Next Article in Journal
Of Microscopes and Meeting Places: A Literature Review Examining Barriers to Indigenous Participation in STEM
Next Article in Special Issue
Assessment of Teacher Motivation, Psychometric Properties of the Work Tasks Motivation Scale for Teachers (WTMST) in Spanish Teachers
Previous Article in Journal
Novice Teachers and Mentor Teachers: From a Traditional Model to a Holistic Mentoring Model in the Postmodern Era
Previous Article in Special Issue
Self-Esteem among University Students: How It Can Be Improved through Teamwork Skills
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Education Sciences
Volume 14
Issue 2
10.3390/educsci14020144
education-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Assessment of the Perceived Mastery of Interdisciplinary Competences of Students in Education Degree Programmes

by
Ángel-Freddy Rodríguez-Torres
1,
Jorge Garduño-Durán
2,
Sandra-Elizabeth Carbajal-García
3 and
José-Antonio Marín-Marín
4,*
1
Faculty of Physical Culture, Central University of Ecuador, Quito 170129, Ecuador
2
Normal School of Physical Education “Gral. Ignacio M. Beteta”, Mexico City 06600, Mexico
3
Faculty of Social Communication, Central University of Ecuador, Quito 170129, Ecuador
4
Department of Didactics and School Organisation, University of Granada, 18071 Granada, Spain
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Educ. Sci. 2024, 14(2), 144; https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci14020144
Submission received: 17 December 2023 / Revised: 15 January 2024 / Accepted: 29 January 2024 / Published: 31 January 2024
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Facing New Challenges for Competencies Acquisition in Higher Education)
Browse Figure
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
The importance of fostering interdisciplinary competences in students acquires a relevant value in the skills that must be developed throughout university studies. These enable them to tackle complex problems and apply knowledge in different contexts, promoting the construction of knowledge through the integration of different disciplines and collaboration between areas of knowledge. The study aims to analyse how university education students perceive their interdisciplinary competences, identifying areas where they feel more confident and those in which they need to improve, with consideration of gender differences and a possible measurement model. The study involves 1066 students from university education courses in Ecuador. The main results highlight the importance of strengthening training in interdisciplinary skills for future teachers, especially in reflective behaviour and the integration of knowledge from different disciplines to address complex problems. It also points to the need to promote interdisciplinary work in higher education and recognises that gender may influence students’ interdisciplinary perceptions and skills. Confirmatory factor analysis supports the validity of the model for measuring these competences.

