Book contents
- Teaching to Transform Learning
- Acknowledgement of Country
- Teaching to Transform Learning
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Contributors
- Acknowledgements
- Introduction Understanding the learner to inform educators’ implementation of pedagogical approaches to transform learning
- Part 1 Pedagogies for all
- Part 2 Engaging pedagogies: making the curriculum come alive for all learners
- Part 3 Empowering pedagogies: 21st-century skill development and 22nd-century futures thinking
- 15 Understanding the world through transdisciplinary inquiry
- 16 Citizenship education: a relational approach
- 17 Flipping constructivist pedagogies to enable the equal intensity of depth and breadth in learning
- Index
- References
15 - Understanding the world through transdisciplinary inquiry
from Part 3 - Empowering pedagogies: 21st-century skill development and 22nd-century futures thinking
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 25 October 2024
By
Book contents
- Teaching to Transform Learning
- Acknowledgement of Country
- Teaching to Transform Learning
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Contributors
- Acknowledgements
- Introduction Understanding the learner to inform educators’ implementation of pedagogical approaches to transform learning
- Part 1 Pedagogies for all
- Part 2 Engaging pedagogies: making the curriculum come alive for all learners
- Part 3 Empowering pedagogies: 21st-century skill development and 22nd-century futures thinking
- 15 Understanding the world through transdisciplinary inquiry
- 16 Citizenship education: a relational approach
- 17 Flipping constructivist pedagogies to enable the equal intensity of depth and breadth in learning
- Index
- References
Summary
This chapter will examine how a transdisciplinary approach to curriculum design provides a context for the development of intercultural awareness, fosters conceptual understanding and places the learner at the heart of the educational experience. A theoretical basis for transdisciplinary learning will first be presented. This will be followed by an analysis of the nature of the individual in the learning process and how this relates to the development of a global mindset. The chapter will conclude by offering practical considerations for the planning, teaching and assessing of learning through a transdisciplinary approach.
Keywords
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Teaching to Transform LearningPedagogies for Inclusive, Responsive and Socially Just Education, pp. 242 - 257Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2024
References
Recommended further reading
Behrenbruch, M. (2012). Dancing in the Light: Essential Elements for an Inquiry Classroom. Sense Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boix Mansilla, V. & Jackson, A. (2011). Educating for Global Competence: Preparing our Youth to Engage the World. Council of Chief State School Officers’ EdSteps Initiative & Asia Society Partnership for Global Learning.Google Scholar
Nicolescu, B. (2014). Methodology of transdisciplinarity. World Futures, 70(3–4), 186–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smyth, T.S. (2017). Transdisciplinary pedagogy: A competency based approach for teachers and students to promote global sustainability. Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies in Education, 5(2), 64.Google Scholar
Wallace, H.D. (2019). Transdisciplinary learning in a kitchen garden: Connecting to nature and constructing a path to ecoliteracy? International Research in Geographical and Environmental Education, 28(4), 309–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
References
Absolum, M., Flockton, L., Hattie, J., Hipkins, R. & Reid, I. (2009). Directions for assessment in New Zealand: Developing students’ assessment capabilities [Paper prepared for the Ministry of Education]. Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. https://assessment.tki.org.nz/content/download/5374/46264/file/Directions+for+Assessment+in+New+Zealand.PDFGoogle Scholar
Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership (AITSL). (2022). Australian Professional Standards for Teachers. AITSL. https://www.aitsl.edu.au/docs/default-source/national-policy-framework/australian-professional-standards-for-teachers.pdfGoogle Scholar
Beane, J. (1995). Curriculum integration and the disciplines of knowledge. The Phi Delta Kappan, 76(8), 616–22.Google Scholar
