Conference Agenda

There is a strong and increasing push for interdisciplinarity and interdisciplinary learning in higher education. It has gained impetus from the urgent need to equip future generations with competencies that will empower them to contribute to sustainable development. One pedagogy to support such learning is project-based learning (PjBL), which is increasingly becoming a mandatory part of curricula in higher education (Elken et al., 2020). Project-based learning is a form of student-centric, collaborative learning whereby students work on projects with real-world problems, often together with or for external stakeholders (Guo et al., 2020; Krajcik & Blumenfeld, 2006). As a pedagogical approach, it is associated with interdisciplinarity (Braßler & Dettmers, 2017), and one of the main expected learning outcomes is that students learn to work in and as a team.

However, despite its increased popularity, empirical studies on interdisciplinary PjBL are scarce and we know little about the complex ecosystems that surrounds and support interdisciplinary learning in higher education (Johnsen et al., forthcoming). One challenge seems to be to achieve “broad” interdisciplinarity with courses across several disciplines and professions. Studies are largely contained within specific educational disciplines (such as engineering, medicine or teacher education), involving only students within those disciplines. Furthermore, literature on PjBL, and student collaboration more generally, is dominated by “course description studies” (studies that describe a particular course design together with “the lessons learned” from a teacher perspective) and individually oriented, ‘effect-oriented’ research. The latter focuses on the benefits of pedagogical approaches on a range of individual student variables, such as academic achievement, student satisfaction or skill development. However, what these studies miss is a holistic, ecological view that reveals what enables and constrains students’ learning both within a course and in the wider university, industry, and community ecosystems that support learning in the course.

This paper is the first part of a research program that takes an analytic and ecological approach to exploring what enables and constrains students’ interdisciplinary collaboration and learning. The research program uses the case of a university wide interdisciplinary PjBL course including 3200 students from across all faculties at a large Norwegian university. The course has been developed, crafted, and scaled up over 20 years, and studies on the course have shown positive effects on students’ learning (Johnsen et al., forthcoming) and also emphasized the importance of a course design that supports student teams’ reflection on their collaboration as it happens (Sjølie et al., 2022; Sjølie et al., 2021; Veine et al., 2020). The aim of this paper is to reveal some of the key conditions that enable and constrain the practices that compose the course (practices of students, teachers, and others) within the institution and beyond. We deploy the theory of practice architectures (Kemmis, 2022; Kemmis et al., 2014; Mahon et al., 2017) to identify and describe a range of the key conditions that shape the course and the practices of students, teachers, and others as they work in/on the course. We also use Bernstein’s theory of pedagogical discourse (especially instructional discourse and regulative discourse) to show the kinds of pedagogical rules that enable and constrain student’s interdisciplinary work and learning.

The paper explores the conditions that enable and constrain interdisciplinary work and learning in a particular course, asking: what are the sayings, doings and relatings that constitute students’ practices of interdisciplinary teamwork and what practice architectures (arrangements, conditions) make these practices possible? It demonstrates a way of understanding the complex ecosystems of support that sustained interdisciplinary learning in this case, and by doing so demonstrates an approach to analysing and interpreting university courses and practices more generally.

Adopting the innovative learning approaches originating from the parameters enacted by the Bologna Process have become widespread within the Kazakhstani education system. One of these learning technologies is project-based learning, which was launched in 2019 in a Kazakhstani Medical University. Previous studies on innovative learning approaches conducted among international students at this university reflect their opinions and views about their experiences (Akhmetova & Alieva, 2022; Akhmetova & Makoelle, 2022; Akhmetova & Sciala, 2021). We found that these students have enjoyed the process, have gained knowledge, and have deemed such experiences to be exciting. This particular study aimed to explore another aspect of project-based learning, which is conducting tasks in teams.

Dividing students into teams and guiding them towards working collaboratively entail certain challenges. Research conducted among students in Russia, for example, has revealed four different attitudes that exist among students working in groups such as dictators, procrastinators, complainers and freeloaders (Zav’yalova & Saginova, 2017). In fact, these titles provoke thoughts of unequal contribution to the tasks completed by a group, implying that there are group members that take responsibility over the work of others, other members that lack a sense of accountability, while some complain that nobody is working. These kinds of attitudes are not exceptional in the Kazakhstani context as it is a post-Soviet country with Soviet tendencies. Nevertheless, this state of affairs also depends on students’ backgrounds as in this study we focus on international students from South Asia studying in Kazakhstan.

The benefits of working in teams have been discussed among scholars worldwide and is predominantly examined in the context of project-based learning. Students find working with their peers to be inspiring and supportive compared to traditional learning (Elsamanoudy et al. 2021). They presume that it is possible to employ the skills gained in completing research projects together beyond academia (Balleisen & Chin, 2022). In addition, their self-assessment and peer-assessment about contributing to projects with their peers indicated positive feelings (Bayer et al. 2022). In the medical field, students highlighted an improvement of their communication skills (Castro et al. 2021). In addition, the fostering of teamwork has been noted while testing a framework for examining students’ computational thinking through the balanced scorecard frame (Chang & Lin, 2022). Furthermore, the advantages of project-based learning and its facilitation of teamwork among students have been pointed out in collaborative projects between countries (Fang et al. 2021; Logemann et al. 2021). These studies among different countries were conducted online due to COVID-19 issues worldwide. Even though most of the studies refer to improvements generated by teamwork, a single approach to assess its success is as yet unforeseen. Nevertheless, to maintain the quality of groupwork Norwegian scholars have developed the Teamwork Indicator which helps to assess students’ performance in group work through three vantage points social cooperation, work commitment, and management” (Holen & Sortland, 2022). However, scholars state drawbacks to students working in groups, such as students’ lack of preparedness to self-express in teamwork (Jaiswal et al. 2021). Hence, they suggest guiding teamwork right from the beginning of the project (Jaiswal et al. 2021).

Being able to work in a team is a significant skill for the 21^st century. Despite the abovementioned studies conducted on project-based learning declaring an improvement of teamwork skills, it requires digging deeper into the phenomenon to understand the nature of its success. This study embodies students from a homogeneous cultural background cultivated in a traditional learning environment, yet who represent different social classes in their country. Hence, for this study, it was significant to explore how the students’ South Asian background impede or support teamwork.