1. Introduction

The information age requires citizens who are able to understand the complexity of society; to adapt creatively to the speed of change and the uncertainty that accompanies it [1] (therefore, education “should teach principles of strategy, which make it possible to face risks, the unexpected and the uncertain, and to modify their development by virtue of information acquired along the way” [2], p. 38); and to respond to the current challenges of society, which is to educate human beings with science and conscience, developing a culture of being, capable of facing complex problems in both scientific and professional environments and proposing creative and effective solutions [3,4,5] that contribute to developing the ability to learn by oneself, cooperate, communicate effectively and apply and transfer what they have learnt to new situations [6].
Today, students must solve increasingly complex problems that require approaches that transcend disciplines, as they cannot be tackled with a fragmented view [7,8]. It is necessary to foster learning towards understanding, where the student makes interdisciplinary connections and concretises in real spaces [9]; develops boundary-crossing skills, such as the ability to shift perspectives, synthesise knowledge from different disciplines and cope with complexity [10]; and strategically uses the acquired knowledge to solve complex problems linked to real life and professional practice but, fundamentally, to achieve ethical and socially responsible professional performance [11,12].
Interdisciplinarity is an act of exchange, of reciprocity between disciplines and a possibility of enriching and integrating the elements of knowledge [13,14]; it promotes the construction and generation of knowledge as a dynamic of knowledge organisation that articulates the diversity of readings or visions of reality, breaking with disciplinary isolation by generating relationships and solidarity between knowledge [15].
The training process, fundamentally centred on teaching, is characterised by the fact that the teacher is the one who transmits their knowledge of what they know or have mastered to the students, with traditionalist strategies; in contrast, the students assume a passive attitude to their learning, becoming recipients of the information and reproducers of what they learn; in this context, the master class predominates, adjusted to a disciplinary vision, and the evaluation is focused on the result rather than on the process [16].
Initial teacher training is conceived as “the years of training at the university and intended to enable those who complete it to acquire the professional title and the necessary competences that enable them to teach” [17] (p. 10). This is a stage in which an intentional, systematic and organised educational practice is developed, designed to prepare future teachers with theoretical, pedagogical and didactic knowledge that enables them to carry out their professional practice and comprehensively educate students.
Teacher training is decontextualised and fragmented, and theory is disconnected from practice, so there is a high degree of dissatisfaction [18]. One of the difficulties that teachers have in their teaching is integrating content with other subjects [19], working in isolation, producing specialists whose thinking is compartmentalised as they lack praxis, reflection and action to transform the world [2,20], making it difficult for students to integrate knowledge in the solution of problems that arise in reality or in their professional practice, encouraging superficial, fragmentary and decontextualised learning [21,22].
Against this background, future teachers must be trained in contextualised tasks that allow them to generalise and transfer what they have learnt to different contexts and are themselves practical examples of the meaning and functionality of what they are working on. The important thing is to learn by doing, learn to think, encourage cooperative and creative work [23] and contribute to learning in a comprehensive way and solve real problems [24] and to acquire tools that help them to develop reflective and critical thinking and understand the complexity of the classroom and the school context [25]. Therefore, the students’ learning process must change and implement strategies that contribute to a better understanding of what they learn and have the possibility of transferring what they learn to new situations.
Interdisciplinarity is conceived as “an act of exchange, of reciprocity between disciplines or sciences, or rather areas of knowledge” [13] (p. 26). Interdisciplinarity is understood as a discipline situated among many other disciplines and closely linked to them. This concept arises when attempts are made to solve complex problems. Interdisciplinary ways of working integrate different solutions and ways of working. In this sense, modern interdisciplinary education must reflect the accepted knowledge and practice in the professional world. In this professional world, most parameters are unknown, apart from a toolbox of problem-solving methods [26].
The essence of interdisciplinarity is the “construction or production of knowledge to address complex problems that require a multiple view and to offer solutions for them, either to seek a holistic perspective amidst the increasing compartmentalisation of knowledge into specialities” [27] (p. 27). Interdisciplinarity is integrative: knowledge from different disciplines is contrasted and changed through integration [28] and can help to address today’s complex problems, as an interdisciplinary approach facilitates a holistic understanding [29].
It is clear that occasional or fortuitous contacts do not per se constitute interdisciplinarity; in order to build processes in this sense, some conditions are required [10,30]:
  • Students need access to ways of knowing and knowledge inherent to different disciplines (understanding of different paradigms of each discipline and interdisciplinary problem solving), as well as different forms of knowledge integration (high cognitive and communicative skills).
  • Emphasise in the teaching and learning processes, curiosity, participation and active listening, flexibility to see problems from different approaches, patience, respect, collaboration and self-regulation as characteristics that enable the development of complex thinking.
  • Generate a learning environment that is consistent and complementary between disciplinary co-knowledge and interdisciplinarity. Therefore, joint workspaces are essential, which implies the formation of teams focused on problem solving and solidarity participation.
  • Do not consider interdisciplinarity as a static or solid concept. Although it is advisable to start from elements of coherence, there must be a continuous, progressive and dynamic process that allows for a critical contrast in disciplinary perspectives so that students problematise the notion of abstract knowledge, motivate the breaking down of disciplinary limits and demand the possibilities of interdisciplinary collaboration.
This interdisciplinary collaboration is possible during training through concrete learning experiences [31,32], which provoke intellectual challenges to re-solve problems or confront complex situations, promoting the development of competences, and where thinking is open to problematisation from different areas of knowledge [33,34].
Lattuca et al. [35] propose that interdisciplinary competences are operationalised through three factors:
Interdisciplinary skills: assess students’ perceptions of their abilities to think about and use different disciplinary perspectives to solve interdisciplinary problems or to make connections between academic fields.
Reflective behaviour: includes items that operationalise the “reflexivity” dimension of interdisciplinarity identified through a literature review. This scale includes items that tap into students’ perceived ability to recognise the need to reconsider the direction of their thinking and problem-solving approaches.
Recognition of disciplinary perspectives: draws on students’ perceived understanding of disciplinary knowledge, methods, expectations and boundaries and how disciplinary knowledge can be applied in different situations.
In this context, the aim of this study is to analyse the self-perception of interdisciplinary competences in undergraduate education students, and more specifically, the following specific objectives are set out:
  • To define the interdisciplinary competences in which university students in the degree courses in education perceive themselves to be most proficient.
  • To distinguish the interdisciplinary competences in which the university student in education considers they have less mastery.
  • To determine whether there are statistically significant differences in the mastery of interdisciplinary competences in students according to gender.
  • To establish, by means of confirmatory factor analysis, a possible model for determining students’ perceived mastery of interdisciplinary competences in education degree programmes.

2. Materials and Methods

Based on a literature review and taking the proposed objective as a reference, a quantitative, non-experimental, descriptive and correlational study was implemented [36]. The design focused on examining the conditions existing in the educational context, specifically in the university environment in Ecuador, in relation to the self-perception of the education student with respect to interdisciplinary competences and the existence of a correlation between them.

2.1. Participants

The population consisted of 8619 students from the Faculty of Philosophy, Literature and Educational Sciences (7656 students, 88.82%) with nine degrees and the Faculty of Physical Culture (963 students, 11.18%) with one degree from the Central University of Ecuador.
In the selection of the sample, convenience sampling was used, designating those students who completed the questionnaire provided. Specifically, 1066 university students participated in the study (basic education; early education; pedagogy of history; pedagogy of language and literature; pedagogy of experimental sciences; pedagogy of experimental sciences, mathematics and physics; pedagogy of experimental sciences, chemistry and biology; pedagogy of national and foreign languages; psychopedagogy; and pedagogy of physical activity and sport).
Regarding the characteristics of the sample, it is worth noting that 46.4% were men and 53.6% were women. The mean age of the students was 22.12 years, with a standard deviation of 3.055 years. Taking as a reference the degree, 22.2% of the students were enrolled in pedagogy of physical activity and sport, 15.9% in pedagogy of experimental sciences, 15.2% in pedagogy of history, 14.6% in pedagogy of experimental sciences, mathematics and physics, 9.9% in pedagogy of experimental sciences, chemistry and biology, 6.4% in psychopedagogy, 6.2% in pedagogy of national and foreign languages, 4.2% in early education, 3.2% in pedagogy of language and literature and 2.2% in basic education.

