Interdisciplinary Activities¶

Strategy · All strategies
Evidence · 2 claims (2 for) · 6 studies (2 quant-synthesis, 2 review, 1 causal, 1 associational), q2–q4 · 1 of 6 report an effect size

Description¶

Interdisciplinary activities present issues, themes, and problems that require skills and knowledge from more than one subject to address or answer. Learners must integrate concepts, methods, or explanatory frameworks from multiple disciplines — for example, using physics and statistics to evaluate a public-health claim — rather than treating each subject as a sealed container. The approach can be implemented through entire units, class-long exercises, or short activities.

Design Implications¶

Interdisciplinary activities build integrated knowledge structures and support transfer by requiring learners to apply concepts in contexts beyond the discipline where they were learned [~M]. Their effectiveness depends on genuine integration: activities that merely juxtapose two subjects ("multidisciplinary" work) produce weaker conceptual gains than those requiring learners to reconcile disciplinary perspectives on a shared problem [~W]. Integration is effortful, so activities must manage cognitive load by anchoring the problem in a familiar context and activating relevant prior knowledge before introducing the second discipline.

Context¶

Requirements¶

• A driving problem or theme that genuinely cannot be resolved within a single discipline
• Instructors with working knowledge of the contributing disciplines, or coordination across departments
• Explicit scaffolding of the integration step itself — learners rarely connect disciplines spontaneously without prompts or Self-Explanation prompts Self-explanation improves conceptual understanding. [+S]
• Alignment of the activity with assessable objectives in each contributing discipline

Constraints¶

• Shallow coverage: interdisciplinary units can sacrifice disciplinary depth, and learners without solid foundational knowledge in at least one contributing discipline struggle to integrate [~M]
• Surface-level "theme" activities (e.g., using sports examples in math class without conceptual connection) do not produce transfer and can add extraneous load [-W]
• Assessment is harder to design; grading rubrics must evaluate integration, not just performance within each discipline
• Requires coordination time and planning that individual instructors often lack

Implementation Variability¶

• Multidisciplinary — disciplines address a shared theme in parallel with light connection (lowest integration, easiest to implement)
• Interdisciplinary — learners must combine concepts and methods from disciplines to produce one answer or artifact
• Transdisciplinary — the problem is drawn from real life and disciplinary knowledge is pulled in as needed (e.g., community-based projects)
• Scale ranges from a single 20-minute activity to semester-long project units

Target Learners¶

• Learners with adequate foundational knowledge in at least one contributing discipline; integration on top of weak foundations overloads working memory [~M]
• Intermediate and advanced learners benefit most; for novices, single-discipline instruction with worked models is typically more efficient [~M]
• Learners who see little task value in a subject may gain motivation when it is connected to a discipline they value Task value increases motivation and engagement. [+M]

Target Learning Goals¶

• Transfer: applying concepts to novel, real-world contexts outside the discipline of origin
• Critical thinking and bias recognition: comparing how different disciplines frame the same problem exposes the assumptions each carries
• Integrated understanding: building coherent mental models of complex phenomena (climate, health, cities) that no single discipline explains
• Epistemic insight: understanding what counts as evidence and argument in different fields

Instructions¶

1. Select a driving problem or question that authentically spans disciplines (e.g., "Where should our town build a new grocery store?").
2. Activate relevant prior knowledge in each contributing discipline (Activation).
3. Present the problem with authentic materials and constraints (Case Studies or Anchored Instruction).
4. Have learners gather and apply disciplinary tools — data analysis, historical context, scientific principles — toward the shared question (Application).
5. Prompt explicit integration: learners compare what each disciplinary lens reveals, where the lenses conflict, and what a combined answer looks like.
6. Conclude with an artifact or argument that requires the integrated perspective, followed by Assessment against integration-specific criteria.

Related Strategies¶

• Case-Based Learning — authentic cases are a natural vehicle for interdisciplinary problems
• Project-Based Learning — extended projects frequently require multi-disciplinary work
• Activating Prior Knowledge — the prerequisite step for connecting new material across disciplines
• Use discipline-specific clues as design problems to foster analyze and evaluate steps

Examples¶

• News Analysis — Using a news clip about a local store closing, learners determine an ideal new location, applying economics, geography, and mathematics.
• Historical Pen Pals — Learners role-play historical figures and write to each other about relevant events, combining history content with narrative writing skills.
• Math Gym — Combining mathematics, science, and physical education, learners estimate and measure long-jump distances, then analyze the physics and biomechanics involved.
• Edutopia's interdisciplinary project library — published examples of integrated units such as designing a sustainable school garden combining biology, economics, and civics.

Key Sources¶

• Ivanitskaya, L., Clark, D., Montgomery, G., & Primeau, R. (2002). Interdisciplinary learning: Process and outcomes. Innovative Higher Education, 27(2), 95–111. doi:10.1023/A:1021105309984
• Boix Mansilla, V., Miller, W. C., & Gardner, H. (2000). On disciplinary lenses and interdisciplinary work. In S. Wineburg & P. Grossman (Eds.), Interdisciplinary curriculum: Challenges of implementation (pp. 17–38). Teachers College Press.
• Fogarty, R. (1991). Ten ways to integrate curriculum. Educational Leadership, 49(2), 61–65.
• Drake, S. M., & Burns, R. C. (2004). Meeting standards through integrated curriculum. ASCD.