Measuring interdisciplinary understanding in higher education

Figures & data

Figure 1. Conceptualised model of interdisciplinary understanding (simplified version).

Table 1. Disciplinary background of respondents.

Academic field	Percentage of respondents
Humanities  - Arts  - Philosophy  - Theology and religious studies  - Liberal arts and sciences	20.7% - 16.1% - 1.3% - .9% - 2.4%
Science  - Science and engineering  - Medical sciences	27.6% - 22.3% - 5.3%
Social Sciences  - Economics and business  - Behavioural and social sciences  - Law  - Spatial sciences	51.7% - 16.8% - 16.6% - 13.7% - 4.6%

Table 2. Fit indices for subsequent models.

Model	χ^2	CFI	TLI	RMSEA	SRMR
First-order model 1	χ^2(309)= 532.52, p < .001	.93	.92	.04	.05
First-order model 2 (deletion of reflection item)	χ^2(284)= 485.56, p < .001	.93	.92	.04	.05
First-order model 3 (deletion of communication item)	χ^2(260)= 440.50, p < .001	.94	.93	.04	.04
First-order model 4 (deletion of interdisciplinary item)	χ^2(237)= 387.13, p < .001	.95	.94	.04	.04
First-order model 5 (addition of covariance)	χ^2(236)= 338.87, p < .001	.96	.96	.03	.04
Higher-order model 1 (addition of two higher-order factors)	χ^2(244)= 414.01, p < .001	.94	.93	.04	.05
Higher-order model 2 (addition of covariance)	χ^2(243)= 387.71, p < .001	.95	.94	.03	.04
Higher-order model 3 (addition of covariance)	χ^2(242) = 362.13, p < .001	.96	.95	.03	.04

Table 3. Fit indices for measurement invariance.

Model	CFI	RMSEA	ΔCFI	ΔRMSEA	χ^2	df	Δχ^2	Δdf	p
Configural invariance	.911	.049			988.121	726			<.001
Metric invariance	.901	.050	.010	.001	1060.877	770	72.756	44	<.001
Scalar invariance	.897	.050	.004	.000	1104.245	802	43.368	32	<.001
Error variance invariance	.888	.051	.009	.001	1178.481	850	74.236	48	<.001

Note: Chi-square values are reported only for the sake of completeness.

Table A4. Higher-order confirmatory factor analysis (N = 505).

Items	Factor loading	Standardised factor loading	SE	p
Knowledge of disciplinary paradigms
(D_1) I have a good understanding of the strengths and limitations of academic disciplines.	1.00	.59
(D_2) I recognise the kinds of evidence that different fields of study rely on.	1.09	.65	.11	<.001
(D_4) If asked, I could identify the kinds of knowledge and ideas that are distinctive to different fields of study.	.99	.59	.11	<.001
(D_5) I am good at figuring out what students in another field of study have missed in explaining a problem or solution.	1.02	.56	.12	<.001
Knowledge of interdisciplinarity
(I_1) I often think about how different academic fields approach the same problem in different ways.	1.00	.64
(I_2) While solving an academic problem, I am good at figuring out which information from outside my own field of study I can use.	.93	.75	.07	<.001
(I_3) I sometimes take ideas from outside my own field of study while working on an academic problem.	.92	.68	.08	<.001
(I_5) While solving problems within my own field of study, I often seek information from experts in other academic fields.	.79	.58	.08	<.001
(I_6) I often read about topics outside of my own field of study.	.62	.40	.08	<.001
(I_7) I see connections between ideas in natural sciences and social sciences.	.70	.52	.07	<.001
Reflection
(R_2) I like to think over what I have been doing and consider alternative ways of doing it.	1.00	.62
(R_3) I often reflect on my actions to see whether I could have improved on what I did.	1.21	.72	.12	<.001
(R_4) I often re-appraise my experience so I can learn from it and improve for my next performance.	1.04	.62	.11	<.001
Critical reflection
(Cr_1) As a result of university education, I have changed the way I look at myself.	1.00	.57
(Cr_2) University education has challenged some of my firmly held ideas.	1.08	.58	.14	<.001
(Cr_3) As a result of university education, I have changed my normal way of doing things.	.98	.52	.12	<.001
(Cr_4) During university education, I discovered faults in what I had previously believed to be right.	1.10	.57	.15	<.001
Communication
(Cm_1) I am able to explain knowledge and ideas from my own field of study effectively to non-experts.	1.00	.52
(Cm_3) I can easily summarise a complex scientific theory.	1.76	.77	.18	<.001
(Cm_5) I think that I can communicate effectively about scientific theories with students outside my field of study.	1.25	.67	.14	<.001
Collaboration
(Cl_1) I can work well in teams of students with a variety of academic skills.	1.00	.52
(Cl_3) I am good at working with other students to accomplish group goals.	1.03	.51	.10	<.001
(Cl_4) I can work well in teams where knowledge and ideas from multiple fields of study must be applied.	1.44	.84	.14	<.001
(Cl_5) I am good at working in teams that include students from outside my own field of study.	1.26	.77	.12	<.001
Higher-order Knowledge
Knowledge of disciplinary paradigms	1.00	.85
Knowledge of interdisciplinarity	1.66	.98	.20	<.001
Higher-order Skills
Reflection	1.00	.65		<.001
Critical reflection	.70	.42	.15	<.001
Communication	.87	.75	.14	<.001
Collaboration	.82	.66	.14	<.001

Figure A2. Graphical representation of the higher-order model.