2.2. Instrument

The questionnaire used was constructed from the literature review and considered the questionnaire on interdisciplinary competence developed by [35,36], “Evaluation of Perceptions of Interdisciplinarity: Validation of an Instrument for Higher Education Students”.
The questionnaire constructed to analyse the interdisciplinary competences of university students of education was subjected to an evaluation of content validity, which aims to demonstrate that the questionnaire really measures the relevant variable, and reliability, which aims to demonstrate that the instrument when applied repeatedly over a period of time shows similar results, for which a pilot study was applied to a sample of 608 students, obtaining an internal consistency coefficient of Cronbach’s alpha for the 15 items.
The content validity procedure was carried out through the criteria of 15 experts of different nationalities (7 Ecuadorians, 4 Cubans and 4 Spaniards), with an average age of 48 years, 20% women and 80% men, with an average research experience of 16.53 years and a degree of training of doctor—PhD in education. We considered the Delphi methodology in the research dynamics, which justified the rounds associated with the improvement of the instrument [37]. It should be noted that in order to contrast the level of consensus of the criteria issued by the experts, Kendall’s coefficient of concordance was calculated in SPSS v28 statistical software, where a coefficient of 0.86 was obtained, being “very good”, as it is between 0.8 and 1.0.
In addition, a pilot test was carried out with 608 students from the different degrees in education at the University of Guayaquil (109), the State University of Bolivar (139), the Salesian Polytechnic University of Ecuador (18), the State University of Milagro (89), the Technical University of Ambato (58) and the University of the Armed Forces—ESPE (195). The results of the questionnaire indicated that the measurement of each factor through the variables proposed was valid. The Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin statistic was 0.949, Bartlett’s test of sphericity yielded a p-value of 0.000 and the percentage of variance explained was 64.94%. In addition, reliability was measured with Cronbach’s alpha coefficient (α), resulting in the following values for each factor: interdisciplinary skills (α = 0.821), reflective behaviour (α = 0.786) and recognition of disciplinary perspectives (α = 0.909). It is a reliable instrument (0.926 Cronbach’s alpha) and valid for analysing the interdisciplinary skills of university students of education.
Data collection was based on the survey technique, using an instrument called the questionnaire for interdisciplinary competences in teacher training. This instrument includes three dimensions from which 15 items are specified that seek to find out what university students of education know and are able to do in order to learn effectively and live in an increasingly digitalised society, these being:
  • Habilidades Interdisciplinarias
  • Comportamiento Reflexivo
  • Reconocimiento de Perspectivas Disciplinarias
The questionnaire corresponds to a Likert-type scale with 5 response options, allowing students to have multiple choices [37]. As a reference for the description, the value 1 means that the student feels completely ineffective in performing what is presented, while 5 corresponds to complete mastery of the statement.

2.3. Procedure and Data Analysis

The application of the survey was carried out with the online computer application Google Forms. In this way, students of the education degree programmes at the Central University of Ecuador were able to complete the questionnaire. Previously, teachers involved in these degrees were contacted to explain the objective of the research and the procedure for applying the questionnaire. Access to the sample was intentional so that during the period from February to April 2023, students got an opportunity to access the questionnaire after reading the informed consent form. Ethical considerations on good research practice, as set out in the Declaration of Helsinki, were respected at all times.
Once the data had been collected, the analysis was carried out using the Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS, version 28 for Windows). This procedure was used to perform a descriptive analysis of the dimensions incorporated in the questionnaire related to interdisciplinary competences for university students training to become teachers, as well as to examine the items in which the most outstanding mean and standard deviation scores were obtained.
Student’s t-test for independent samples provided information on the existence or not of statistically significant differences between the dimensions of the questionnaire and the socio-demographic variable related to the student’s gender. In addition, confirmatory factor analysis provided information to evaluate a possible measurement model on the basis of a theory to be tested.

3. Results

3.1. Interdisciplinary Competences for University Students of Education

The results obtained show how students claim to have interdisciplinary competences in their university studies as future teachers, as shown in Table 1. The descriptive analysis for each of the dimensions of the questionnaire revealed how the mean scores were between 4.03 and 3.72 points. The dimensions in which students showed the highest competence were reflective behaviour and interdisciplinary skills. The dimension in which the students obtained the lowest mean scores was related to the recognition of interdisciplinary perspectives.
In addition, and taking into account the descriptive analysis for each of the items, it highlights how the university student in education considers that they can use what they have learnt in another field of knowledge. By bringing in knowledge and ideas from different fields, they can realise what is appropriate for solving a problem, they can take ideas from other areas related to education and synthesise them in a way that helps them to understand better and they can often stop to think about where they might be wrong or right in solving a problem. However, they consider that they are less proficient in identifying the types of knowledge and ideas that differ in different fields of study, identifying the different fields of knowledge involved in solving a problem, recognising the types of evidence on which different fields of knowledge depend and explaining the solution to a problem where different fields of knowledge are involved, as shown in Table 2.
The items with the highest dominance consider the integration of knowledge from different perspectives or academic fields, such as actively combining theories or methods from different academic disciplines and thus contributing to complex problem solving [10,38,39,40,41].
The items that have less mastery are due to the fact that pedagogical approaches that challenge students to demonstrate interdisciplinary understanding by integrating multiple knowledge sources, methods and perspectives from two or more disciplines to achieve the solution to a problem or learning outcome are still relatively limited [42,43]. Therefore, it is necessary to take into account the conditions of the learning environment, such as the balance between disciplinarity and interdisciplinarity, disciplinary knowledge within or outside courses on interdisciplinarity, intellectual community focused on interdisciplinarity, faculty expertise on interdisciplinarity, consensus on interdisciplinarity, team development, team teaching, pedagogy aimed at achieving interdisciplinarity, active learning, collaboration, assessment of students’ intellectual maturation and evaluation of interdisciplinarity [10].

