CROSS-DISCIPLINARY LEARNING AND STUDENT SUCCESS

EDU 600, Teacher as Leader: Module Eight

Independent Research Project Part II: Cross-Disciplinary Learning and Student Success
August 20, 2012
Caitlin Piper
University of New England

CROSS-DISCIPLINARY LEARNING AND STUDENT SUCCESS

Cross-Disciplinary Learning and Student Success

Cross-disciplinary learning involves the combination of multiple disciplines through
educational instruction to reinforce and further knowledge to reach scholastic objectives. Although
many question the exact definition of interdisciplinary studies, educators throughout time continue to
accept and apply this learning strategy as a tool to enhance student achievement. The following five
literature reviews analyze the meaning, history, purpose, approaches and benefits of interdisciplinary
education.
Educators debate the true definition of cross-disciplinary studies and roles of those involved
with integrated study groups (Repko, 2007). Although specific qualities of interdisciplinary studies may
differ slightly in criteria, all sources note that cross-disciplinary studies involve the common goal for
students to form relationships in content to enhance their understanding of information across a range
of courses (Boston, 1996). According to Repko (2007), there are two major groups in multidisciplinary
research. There generalists that define multidisciplinary studies as the mixture of two or more subjects
and integrationists or people concerned with exploring and researching cross-disciplinary instruction
and its functions (Repko, 2007). Integrationists analyze the cognitive influence and processes of
multidisciplinary education (Repko, 2007). Compared to the generalists, integrationists foster the
development of common views to evolve the understanding of interdisciplinary studies and its effective
application (Repko, 2007).
In a uniquely scholastic setting, a group of educators that share similar roles to integrationists
may be referred to as an interdisciplinary team (Applebee, Adler, & Flihan, 2007). This team of
teachers from various disciplines works collaboratively to develop avenues to enhance learning on a
larger scale that is then applied in their individual classrooms (Applebee et al., 2007). These groups
were established as valuable components of interdisciplinary research in all four case studies.

CROSS-DISCIPLINARY LEARNING AND STUDENT SUCCESS

Cross-disciplinary education has strong historical roots that date back to the 1920s (Applebee et
al., 2007). Applebee et al. (2007) mark the 1920s as a critical point in educational reform where
learning began evolve to the direction of student-focused instruction. Later in the 1940s, efforts were
made to create and teach history through chronological methods that held close correlations to crosscourse instruction (Applebee et al., 2007). In years that followed, interdisciplinary learning continued
to rise and fall as popular trend in approaches to teaching (Applebee et al., 2007).
Repko's (2007) study explores and explains the history of cross-disciplinary education
beginning with interdisciplinary efforts dating back to the late 1950s with Margaret Barron Luszki's
study of cross-topic integration within mental health. Luszki's work focused on connecting specific
fields of social science to enhance knowledge of psychology and other areas of mental health (Repko,
2007). Repko (2007) credits Luszki with determining the need for shared language and principles to
produce successful collaborative multidisciplinary research. Despite identifying the importance of these
aspects of interdisciplinary work, Luszki's research group lacked results and progress due to the
inability to reach a consensus about criteria of common language and theory (Repko, 2007).
Others studying cross-disciplinary education have described similar downfalls in their research.
Applebee et al. (2007) explained that there is a lack of common language and understanding of
relationships between multiple school subjects due to minimal concrete studies conducted on the topic.
While many works explain the advantages and disadvantages of this approach within specific settings,
a lack of systematic evidence exists on a grander scale (Applebee et al., 2007). Educators need definite
evidence regarding how and why cross-disciplinary instruction leads to an improvement in student
performance (Wicklein & Schell, 1995).
Repko's work cites studies that have found that cross-disciplinary studies serve as worthwhile
approaches to instruction and that integration of interdisciplinary studies can be achieved through
natural processes (Repko, 2007). However, Wingert et al. (2011) state that many assume students build

CROSS-DISCIPLINARY LEARNING AND STUDENT SUCCESS

cognitive relationships automatically, without careful consideration and planning of instruction

(Wingert et al., 2011). Wingert et al. (2011) argue that students require further assistance in developing
these connections. Case studies conducted throughout the United States produced positive outcomes
from cross-disciplinary efforts.
A 1995 study of multidisciplinary instruction in the fields of math, science, and technology was
administered in four high schools in the mid-western portion of the United States. The analysis found
isolated study of school subjects does not strengthen students' overall knowledge due to a lack of
correlation and meaning between subjects (Wicklein & Schell, 1995). Through the construction of
multidisciplinary and support teams each school created individual goals for the study (Wicklein &
Schell, 1995). Experiences and criteria proved to be diverse for each school involved in the study,
however, all schools concluded multidisciplinary instruction as a channel to reach scholastic
achievement (Wicklein & Schell, 1995).
In 1996 a similar cross-course study was conducted using involving the arts in five schools
throughout the United States (Boston). High schools in the study aimed to utilize the arts as a catalyst
for multidisciplinary learning to form a cohesive curriculum. Unlike the 1995 cross-course study, this
research involved unified goals for each school. However unlike the other studies, this study admits
that it did not result in concise conclusions, but rather a proposal of a range of options for
interdisciplinary education (Boston, 1996). Through feedback from teachers and other research the
study explores the endless opportunities for cross-curricular engagement within schools that are not
solely based on discipline and rigor, which would deflate the creativity associated with the arts (Boston,
1996).
In 2007 a study of correlated, shared, and reconstructed cross-course instruction of social
studies and English programs was conducted in middle and high school in California and New York
(Applebee et al.). The research aimed to implement and analyze strategies for effective development of

