»DIVERSITY OF KNOWLEDGE«:
Interdisciplinary Studies at
Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin
Birgit Lettmann
Coordinator of »Diversity of Knowledge«
birgit.lettmann@hu-berlin.de
Presentation at the Quality Assurance in Higher Education
Telč, 10.05.2018
2
»Diversity of Knowledge« – Overview
1 Introduction – A Typical Scenario
2 Characteristics of the Program
3 Structural Framework
4 Evaluation: Findings
3
»Diversity of Knowledge«
1 Introduction – A Typical Scenario
2 Characteristics of the Program
3 Structural Framework
4 Evaluation: Findings
4
»Diversity of Knowledge«
1 Introduction – A Typical Scenario
2 Characteristics of the Program
3 Structural Framework
4 Evaluation: Findings
5
»Diversity of Knowledge« is characterized by:
• Interdisciplinarity
• Object of Knowledge
• Seminar Product
• Co-Teaching, Guest Lectures and Excursions
• Accompanying Program for Teaching Staff
2 Characteristics of the Program
6
2 Characteristics of the Program
»Diversity of Knowledge« is characterized by:
Interdisciplinarity
o Broad interdisciplinarity
o Disciplinarity and interdisciplinarity as
complementary & mutual corrective
o Aim: bridge the gap between the academic cultures
7
2 Characteristics of the Program
»Diversity of Knowledge« is characterized by:
Object of Knowledge
o Concrete object relevant to multiple disciplines
o Nodal point to explore transitions, connections and
differences between distinct academic cultures
o Aim: encourage meta-reflections on knowledge
and inter-/disciplinarity
8
2 Characteristics of the Program
»Diversity of Knowledge« is characterized by:
Seminar Product
o Group-work projects in small interdisciplinary teams
o Translate knowledge acquired into a presentable format
o Aim: accomplish synthesis of different
disciplinary perspectives
9
Aims of the teaching format:
• Raise and sharpen the understanding of the structures of different
disciplines
• Grasp the possibilities and limitations of one’s own discipline
• Support reflections on disciplinarity and interdisciplinarity
• Encourage the reflection on knowledge and structures of
knowledge in different academic cultures
• Challenge students to question their epistemological beliefs
2 Characteristics of the Program
10
2 Characteristics of the Program
»Diversity of Knowledge« is characterized by:
Accompanying Program for Teaching Staff
o Meetings with moderated exchange of experience
and peer feedback
o Individual consultings
11
»Diversity of Knowledge«
1 Introduction – A Typical Scenario
2 Characteristics of the Program
3 Structural Framework
4 Evaluation: Findings
12
The bologna.lab at Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin
• funded since 2012 by the German Ministry for Education and
Research as part of Humboldt-Universität’s bid in the Quality Pact
for Teaching
• serves as a laboratory for the development and piloting of
innovative teaching and learning formats
• Four aims in curricular development: research-based education,
interdisciplinarity, internationalisation and flexibilisation
3 Structural Framework
13
»Diversity of Knowledge« operates throughout the whole
university
Advantage:
• No obligation to fit into the culture of one faculty or a certain
disciplinary surrounding
• Possibility to attract students across faculties
Challenge:
• University-wide effort for promoting the program
• Horizontal program structure versus vertical structure of a facultybased
university
3 Structural Framework: pros and cons
14
»Diversity of Knowledge« is an elective program
(2 modules of 5 ECTS points each)
Advantage:
• Students have intrinsic motivation
• Interdisciplinary skills and cross-curricular competences can be
conveyed more easily
Challenge:
• Students’ commitment lessens during exam times in major
Hold down workload and have it done anti-cyclically
3 Structural Framework: pros and cons
15
»Diversity of Knowledge« goes beyond existing courses
(5 courses by guest professorship, 4-5 courses by part-time
lecturers)
Advantage:
• Courses are specifically designed to meet the goals of »Diversity
of Knowledge«
• Possibility of supervising and deepening the interdisciplinary
learning of students
Challenge:
• Extra cost – how to continue after funding ends?
3 Structural Framework: pros and cons
16
»Diversity of Knowledge«
1 Introduction – A Typical Scenario
2 Characteristics of the Program
3 Structural Framework
4 Evaluation: Findings
17
Evaluation: Methods
• Evaluations in each semester since 2012
• Instruments: student surveys and interviews
• Focus of analysis mainly on:
o Elements contributing to the understanding of interdisciplinarity
o Challenges and potential of interdisciplinary seminars
o Identification of conceptual elements of (self-)reflection
o Potential future impact on one’s own studies
4 Evaluation: Methods
18
Students highlight that interactive peer-learning:
• encourages a (self-)critical attitude
• fosters the reflection of one’s own discipline by comparison to
others
• strengthens confidence in arguing from one’s own perspective in
distinction to other disciplines
• enhances disciplinary identity while allowing the experience of
walking a mile in another discipline’s shoes
• helps with accessing interdisciplinarity
4 Evaluation: Effects of Peer-Learning
19
Typology of achieving interdisciplinarity
• Type 1: lecturer-centred
o Interdisciplinarity is achieved by lectures (= teaching staff and
guest lecturers)
• Type 2: lecturer-centred and student centred
o Interdisciplinarity is achieved by lecturers and by the different
disciplinary perspectives of the students
• Type 3: student-centred
o Interdisciplinarity is achieved by the different disciplinary
perspectives of the students
4 Evaluation: Epistemological Beliefs
20
Epistemological beliefs addressed through discussion of four
topics:
o Disciplinary approaches
o Disciplinary perspectives
o Changeability of knowledge
o Inconsistencies of knowledge
4 Evaluation: Epistemological Beliefs
21
Difference in extent of how epistemological beliefs are addressed
• Type 2: lecturer-centred and student centred
o Succeeds best in stimulating discussions,
o especially on changeability of knowledge and disciplinary approaches
• Type 1: lecturer-centred
o Performs worst in initiating discussions,
o Least connected with object of knowledge
• Type 3: student-centred
o Ranges between types 1 and 2
o specific strength: enhancing discussion on inconsistencies of
knowledge
4 Evaluation: Epistemological Beliefs
22
Evaluations have shown that this approach:
• activates students’ disciplinary knowledge while at the same time
questioning the limits of that knowledge
• sharpens the understanding of different research methods and helps
students gain confidence in applying those of their own discipline
• centres attention and supports goal orientation
• can develop interdisciplinary team skills by demonstrating how
interdisciplinary collaborations work
• encourages the development of interdisciplinary understanding,
sometimes even interdisciplinary thinking
4 Evaluation: Teaching Format
23
Děkuji and thank you
for your attention!
24
Bibliography
Hofer, Barbara K. (2001).
„Personal epistemology research: Implications for
learning and teaching.“
Educational Psychology Review, 13(4): 353-383
Klein, Julie Thompson (2010).
„A taxonomy of interdisciplinarity.”
in: Robert Frodeman (Ed.), The Oxford Handbook of
Interdisciplinarity.
Oxford University Press. pp. 15-30
Van Dusseldorp, Dirk and Seerp Wigboldus (1994).
“Interdisziplinary Research for Integrated Rural
Development in Developing Countries: The
Role of Social Sciences”.
Issues in Integrative Studies 12: 93-138.
25
Contact
Birgit Lettmann
Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin
bologna.lab
»Vielfalt der Wissensformen«
Hausvogteiplatz 5-7
D - 10117 Berlin
birgit.lettmann@hu-berlin.de