3.2. Gender Differences in Students’ Interdisciplinary Competences

The analysis of means revealed statistically significant differences according to the gender of the university students for some of the dimensions under study, as shown in Table 3. Thus, significant differences could be seen for the dimension related to the recognition of disciplinary perspectives (t = 3.885; p = 0.000). This difference turned out to be more favourable for male students, who stated that they had taken part in the recognition of disciplinary perspectives for the development of their university studies.

3.3. Confirmatory Factor Analysis

Applying the confirmatory factor analysis technique, the model shown in Figure 1 was found. The goodness-of-fit and parsimony statistics are described next. In this sense, the following statistics are presented: the chi-square on its degrees of freedom (χ2/g.l.) = 4.103, which must be less than 5 to be accepted [44]; the absolute index root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) = 0.043, which has to be less than 0.05 [45]; and the predictive index, which is the expected cross-validation index (ECVI) = 0.949, whose value must be close to 1 [28]. However, the incremental indices or incremental fit measures were the normalised fit index (NFI) = 0.969, which must be at least 0.95 to be acceptable [46]; the Tucker–Lewis index (TLI) = 0.970, with passing values if the result is at least 0.9 [47]; and the parsimony normalised fit index (PNFI) = 0.975, which must be approximately equal to 1 [48]. Therefore, there is sufficient statistical evidence that the results in Figure 1 are valid. In this figure, we can see how the three variables of the study correlate with each other, with scores above 0.7, and the different items that compose them scored above 0.3, which is the established limit for an item to be included in one variable or another or definitively discarded. Only item HI3 is the one that obtained the lowest value of 0.31.

4. Discussion

According to the results obtained, interdisciplinary skills are positively and significantly correlated with reflective behaviour and re-awareness of disciplinary perspectives, with a value of 0.84 and 0.77, respectively. In other words, those students who value readings on topics outside education enable knowledge acquisition, communication of ideas, participation and recognition of cultural values [49]; enjoy thinking about how many different fields approach the same problem in different ways; and believe that not all educational problems have purely pedagogical solutions. To solve educational problems, they often seek information from experts in other academic fields. By bringing in knowledge and ideas from different fields, they can realise what is needed to solve a problem, they link ideas from education with ideas from the humanities and social sciences and they can take ideas from other areas related to education and synthesise them in a way that helps them to better understand and use what they have learnt in the field of knowledge.
Similarly, students appreciate that they often reflect at the beginning, during and at the end of an activity or problem solving and often stop to think about where they might be wrong or right with the solution to a problem. And this can be evidenced when learners demonstrate interdisciplinary understanding when they “apply knowledge, concepts, findings, strategies, tools, methods of enquiry, forms of knowledge or forms of communication in specific disciplines and employ disciplinary understanding while avoiding misconceptions or simplifications” [50] (p. 5). Similarly, reflection occurs when evaluating sources of information or assessing complex problems or controversial issues [10].
Problem solving is considered to be one of the most complex skills, as students need to understand the nature of the problem itself and need to develop a series of thought processes and concrete actions in a planned way; it also requires the use of a variety of tools and information resources—tools and technologies that facilitate problem solving [51]. It is where students manage their own learning, construct authentic knowledge and transfer what they learn to their daily lives, in new contexts and in solving complex problems that arise in their professional practice [6,51,52].
Reflective behaviour correlates with the recognition of disciplinary perspectives, with a value of 0.75. In other words, most students who often reflect at the beginning, during and at the end of an activity or problem solving and frequently stop to think about where they might be wrong or right in solving a problem are also able to identify the types of knowledge and ideas that differ across fields of study, recognise the type of evidence on which different fields of study are based, explain the solution to a problem involving different fields of knowledge, identify the different fields of knowledge involved in the solution of a problem and solve a problem by integrating different fields of knowledge. It is necessary that students establish connections between knowledge, that the understanding of the complexity of their links that make up real situations is fostered and that they build cognitive operators capable of reconnecting disciplines and areas of knowledge that allow them to have a better understanding of the problem and to propose creative and effective solutions [6,8,53,54,55,56].
In interdisciplinary skills, it was found that the variable HI1 correlates with the variable HI2, with a value of 0.27, that is, most of the students who value readings on education topics also enjoy thinking about how many different fields approach the same problem in different ways. The convergence of academic and critical reading is necessary for the development of critical thinking where self-questioning is the starting point for the formation of a critical reader with a reasoned, ethical and fair view of themselves and of the social, cultural and political problems of the national and international reality [57] and allows them to recognise why a “problem is specific to his field and how it is investigated in it. Therefore, it is necessary to know what are the topics that are investigated in the field, its central problems and the way of thinking that is specific to it” [58] (p. 99).
Also, the variable HI4 correlates positively with the variable HI5, with a value of 0.14, i.e., those students who in order to solve educational problems often seek information from experts and in other academic fields also provide knowledge and ideas from different fields can realise what is needed to solve a problem. The student must learn to plan information searches, access and select scientifically valid information, distinguish scientific evidence, master scientific writing and dissemination and make it a daily practice during their training process [6]. This will enable the student to learn to transfer information from one context to another, to be an adaptive expert and to be able to navigate in a globalised and rapidly changing world. Therefore, during their education, students should broaden their skills and start using them to solve complex problems in different contexts [59].
Finally, the variable HI7 correlates positively with the variable HI8, with a value of 0.17. In other words, students who can take ideas from other areas related to education and synthesise in a way that helps them to understand better can also use what they have learnt in the field of knowledge. Achieving integrative understanding requires that the learner have the ability to integrate knowledge and ways of thinking across two or more disciplines or established areas of expertise to produce a cognitive advance, such as explaining a phenomenon or solving a complex problem, in ways that would have been impossible or improbable through a single disciplinary medium [10,60,61].

