Paper presented at the 2013 Annual Conference of the Society for Research Into Higher Education in Newport, Wales on Dec 12, 2013.

1. How do students see the connections
among undergraduate courses?
Using concept mapping to make
interdisciplinarity visible
Paulo Correia, Camila Cicuto & Joana Aguiar
Universidade de São Paulo, Brazil

2. Interdisciplinarity
Why?
When?
How?

3. Interdisciplinarity
Real-world problems in classroom: Why?
Professional skills
• Complex scenarios must be addressed by teams
• “The right answer” is replaced by “the best choice”
• Holistic view enriches the specific professional knowledge

4. Interdisciplinarity
Real-world problems in classroom: When?
Curricular planning
• Formally program interdisciplinary experiences
• Academics have an active role as planners
• Students are submitted to the planned curriculum

5. Interdisciplinarity
Real-world problems in classroom: How? [1]
Epistemological challenge
• Amount of information (disciplinary fields)
Communicational challenge
• Productive collaborative work (synergy)

6. Interdisciplinarity
Real-world problems in classroom: How? [2]
Instructional planning
• Methods must avoid cognitive overload
• Information processing is limited by our working memory
• Cognitive resources must be available to build &
automatize schemas

7. Interdisciplinarity
Real-world problems in classroom: How? [3]
Instructional planning

8. Novakian Cmaps
Visible information
Team work
Hierarchical reductionism
Hyperlinked Cmaps

9. Novakian Cmaps
Visible information represented into a propositional
framework [1]
• Initial Concept  Linking Phrase  Final Concept
• Interdisciplinary  ???  Higher Education (HE)
• Interdisciplinary  is critical to improve  HE
• Interdisciplinary  is not critical to improve  HE
• Interdisciplinary  may be critical to improve  HE

10. Novakian Cmaps
Visible information represented into a propositional
framework [2]
• Several uses in higher education to improve teaching and
learning

11. Novakian Cmaps
Visible information represented into a propositional
framework [3]
• Pedagogic resonance: the degree of mismatch between
teacher’s expert knowledge and students’ learning

12. Novakian Cmaps
Team work
• Externalization, elicitation & consensus building
• Conceptual relationships visible to all, all the time

13. Novakian Cmaps
Hierarchical reductionism
• Complex systems described using a hierarchy of
organisations, each of which is only described in terms of
(few) objects (concepts) one level down in the hierarchy.
Dawkins, R. (1996). The blind watchmaker: Why the evidence of evolution
reveals a universe without design . New York: Norton

14. Novakian Cmaps
Hyperlinked Cmaps
• Complex systems represented by a set of Cmaps
• Vertical links between Cmaps in different hierarchical
levels
• Horizontal links between Cmaps at the same hierarchical
level
• Addition of any digital resources attached to Cmaps

15. Vertical
Links
Horizontal
Links

16. Our aims
Check how students perceive interdisciplinarity
• Develop an interdisciplinary activity
 Students construct hyperlinked Cmaps (n=7)
• Horizontal Links between Cmaps reveal students’
perception
 Concurrent effect
 Same culture effect

17. Empirical research
Settings
Case study

18. Settings
School of Arts, Sciences and Humanities (USP)
Basic Cycle courses (n=6): concurrent courses
• NS: Natural Sciences (1st/SCI)
• DTIA: Data Treatment and Information Analysis (1st/SCI)
• SMR: Society, Multiculturalism and Rights (1st/HUM)
• PECI: Psych, Education and Contemporary Issues (2nd/HUM)
• SEC: Society, Environment and Citizenship (2nd/HUM)
• BACL: Brazilian Art, Culture and Literature (2nd/HUM)

19. Settings
School of Arts, Sciences and Humanities (USP)
Basic Cycle courses (n=6): same culture courses
• NS: Natural Sciences (1st/SCI)
• DTIA: Data Treatment and Information Analysis (1st/SCI)
• SMR: Society, Multiculturalism and Rights (1st/HUM)
• PECI: Psych, Education and Contemporary Issues (2nd/HUM)
• SEC: Society, Environment and Citizenship (2nd/HUM)
• BACL: Brazilian Art, Culture and Literature (2nd/HUM)

20. Case study
First-year higher-education students (n=52)
• Three groups (16-18 students)
• Three sets of linked Cmaps (n=7)
Vertical
Links
Horizontal
Links

21. Results & Discussion
Horizontal links (n=118)
• Each course
• Concurrent courses
• Same culture courses

22. Horizontal links
Each course
• Values: 15.7-22.5%
• DTIA: 2-3x lower
 Specific content

23. Horizontal links
Concurrent [1]
• Total %

24. Horizontal links
Concurrent [2]
• Same smt: 12%
• Different smt: 3%
• Concurrent effect: 4x

25. Horizontal links
Same culture [1]
• Total %

26. Horizontal links
Same culture [2]
• Same clt: 8.6%
• Different clt: 4.4%
• Same culture effect: 2x

27. Level-1 Cmap

28. Level-2 Cmap

29. Conclusions
Classroom procedure
Students’ perception
Future research

30. Classroom procedure
Hyperlinked Cmaps + hierarchical reductionism
allowed students to
• Deal with lots of information
• Increase group synergy
Activities for interdisciplinary purposes must be
• Included in curriculum
• Structured to reduce cognitive load & foster team work

31. Students’ perception
Only DTIA was disconnected from Basic Cycle courses
• Specific content involving statistics
Concurrent effect
• Courses offered simultaneously presented 4x more links
Culture effect
• Courses from the same knowledge area presented 2x
more links

32. Future research
Check students’ perception after the Basic Cycle
• Students at the beginning vs end of curriculum
Compare perceptions about the Basic Cycle
• Academics’ expectations vs students’ perception
• Visible information makes possible the pedagogic
resonance for planning the curriculum
• Inputs from students’ perception are valuable
information to curriculum planners

33. Acknowledgments

34. Invitation
www.cmc2014.com.br
Paulo R M Correia
Universidade de São Paulo
about.me/prmcorreia
prmc@usp.br
12-dec-13