tradition; (2) ‘empirical‐analytic sciences’, based on the ‘deduction of law‐like hypotheses’ establishing predictive correlations among phenomena; and (3) ‘sciences of social action’, which include economics, sociology, and political science. Habermas's view of the social sciences as action and social transformation‐oriented suits this typology especially well, much as it is an arguable claim, given that a lot of work in social science is not prescriptive or directly actionable.

2. The Media Laboratory was visited several times for data collection.

3. Interviews have been transcribed and coded, and a cover sheet was prepared for each participant and classroom observation.

4. There is currently a close observation‐based study of interdisciplinarity at high schools under way at Harvard Graduate School of Education which will consider some of these issues.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Svetlana Nikitina

Her research interests include epistemological and pedagogical aspects of interdisciplinary education, the improvement of teaching in the humanities, and crossovers between the humanities and sciences. She currently has an opportunity to apply her research to the interdisciplinary teaching of humanities at Worcester Polytechnic Institute and at the University of Phoenix (Greater Boston Campus).