5. Conclusions

This paper concludes by highlighting the importance of strengthening the training of future teachers in terms of interdisciplinary competences. Thus, it is worth highlighting the following:
  • Education undergraduates show a higher competence in reflective behaviour where a reflective attitude is evident in recognising the need to reconsider the direction of their thinking approaches and consider their own beliefs and knowledge actively and carefully, as well as their tendency to explore experiences in ways that support their broader understanding and enable them to identify the complexity of knowledge problems in order to solve them.
  • Future teachers realise that solving a problem from a single discipline is complex, so they integrate their knowledge from various disciplines to have a better understanding of the problem and apply or transfer what they have learnt to solve complex problems in everyday life and in their profession.
  • There are difficulties in identifying the types of knowledge and ideas that differ in the different fields of study and that intervene in the solution of problems, which is why it is important for higher education institutions to have training processes where interdisciplinary work is encouraged in order to achieve authentic learning in students.
  • The male students of education affirm that they are able to recognise the disciplinary perspectives that allow them to find relationships between disciplines and the fields in which they can share collaborative work, which makes it easier to continue with their university studies.
  • The dimensions where the association value is highest are interdisciplinary skills–reflective behaviour, which are positively and significantly correlated. From these data, it can be determined that there is a direct influence between interdisciplinary skills and reflective behaviour, as the former establishes connections between academic fields, while the latter re-flexes the direction of their thinking approaches to solving complex problems.
  • The confirmatory factor analysis confirms that the study can be considered as a model for measuring the perceived mastery of interdisciplinary competences of students in education programmes.
The prospective of this research is to provide data that will allow higher education institutions to make decisions regarding the planning, development and acquisition of interdisciplinary competences in future teachers of different specialities, taking into account equal opportunities and avoiding inequalities in the training of future teachers. Finally, the results obtained can serve as a guide for the entities and institutions in charge of teacher training and the development of teacher training plans, as well as providing a basis for future scientific work that needs to consult information on the interdisciplinary competences of university students of education in a Latin American country.
However, the main limitation found in the study was the collection of data from a larger student population due to the coronavirus—COVID-19—pandemic, which made it necessary to repeatedly insist through the teachers on collaboration in the study. As for future lines of research, it should be stated that it would be advisable to carry out a study incorporating more higher education institutions in the country as well as to analyse whether the age of the student and the level of education influence the development of the interdisciplinary competences of the future teacher.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, Á.-F.R.-T. and J.-A.M.-M.; methodology, J.-A.M.-M.; formal analysis, Á.-F.R.-T.; investigation, J.G.-D. and S.-E.C.-G.; resources, J.G.-D.; data curation, S.-E.C.-G.; writing—original draft, Á.-F.R.-T.; writing—review and editing, J.-A.M.-M.; visualization, J.G.-D.; supervision, Á.-F.R.-T.; project administration, Á.-F.R.-T. and J.G.-D. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Acknowledgments

This study is the result of the postdoctoral research on “América Latina y su inserción en el orden global” at the Simón Bolivar University of Ecuador. For the preparation of this manuscript we are grateful for the participation of the Research Network “Educación y Tecnología Siglo XX1” of the Universidad Central del Ecuador with registration number 003-REDI-UCE-DI-2023 and the EducaTech-XXI Research Group “Education and Technology for the 21st Century” (SEJ-666) of the University of Granda (Spain).

