The Gap in the Interdisciplinary Nature of Education in Polytechnic Universities

The Interdisciplinary Nature of Education is crucial for driving innovation and addressing complex societal challenges in polytechnic universities. However, despite the increasing focus on interdisciplinary programs, students in these fields often struggle to develop better cross-disciplinary skills compared to their single-discipline peers. This post delves into the institutional barriers hindering true interdisciplinarity and explores strategies for enhancing student motivation and engagement, ultimately proposing reforms that can better align polytechnic education with the demands of today’s interconnected world.
Illustration of students collaborating in a modern polytechnic university environment with visual representations of disciplines such as engineering, technology, science, and the arts, symbolizing interdisciplinary education.

Introduction

There is a gap in the interdisciplinary nature of education in polytechnic universities (Bespalov et al., 2020; Collins et al., 2015; Moiseev et al., 2020). Analyzing existing regulatory documents in higher education reveals that scientific and technological progress is mainly achieved through interdisciplinary studies (Xu et al., 2022). The need for reforms in polytechnic training emphasizes the importance of the practical application of knowledge and developing skills for successful teamwork (Vellamo et al., 2019). However, quantitative comparisons and interviews suggest that students participating in interdisciplinary programs do not necessarily have better interdisciplinary abilities than students in single-discipline studies (McPeek & Morthland, 2013). This may be due to factors such as lack of motivation, prior experience, and the influence of individual traits. The social responsibility of universities to solve complex problems requires increased structural interdisciplinarity, but there is debate on how disciplinary boundaries should be transgressed in technical education.

Overcoming Institutional Barriers to Interdisciplinarity

One of the significant barriers to fostering interdisciplinarity in polytechnic universities is the institutional structure itself. Many universities operate under siloed departments prioritizing deep, discipline-specific knowledge over integrative, cross-disciplinary approaches. This division challenges interdisciplinary programs to gain traction, as faculty and students are often encouraged to remain within the boundaries of their fields. Moreover, the lack of administrative support, such as funding for interdisciplinary projects or opportunities for faculty collaboration across departments, hinders the realization of interdisciplinary objectives (Bespalov et al., 2020). To overcome these barriers, universities must cultivate a culture of interdisciplinarity by offering incentives for collaborative research, creating interdisciplinary research centers, and reforming curricula to encourage cross-pollination of ideas.

Furthermore, the role of leadership in fostering an interdisciplinary environment cannot be overstated. University leadership must advocate for the importance of interdisciplinary studies and ensure that institutional policies and practices align with these goals. This could involve revising tenure and promotion criteria to recognize interdisciplinary work or establishing strategic partnerships with industry to provide students with real-world interdisciplinary project opportunities. Without structural reforms at the institutional level, interdisciplinary initiatives will continue to struggle, leaving students and faculty confined within disciplinary silos.

Enhancing Student Motivation and Engagement in Interdisciplinary Studies

While institutional changes are crucial, they must be accompanied by efforts to enhance student motivation and engagement in interdisciplinary programs. Studies suggest that one of the reasons interdisciplinary programs often fail to deliver better outcomes is that students may lack the intrinsic motivation to engage fully with interdisciplinary work (McPeek & Morthland, 2013). Many students enter university with predefined career goals tied to specific disciplines, making them less inclined to explore beyond their primary field of study. Moreover, interdisciplinary programs often lack the clear pathways and career incentives that single-discipline programs offer, leaving students uncertain about the value of pursuing an interdisciplinary approach.

To address these challenges, polytechnic universities must focus on creating more meaningful and tangible connections between interdisciplinary work and real-world applications. This could involve integrating interdisciplinary projects with industry partnerships, where students can see the direct impact of their work on solving complex, multifaceted problems. Additionally, educators can use project-based learning, problem-solving activities, and case studies to highlight the advantages of interdisciplinary approaches. By emphasizing interdisciplinary skills’ practical and career-relevant benefits, universities can cultivate greater student interest and investment in these programs.

Conclusion

The gap between the promise of interdisciplinarity in polytechnic education and its practical outcomes highlights a need for institutional reforms and a renewed focus on student engagement. While the benefits of interdisciplinary studies are well-documented—particularly in driving innovation and addressing complex societal challenges—many universities struggle to translate these benefits into improved student competencies. To bridge this gap, polytechnic universities must dismantle the structural barriers that impede interdisciplinarity, foster a culture that encourages cross-disciplinary collaboration, and ensure students are motivated to engage fully in interdisciplinary work. By doing so, universities can fulfill their social responsibility and better prepare students for the challenges of an increasingly complex and interconnected world.

Sources

Bespalov, A. E., Agafonova, V. V., & Kozlova, I. V. (2020). Prospects for Polytechnic Education in the Implementation of Applied Educational Programs: International Scientific Conference “Far East Con” (ISCFEC 2020), Vladivostok, Russia. https://doi.org/10.2991/aebmr.k.200312.282

Collins, D. L., Santiago, N. G., Huyke, H., Papadopoulos, C., Vega-Riveros, J. F., Nieves-Rosa, A., Brown, A., Portuondo, R., Cafaro, M., & Landers, M. (2015). Increasing student engagement through the development of interdisciplinary courses: Linking engineering and technology, the sciences, and the humanities. 2015 IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE), 1–5. https://doi.org/10.1109/FIE.2015.7344171

McPeek, K. T., & Morthland, L. M. (2013). The Collaborative Gap: A Case Study of Interdisciplinary Design Education. In Handbook of Research on Didactic Strategies and Technologies for Education: Incorporating Advancements. IGI Global. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-4666-2122-0

Moiseev, V. V., Karelina, E. A., Kirova, I. V., & Karelina, M. Yu. (2020). Organization of Educational Process in Conditions of Modern Polytechnic Education Development. In D. B. Solovev, V. V. Savaley, A. T. Bekker, & V. I. Petukhov (Eds.), Proceeding of the International Science and Technology Conference “FarEastСon 2019” (Vol. 172, pp. 69–77). Springer Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-2244-4_5

Vellamo, T., Pekkola, E., & Siekkinen, T. (2019). Technical Education in Jeopardy? Assessing the Interdisciplinary Faculty Structure in a University Merger. In M. P. Sørensen, L. Geschwind, J. Kekäle, & R. Pinheiro (Eds.), The Responsible University (pp. 203–232). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-25646-3_8

Xu, C., Wu, C.-F., Xu, D.-D., Lu, W.-Q., & Wang, K.-Y. (2022). Challenges to Student Interdisciplinary Learning Effectiveness: An Empirical Case Study. Journal of Intelligence, 10(4), 88. https://doi.org/10.3390/jintelligence10040088