Behrenbruch, M. (2012) Dancing in the Light: Essential Elements for an Inquiry Classroom. Sense Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boix Mansilla, V. & Jackson, A. (2011). Educating for Global Competence: Preparing our Youth to Engage the World. Council of Chief State School Officers’ EdSteps Initiative & Asia Society Partnership for Global Learning.Google Scholar
Boyer, E. (1995). The Educated Person. In 1995 ASCD Yearbook (pp. 16–25). Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.Google Scholar
Bransford, J., Brown, A. & Cocking, R. (2000). How People Learn (Vol. 11). National Academy Press.Google Scholar
Choi, B.C.K. & Pak, A.W.P. (2006). Multidisciplinarity, interdisciplinarity and transdisciplinarity in health research, services, education, and policy: 1. Definitions, objectives, and evidence of effectiveness. Clinical and Investigative Medicine (Médecine Clinique Et Experimentale), 29(6), 351–64.Google ScholarPubMed
Clark, R., Kirschner, P. & Sweller, J. (2012). Putting students on the path to learning: The case for fully guided instruction. American Educator, Spring, 36(1), 6–11.Google Scholar
Connolly, H. (2020). The Blame Game – The Perspectives from South Australian Children and Young People on the Causes and Impacts of Education Exclusion and Why We Need to Stop Blaming Children for System Failure. Commissioner for Children and Young People, South Australia.Google Scholar
Dalton, C. (2018). Transdisciplinary learning in international education: A single school ethnography [Doctoral thesis]. University of South Australia.Google Scholar
Darling-Hammond, L. (2008). Powerful Learning: What We Know About Teaching for Understanding (pp. 1–9). Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
Dewey, J. (1915). School and Society and The Child and the Curriculum. Replicated (2001). Dover Publications.Google Scholar
Dewey, J. (1933). How We Think: A Restatement of the Relation of Reflective Thinking to the Educative Process. D.C. Heath & Co Publishers.Google Scholar
Drake, S. (2012). Creating Standards-based Integrated Curriculum (3rd ed.). Corwin Press.Google Scholar
Erickson, H.L. (2008). Stirring the Head, Heart and Soul: Redefining Curriculum, Instruction and Concept-Based Learning (3rd ed.). Corwin Press.Google Scholar
Fisher, D., Frey, N. & Hattie, J. (2018). Developing ‘assessment capable’ learners. Educational Leadership, 75(5), 46–51.Google Scholar
Furtak, E., Seidel, T., Iverson, H. & Briggs, D. (2012). Experimental and quasi-experimental studies of inquiry-based science teaching: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 82, 300–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harlen, W. & Johnson, S. (2014). A Review of Current Thinking Practices in Assessment in Relation to the Primary Years Program. International Baccalaureate.Google Scholar
Hattie, J. (2009). Visible Learning: A Synthesis of Over 800 Meta-Analyses Relating to Achievement. Routledge.Google Scholar
Hattie, J. & Donoghue, G. (2016). Learning strategies: A synthesis and conceptual model. npj Science of Learning, 1(1), 1–13.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hmelo-Silver, C., Duncan, R. & Chinn, C. (2007). Scaffolding and achievement in problem-based and inquiry learning: A response to Kirschner, Sweller & Clark (2006). Educational Psychologist, 42, 99–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
IBO. (2012). Developing a Transdisciplinary Programme of Inquiry. International Baccalaureate.Google Scholar
Kirschner, P., Sweller, J. & Clark, R. (2006). Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: An analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-based teaching. Educational Psychologist, 41(2), 75–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koh, J., Herring, S. & Hew, K. (2010). Project-based learning and student knowledge construction during asynchronous online discussion. Internet and Higher Education, 13, 284–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Loyens, S. & Rikers, R. (2011). Instruction based on inquiry. In Mayer, R. & Alexander, P. (eds), Handbook of Research on Learning and Instruction (pp. 361–81). Routledge.Google Scholar
Lynch, S., Kuipers, J., Pyke, C. & Szesze, M. (2005). Examining the effects of a highly rated science curriculum unit on diverse students: Results from a planning grant. Journal of Research in Science Teaching: The Official Journal of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, 42(8), 912–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McTighe, J., Emberger, M. & Carber, S. (2009). UbD and PYP: Complementary planning frameworks. In Davidson, S. & Carber, S. (eds), Taking the PYP Forward: The Future of the IB Primary Years Programme. John Catt Ltd.Google Scholar