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Pérez, Á. Aprender a educar. Nuevos desafíos para la formación de docente. Rev. Interuniv. Form. Profr. 2010, 24, 37–60. [Google Scholar]
  2. Morin, E. Enseñar a Vivir. Manifiesto para Cambiar la Educación; Nueva Visión: Vicente López Partido, Argentina, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  3. Jacobson, M.; Wilensky, U. Complex systems in education: Scientific and educational importance and implications for the learning sciences. J. Learn. Sci. 2006, 15, 11–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Pupo, R. El Ensayo Como Búsqueda y Creación. (Hacia un Discurso de Aprehensión Compleja); Universidad Popular de la Chontalpa: Cárdenas, Mexico, 2007. [Google Scholar]
  5. Roehler, L.; Fear, K.; Herrmann, B.A. Connecting and creating for learning: Integrating subject matter across the curriculum and the school. Educ. Psychol. Rev. 1998, 10, 201–225. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Rodríguez-Torres, Á.; Fierro-Altamirano, R.; Vela-Larco, D.; Quijano-Rojas, M. La resolución de problemas: Una oportunidad para aprender a aprender. Olimpia. Rev. Fac. Cult. Física Univ. Granma 2018, 15, 160–171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Mitchell, C. Zen and the Art of Transdisciplinary Postgraduate Studies; Institute for Sustainable Futures, University of Technology: Sydney, Australia, 2009. [Google Scholar]
  8. Rodríguez, Á.; Capote, G.; Rendón, P.; Valdés, C. El pensamiento complejo en el diseño curricular de la Educación Física. Lect. Educ. Física Deportes 2016, 21, 1–12. [Google Scholar]
  9. Chacón, M.; Chacón, C.; Alcedo, Y. Los proyectos de aprendizaje interdisciplinarios en la formación docente. Rev. Mex. Investig. Educ. 2012, 17, 877–902. [Google Scholar]
  10. Spelt, E.; Biemans, H.; Tobi, H.; Luning, P.; Mulder, M. Teaching and Learning in Interdisciplinary Higher Education: A Systemic Review. Educ. Psychol. Rev. 2009, 21, 365–378. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Pozo, J.; Pérez, M. Aprender para comprender y resolver problemas. In Psicología del Aprendizaje Universitario: La Formación en Competencias; Pozo, J., Pérez, M., Eds.; Morata: Madrid, Spain, 2009; pp. 31–53. [Google Scholar]
  12. Rivero, M.; Murillo, G.; Ferrer-Sánchez, Y. Proyecto Integrador: Herramienta metodológica en la educación superior. Rev. Didasc@lia Didáctica Educ. 2017, 8, 241–250. [Google Scholar]
  13. Ferreira, M. Ciencia e interdisciplinariedad. In Prácticas Interdisciplinares en la Escuela; Fazenda, I., Ed.; Octaedro: Madrid, Spain, 2015; pp. 23–28. [Google Scholar]
  14. Moreno-Guerrero, A.J.; Marín-Marin, J.A.; López-Belmonte, J.; Churi, P. Systematic Review on Digital Competence in the Spanish Context. In Digital Literacy for Teachers; Tomczyk, Ł., Fedeli, L., Eds.; Lecture Notes in Educational Technology; Springer: Singapore, 2022. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Larrea, E. El Currículo de la Educación Superior Desde la Complejidad Sistémica. Consejo de Educación Superior. 2014. Available online: https://acortar.link/Yi8FBj (accessed on 5 June 2023).
  16. Rodríguez, Á.; Mendoza, M.; Cargua, N. El Proyecto Integrador de Saberes: Una oportunidad para aprender a aprender. EmásF Rev. Digit. Educ. Física 2019, 10, 62–77. [Google Scholar]
  17. Rodríguez, Á.; Analuiza, E.; Capote, G. Los dilemas que enfrenta el profesorado de educación física en el Distrito Metropolitano de Quito. EmásF Rev. Digit. Educ. Física 2017, 8, 8–19. [Google Scholar]
  18. Sayago, Z. El eje de Prácticas Profesionales en el Marco de la Formación Docente (Un Estudio de Caso). Doctoral Thesis, Rovira i Virgili University, Tarragona, Spain, 2002. [Google Scholar]
  19. Rodríguez, A. La Formación Inicial y Permanente de los Docentes de Enseñanza no Universitaria del Distrito Metropolitano de Quito y su Influencia en los Procesos de Enseñanza y Aprendizaje, la Evaluación Institucional, el Funcionamiento, la Innovación y la Mejora de los Centros Educativos. Doctoral Thesis, University of the Basque Country, Leioa, Spain, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  20. Freire, P. La Educación Como Práctica de la Libertad; Siglo XXI Editores: Madrid, Spain, 2008. [Google Scholar]
  21. Blanco, M.; Corchuelo, B.; Corrales, N.; López, M. Ventajas de la interdisciplinaridad en el aprendizaje: Experiencias innovadoras en la educación superior. In Proceedings of the XI Jornadas Internacionales de Innovación Universitaria “Educar para Transformer”, Villaviciosa de Odón, Spain, 7–8 July 2014; Available online: http://hdl.handle.net/11268/3564 (accessed on 14 May 2023).
  22. Gonzalez-Mendivil, J.A.; Rodriguez-Paz, M.X.; Caballero-Montes, E.; Garay-Rondero, C.L.; Zamora-Hernandez, I. Measuring the developing of competences with collaborative interdisciplinary work. In Proceedings of the IEEE Global Engineering Education Conference (EDUCON), Dubai, United Arab Emirates, 8–11 April 2019. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Marín-Marín, J.A.; Huamán-Romaní, Y.L.; Seminario-Morales, M.V.; Moreno-Guerrero, A.J. Learning strategies in e-learning formative processes in mathematical contents during the COVID-19 era. World Trans. Eng. Technol. Educ. 2022, 20, 238–245. [Google Scholar]
