1. Introduction and background

Provision of interdisciplinary (ID) modules and full ID degree programmes is expected to rise in the UK and indeed in global higher education (HE) (Kirby and van der Wende 2016; Lyall et al. 2016). Contemporaneously, there are drives to increase the amount of research-based learning (RBL) in HE (HEA 2014, Healey 2015, University of Leeds 2016). Yet both ID courses and RBL are challenging to deliver and present challenges to students. ID courses can be problematic due to issues of administration (e.g. teaching loads and interdepartmental funding), and also of conceptualisation (Morrison 2015; Lyall et al. 2016); RBL makes demands, among other things, upon student expectations, and can have cost implications.

Students are vital partners in understanding this landscape. However, student course evaluations can be a blunt instrument. Perceptions change over time and what might seem a good (or a bad) idea at one point in a learning journey may, with hindsight, be perceived differently (see e.g. Rice 1988; Taylor 2014). As teachers and students interested in progressive moves in, and benefits arising from, both ID courses and RBL, we wish to disentangle some of these themes to better understand the student experience and to deliver the most interesting courses.

2. Method

To research these issues a call was put out to Arts and Sciences students via Facebook (approximately 300 student followers) asking for volunteers from years 2 and 3 who would be happy to state that they had some serious reservations about key aspects of these Year 1 ID/RBL courses at the time they took them (resulting in not fully positive evaluations) but after one to three years’ further study and experience, would now evaluate these courses differently.

Ten students replied and seven eventually agreed to be co-authors in the research. An email containing eight open questions relating to ID learning and RBL was sent to each student and a short email exchange in the form of a dialogue followed.

3. Evolution of perceptions and evaluations

When discussing the content of an ID course, one author comments: ‘[Regarding] Approaches To Knowledge, [at the time] I disliked the . . . vagueness of the course. I was never really sure what the course was . . . about, whether it fell under education studies, or philosophy . . . or something else entirely.’ However, from the vantage point of two subsequent years of study, the same author notes: ‘I still would not be able to put a finger on what the course exactly was, but in hindsight I can say that the topics covered during [this course] have been surprisingly useful in other subjects, and have resulted in transferable skills and topics I did not foresee.’

And, with regard to RBL, one of us comments: ‘my initial reaction towards the . . . research projects was one of resentment’. But two years later and after graduation:

Another author comments that being asked to do research projects affected her initial evaluation of the course greatly: ‘I did fantastically in my [first assignment], [the] podcast. However, in the first Approaches To Knowledge [research] essay I did terribly; it really brought down my morale and I hated [the topic of “superconcepts” we were studying], I thought they were stupid and that [the degree] was trying [too] hard to be special.’

Reflecting on the challenges of delivering RBL, one author notes:

However, although perceptions and evaluations of ID learning and RBL can become entangled and change markedly over time, other authors who, at the time they studied them, were negative about the content of ID courses, remark that it was the RBL component that redeemed the courses for them and led to more positive feelings on exiting them:

And:

And:

4. Next steps

We are proponents of both RBL and ID courses. We have seen these ideas and approaches work well both in our personal study experiences and in terms of the overall outputs of a degree programme. Nevertheless, we should not accept the value of RBL uncritically. On the trendiness curve it is perhaps a little behind ID itself, but catching up fast. RBL should therefore be subject to the same scrutiny as ID education or any other practices that claim to be necessary innovations in an otherwise fusty academy.

Despite the wealth of literature on student evaluations, RBL and problem-based learning (see e.g. Dochy et al. 2003; RICE 2015) there are, we propose, rich seams of qualitative research involving student experiences of RBL, ID learning, learning journeys and adult development still to explore.

Are there ways to highlight some advantages of ID learning to younger and more sceptical undergraduates? Can we motivate and substantiate earlier the advantages of RBL? Can we build narratives, perhaps using the experience of peers or slightly older students to enable less experienced students to grasp opportunities earlier in their learning journeys? Can RBL help in making sense of ID courses? Or might it hinder?

It is vital, we suggest, to continue to investigate an evidence base for the value of both RBL and ID courses if universities wish to develop these learning initiatives.

References

Dochy, F., Segers, M., Van de Bossche, P. and Gijbels, D. 2003. Effects of problem-based learning: A meta-analysis. Learning and Instruction 13, 533–68.