Mitchell, P. (2005). What’s in a name? Multidisciplinary, interdisciplinary, and transdisciplinary. Journal of Professional Nursing, 21(6) (November–December), 332–4.Google Scholar
Murdoch, K. (1998). Classroom Connections: Strategies for Integrated Learning. Eleanor Curtain Publishing.Google Scholar
Paige, K., Lloyd, D. & Chartres, M. (2008). Moving towards transdisciplinarity: An ecological sustainable focus for science and mathematics pre‐service education in the primary/middle years. Asia‐Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 36(1), 19–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Perkins, D. (2009). Making Learning Whole: How Seven Principles of Teaching Can Transform Education. Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
Rader, D. (2018). Teaching and Learning for Intercultural Understanding: Engaging Young Hearts and Minds. Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reid, A. (2019). Changing Australian Education: How Policy is Taking Us Backwards and What Can Be Done About It. Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
Ritchhart, R., Church, M. & Morrison, K. (2011). Making Thinking Visible: How to Promote Engagement, Understanding and Independence for All Learners. Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
Rogoff, B. (1990). Apprenticeship in Thinking: Cognitive Development in Social Context. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schmidt, H., Muijtjens, A., Van der Vleuten, C. & Norman, G. (2012). Differential student attrition and differential exposure mask effects of problem-based learning in curriculum comparison studies. Academic Medicine, 87, 463–75.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Secomb, D. (2021). Cows’ Hearts and Catapults: Intercultural Understanding Through Inquiry. ISZL Magazine and Annual Report 2020–21. International School of Zug and Luzern. https://www.iszl.ch/about-us/publicationsGoogle Scholar
Senge, P. (2006). The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of The Learning Organisation. Random House Business Books.Google Scholar
Senge, P., Boell, M., Cook, L., Martin, J., Lynn, K., Haygaru, T., Gruen, S. & Urrea, C. (2019). Introduction to Compassionate Systems Framework in Schools. Abdul Latif Jameel World Education Lab, Massachusetts Institute of Technology: The Center for Systems Awareness.Google Scholar
Short, K. (2009). Critically reading the word and the world: Building intercultural understanding through literature. Bookbird: A Journal of International Childrens Literature, 47(2), 1–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Short, K., Day, D. & Schroeder, J. (2016). Teaching Globally: Reading the World through Literature. Stenhouse Publishers.Google Scholar
Short, K. & Harste, J. (with Burke, C. ) (1996). Creating Classrooms for Authors and Inquirers (2nd ed.). Heinemann.Google Scholar
Simsek, P. & Kabapinar, F. (2010). The effects of inquiry-based learning on elementary students’ conceptual understanding of matter, scientific process skills and science attitudes. Procedia Social and Behavioural Sciences, 2, 1190–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sweller, J., Clark, R. & Kirschner, P. (2010). Teaching general problem-solving skills is not a substitute for, or a viable addition to, teaching mathematics. Notices of the American Mathematical Society, 57(10), 1303–04.Google Scholar
Uyangör, S. (2012). The effect of project-based learning on teaching of polygon and plane geometry unit. The New Educational Review, 29, 212–23.Google Scholar
Veermans, M., Lallimo, J. & Hakkarainen, K. (2005). Patterns of guidance in inquiry learning. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 16(2), 179–94.Google Scholar
Von Glasersfeld, E. (1998). Cognition, construction of knowledge, and teaching. Constructivism in Science Education (pp. 11–30). Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes. Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Webb-Williams, J. (2017). Science self-efficacy in the primary classroom: Using mixed methods to investigate sources of self-efficacy. Research in Science Education, 48, 939–61.Google Scholar
Wilson, J. & Wing Jan, L. (2006). Focus on Inquiry: A Practical Approach to Integrated Curriculum Planning. Cunningham Corporation.Google Scholar