  24. Murillo, F.; Martínez, C.; Hernández, R. Decálogo para una Enseñanza Eficaz. REICE Rev. Iberoam. Sobre Calid. Efic. Cambio Educ. 2011, 9, 6–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Chacón, M. Las estrategias de enseñanza reflexiva en la formación inicial docente. Educere 2008, 12, 277–288. [Google Scholar]
  26. Ciesielska, M.; Rizun, N.; Janowski, T. Interdisciplinarity in Smart Sustainable City education: Exploring educational offerings and competencies worldwide. In Proceedings of the 54th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS), Kauai, HI, USA, 5 January 2021; pp. 2434–2443. [Google Scholar]
  27. Uribe Mallarino, C.; Núñez Méndez, J. Interdisciplinariedad y transdisciplinariedad: ¿colaboración o superación de disciplinas? In La Interdisciplinariedad en la Universidad Contemporánea. Reflexiones y Estudios de Caso; Uribe Mallarino, C., Ed.; Pontificia Universidad Javeriana: Bogotá, Colombia, 2012; pp. 26–63. [Google Scholar]
  28. Kline, R. Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling, 2nd ed.; Guilford Press: New York, NY, USA, 2005. [Google Scholar]
  29. Newell, W. Decision making in interdisciplinary studies. In Handbook of Decision Making; Morçöl, G., Ed.; CRC: New York, NY, USA, 2007. [Google Scholar]
  30. Subsecretaría de Educación Superior. Estrategias Docentes para la Formación Interdisciplinar en Educación Superior; Redic Innovacesal: Quito, Ecuador, 2013. [Google Scholar]
  31. García-Tudela, P.A.; Marín-Marín, J.A.; Prendes-Espinosa, M.P. Una propuesta de gamificación a través de Genially para la educación superior. In Procesos Formativos y Experiencias Educativas Innovadoras; López-Belmonte, J., Morales Cevallos, M.B., Crespo Ramos, S., Carmona Serrano, N., Eds.; Dykinson: Madrid, Spain, 2022; pp. 149–168. [Google Scholar]
  32. Hinojo-Lucena, F.J.; García, G.G.; Marín-Marin, J.A.; Rodríguez, J.M.R. Gamificación por insignias para la igualdad y equidad de género en Educación Superior. Prism. Soc. Rev. Investig. Soc. 2021, 35, 184–198. [Google Scholar]
  33. Garduño, J. Realidades en la aplicación de los enfoques del Plan de Estudios 2018 para el logro de las Competencias Profesionales en la formación de licenciados en Educación Física. Retos 2023, 47, 636–647. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Rodríguez-Torres, Á.-F.; Cargua-García, N.-I.; Marín-Marín, J.-A.; Moreno-Guerrero, A.-J.; López-Belmonte, J. Diseño y validación de la escala para evaluar el trabajo interdisciplinario en Estudiantes Universitarios de Ecuador. IJERI Int. J. Educ. Res. Innov. 2023, 20, 1–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Lattuca, L.; Knight, D.; Bergom, I. Developing a Measure of Interdisciplinary Competence for Engineers; American Society for Engineering Education: San Diego, CA, USA, 2012. [Google Scholar]
  36. Hernández, R.; Fernández, C.; Baptista, P. Metodología de la Investigación; McGraw Hill Education: New York, NY, USA, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  37. Hernández-Armenta, I.; y Domínguez, A. Evaluación de Percepciones Sobre la Interdisciplinariedad: Validación de Instrumento para Estudiantes de Educación Superior. Form. Univ. 2019, 12, 27–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Gil-Gómez, B.; Pascual-Ezama, D. La metodología Delphi como técnica de estudio de la validez de contenido. An. Psicol. 2012, 28, 1011–1020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. McMillan, J.H.; Schumacher, S. Investigación Educativa. Una Introducción Conceptual; Pearson: Madrid, Spain, 2005. [Google Scholar]
  40. Marín-Marín, J.A.; Ramos-Navas-Parejo, M.; Fernández-Campoy, J.M. Metodologías activas para la enseñanza universitaria: Proyecto enseña+. In Avances en Recursos TIC e Innovación Educativa; Lucena, F.H., Díaz, I.A., Reche, M.C., Eds.; Dykinson: Madrid, Spain, 2019; pp. 101–116. [Google Scholar]
  41. Schijf, J.; van der Werf, G.; Jansen, E. Measuring interdisciplinary understanding in higher education. Eur. J. High. Educ. 2022, 13, 429–447. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Klaassen, R. Interdisciplinary education: A case study. Eur. J. Eng. Educ. 2018, 43, 842–859. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Repko, A. Integrating Interdisciplinarity: How the Theories of Common Ground and Cognitive Interdisciplinarity Are Informing the Debate on Interdisciplinary Integration. Issues Integr. Stud. 2007, 3, 1–31. [Google Scholar]
  44. Usluel, Y.; Aşkar, P.; Bas, T. A Structural Equation Model for ICT Usage in Higher Education. Educ. Technol. Soc. 2008, 11, 262–273. [Google Scholar]
  45. Ferrando, P.; Anguiano-Carrasco, C. El análisis factorial como técnica de investigación en psicología. Papeles Psicólogo 2010, 31, 18–33. [Google Scholar]
  46. Ruiz, M.; Pardo, A.; San Martín, R. Modelos de ecuaciones estructurales. Papeles Psicólogo 2010, 31, 34–45. [Google Scholar]
  47. Escobedo, M.; Hernández, J.; Estebané, V.; Martínez, G. Modelos de ecuaciones estructurales: Características, fases, construcción, aplicación y resultados. Cienc. Trab. 2016, 18, 16–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Lévy Mangin, J.; Varela Mallou, J.; Abad González, J. Análisis Multivariable para las Ciencias Sociales; Pearson Educación: Madrid, Spain, 2003. [Google Scholar]
  49. Méndez, J.; Espinal, C.; Arbeláez, D.; Gómez, J.; Serna, C. La lectura crítica en la educación superior: Un estado de la cuestión. Rev. Virtual Univ. Católica Norte 2014, 41, 4–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Organización de Bachillerato Internacional. Promoción de la Enseñanza y el Aprendizaje Interdisciplinarios en el PAI. Organización de Bachillerato Internacional. 2015. Available online: http://sas-teach.com/resources/PAI/AprendizajeInterdisciplinario.pdf (accessed on 9 April 2023).