CROSS-DISCIPLINARY LEARNING AND STUDENT SUCCESS

cross-course learning (Applebee et al., 2007). The study carefully selected thirty volunteer teachers for
research through extensive interviews and training using specific universal criteria (Applebee et al.,
2007). After creating eleven interdisciplinary teams composed of teachers from various grade levels
and subjects, teachers were evaluated by field researchers through standardized procedures based on
discussion, activities, and ability and time used to strengthen of interdisciplinary relationships
(Applebee et al., 2007). Overall results from the study ranged greatly due to teachers' unique
instructional approaches, variation of student background and ability, and school setting. There are four
major types of interdisciplinary learning: predisciplinary, correlated, shared, and reconstructed
(Applebee et al., 2007). Results of this study named the reconstructed method as the most beneficial
method to student learning. This approach involves creating interdisciplinary well-planned
opportunities that are imbedded in curriculum to elicit specific higher-level thinking responses from
students (Applebee et al., 2007). This information is the most conclusive evidence that resulted from
this study. Through analyzing feedback from teacher, student, and administration interviews, classroom
observations, and student exemplars of assignments, the study found that cross-curricular efforts
neither increased nor decreased student success.
In a similar study, the benefits, costs, and assessment-based outcomes of cross-disciplinary
education were explored through a specific case study in 2011 (Wingert, Wasileski, Peterson, Mathews,
Lanou, & Clarke). The case study examined seven educators that incorporated the common theme of
food in their instruction of health, science, and humanities (Wingert et al., 2011). Through continuous
follow up and collaborative learning tasks assigned between each class, the students were able to form
bonds in their knowledge of food from subject to subject.
While the outcomes of cross-disciplinary research may vary, clear benefits are cited that claim
this approach as a progressive avenue for academic achievement. Wicklein and Schell (1995) explain
that cross-disciplinary learning leads to the development of advanced thinking skills, meaning that

CROSS-DISCIPLINARY LEARNING AND STUDENT SUCCESS

students exposed to interdisciplinary instruction are able to solve more complex problems. Aligning
with these advantages, Boston (1996) mentions that interdisciplinary studies provides students with
tools to interpret situations from several perspectives. According to Applebee et al. (2007),
multidisciplinary education increases student participation and educates students about real-world
situations. Wicklein and Schell (1995) identified specific potential real-world benefits of crossdisciplinary experience resulting in the ability to transfer learned information and prior knowledge to a
variety of contexts and by the strengthening of problem solving and adaptation skills in technology and
other conditions of the professional world. This educational approach also assists schools in
simplifying curriculum (Boston, 1996). Through multidisciplinary education, teachers have multiple
opportunities to reinforce important content and to collaborate with one another to teach students
central learning themes (Boston, 1996).
An instructional strategy for successful results of multidisciplinary education involves
providing students with multiple writing and discussion opportunities to explain and reflect upon
observations from texts (Applebee et al., 2007). According to Applebee et al. (2007), frequent reading
and writing tasks combined with rigorous learning expectations lead to student success in crossdisciplinary settings. Multidisciplinary instruction can be achieved through the inclusion of specific
sets of common questions based on unit themes that serve as a basis for learning from course to course
(Applebee et al., 2007).
The success of cross-curricular programs is based on common objectives which multiple
sources agree in their work. In Both the 2007 and 2011 studies of integrated instruction, identify the
importance of continuous conversation and activities related to learning objectives from unit to unit and
semester to semester (Applebee et al., 2007, & Wingert et al., 2011). Applebee et al. (2007) and Boston
(1996) emphasize the importance for schools reserve time to structure cross-course curriculum with
common values and proactive initiatives.

CROSS-DISCIPLINARY LEARNING AND STUDENT SUCCESS

When designed and implemented correctly, cross-disciplinary education has multiple

advantages to promote quality learning and student success. Interdisciplinary goals provide educators
with an array of creative options for curriculum design. To gain educator's support and understanding
of this learning tool, further substantial research must be done to provide concise data that demonstrates
specific conclusions as to how this strategy should be used in school.

CROSS-DISCIPLINARY LEARNING AND STUDENT SUCCESS

References
Applebee, A. N., Adler, M., & Flihan, S. (2007). Interdisciplinary curricula in middle and high school
classrooms: Case studies of approaches to curriculum and instruction. American educational
research journal, 44(4), 1002-1029. Retrieved from http://0
search.proquest.com.lilac.une.edu/docview/200455113?accountid=12756
Boston, B. O. (1996). Connections: The arts and the integration of the high school curriculum . New
York, NY: College Board Publications.
Repko, A. F. (2007). How the theories of common ground and cognitive interdisciplinary are informing
the debate of interdisciplinary integration. Issues in integrative studies: An interdisciplinary
journal, (25), 1-31. Retrieved from
http://www.units.muohio.edu/aisorg/PUBS/ISSUES/toc25.shtml.
Wingert, J. R., Wasileski, S. A., Peterson, K., Matthews, L. G., Lanou, A. J., & Clarke, D. (2011).
Enhancing integrative experiences: Evidence of student perceptions of learning gains from
cross-course interactions. Journal of the scholarship of teaching and learning, 11(3), 34-57.
Wicklein, R. C., & Schell, J. W. (1995). Case studies of multidisciplinary approaches to integrating
mathematics, science and technology education. Journal of technology education, 6(2), 59-76.