  51. OECD. Literacy, Numeracy and Problem Solving in Technology-Rich Environments: Framework for the OECD Survey of Adult Skills; OECD Publishing: Washington, DC, USA, 2012. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Garduño, J. Enseñanza auténtica para desarrollar competencias profesionales en la Licenciatura en Educación Física. Rev. Dilemas Contemp. Educ. Política Valores 2022, 9, 1–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Rodríguez-Gallego, M.; Ordóñez-Sierra, R. Metodologías activas desarrolladas en la supervisión de las Prácticas Externas del Grado en Pedagogía. Rev. D’innovació Docent Univ. 2021, 13, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Da Conceicao, M. Para Comprender la Complejidad; Multiversidad Mundo Real Edgar Morin: Mexico City, Mexico, 2008. [Google Scholar]
  55. Morin, E. La Cabeza Bien Puesta. Bases para la Reforma Educativa, 1st ed.; 5th reprint; Nueva Visión: Vicente López Partido, Argentina, 2002. [Google Scholar]
  56. Pérez, Á. Educarse en la era Digital; Morata: Madrid, Spain, 2012. [Google Scholar]
  57. Rondón, G. Condiciones y características de un lector crítico en el aula de clase. In La Lectura Crítica: Propuestas para el Aula Derivadas de Proyectos de Investigación Educativa; Martínez, R., Rondón, G., Eds.; Kimpres Universidad de la Salle: Bogotá, Colombia, 2014; pp. 19–44. [Google Scholar]
  58. Litwin, E. El campo de la didáctica: La búsqueda de una nueva agenda. In Corrientes Didácticas Contemporáneas; Camilloni, A., Davini, M., Edelstein, G., Litwin, E., Souto, M., Barco, S., Eds.; Paidós: Barcelona, Spain, 2008; pp. 91–115. [Google Scholar]
  59. Blom, M.; Scager, K.; Wiegant, F. Assessment of Interdisciplinary Competencies; Utrecht University: Utrecht, The Netherlands, 2021. [Google Scholar]
  60. Boix, V.; Miller, W.; Gardner, H. On Disciplinary Lenses and Interdisciplinary Work. In Interdisciplinary Curriculum: Challenges of Implementation; Wineburg, S., Grossman, P., Eds.; Teachers College Press: New York, NY, USA, 2000; pp. 17–38. [Google Scholar]
  61. Boillos, M.M.; Rodríguez-Torres, Á. La escritura académica en las carreras de educación en Ecuador: Representaciones del alumnado. Íkala Rev. Leng. Cult. 2022, 27, 312–331. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Education 14 00144 g001
Figure 1. Confirmatory factor analysis results.
Figure 1. Confirmatory factor analysis results.
Education 14 00144 g001
Table 1. Descriptive analysis by dimension.
Table 1. Descriptive analysis by dimension.
DimensionsMSD
Interdisciplinary skills3.980.55
Reflective behaviour4.030.73
Recognition of disciplinary perspectives3.720.67
Note: M = mean; SD = standard deviation.
Table 2. Descriptive analysis for the most significant items.
Table 2. Descriptive analysis for the most significant items.
ItemsMSD
8. I can use what I have learnt in another field of knowledge.4.270.785
5. By bringing in knowledge and ideas from different fields, I can realise what is appropriate to solve a problem.4.090.789
7. I can take ideas from other areas related to education and synthesise them in a way that helps me to understand them better.4.070.819
10. I often stop to think about where I might be wrong or right with the solution to a problem.4.030.823
11. If required, I can identify the types of knowledge and ideas that differ in different fields of study.3.730.809
14. I am able to identify the different fields of knowledge involved in the solution of a problem.3.730.831
12. I recognise the types of evidence on which different fields of knowledge depend.3.700.851
13. I am able to explain the solution to a problem involving different fields of knowledge.3.700.845
Note: M = mean; SD = standard deviation.
Table 3. Student’s t-test by sociodemographic variable: student gender.
Table 3. Student’s t-test by sociodemographic variable: student gender.
DimensionsMenWomentSig.
MSDMSD
Interdisciplinary skills3.980.5593.980.550−0.0940.925
Reflective behaviour4.030.7314.020.7280.1260.900
Recognition of disciplinary perspectives3.810.6523.650.6733.8850.000
Note: t = Student’s t-test; Sig. = significance; M = mean; SD = standard deviation.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Rodríguez-Torres, Á.-F.; Garduño-Durán, J.; Carbajal-García, S.-E.; Marín-Marín, J.-A. Assessment of the Perceived Mastery of Interdisciplinary Competences of Students in Education Degree Programmes. Educ. Sci. 2024, 14, 144. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci14020144

AMA Style

Rodríguez-Torres Á-F, Garduño-Durán J, Carbajal-García S-E, Marín-Marín J-A. Assessment of the Perceived Mastery of Interdisciplinary Competences of Students in Education Degree Programmes. Education Sciences. 2024; 14(2):144. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci14020144

Chicago/Turabian Style

Rodríguez-Torres, Ángel-Freddy, Jorge Garduño-Durán, Sandra-Elizabeth Carbajal-García, and José-Antonio Marín-Marín. 2024. "Assessment of the Perceived Mastery of Interdisciplinary Competences of Students in Education Degree Programmes" Education Sciences 14, no. 2: 144. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci14020144

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop