Transdisciplinary learning environments have potential to bring together the arts, sciences, and computing within schools. We investigate the student and teacher enactment of sensemaking practices that break down disciplinary silos. We describe a pedagogical approach, Luminous Science, where students make dynamic, computationally-rich artistic representations of data from a classroom garden. Then we present an analysis of students’ sensemaking practices used during the transdisciplinary unit in three cases of art, science and computing classrooms. Qualitative analysis of a student group and teachers’ curricular materials in each of these classrooms elucidates how teachers’ enactment choices, organization, and facilitation of the unit we co-designed with them facilitated opportunities for students’ transdisciplinary thinking and learning. We show that when teachers’ enactments supported increased computational complexity and ties between artifact and phenomenon, then students participated in deeper transdisciplinary sensemaking. We discuss the implications for the design of curricular materials and professional development to support effective organization and discourse practices by teachers in orchestrating transdisciplinary sensemaking.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.
Buy single article
Instant access to the full article PDF.
Price includes VAT for USA
Subscribe to journal
Immediate online access to all issues from 2019. Subscription will auto renew annually.
This is the net price. Taxes to be calculated in checkout.
Boix-Mansilla’s definition for interdisciplinary is akin to our transdisciplinary definition but she does not provide a definition for transdisciplinary.
We use this term more broadly than is used in mathematics literature where it is used to describe recognition of patterns (Alexander 2016).
Abrahamson, D., & Lindgren, R. (2014). Embodiment and embodied design. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (2nd ed., pp. 358–376). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Alexander, P. A. (2016). Relational thinking and relational reasoning: Harnessing the power of patterning. Science of Learning,1, 1–7.
Aram, J. D. (2004). Concepts in interdisciplinarity: Configurations of knowledge and action. Human Relations,57(4), 379–412.
Ball, D. L., & Cohen, D. K. (1996). Reform by the book: What is—or might be—the role of curriculum materials in teacher learning and instructional reform? Educational Researcher,25(9), 6–14.
Barry, D., & Meisiek, S. (2010). Seeing more and seeing differently: Sensemaking, mindfulness, and the artworks. Organizational Studies,31(11), 1505–1530.
Bastos, F. M. C. (2009). Disruptive pedagogies in art education. Art Education,62(3), 5–5.
Becher, T. (1989). Academic tribes and territories: Intellectual enquiry and the cultures of disciplines. Buckingham: Society for Research into Higher Education, Open University Press.
Bensman, D. (2000). Central park east and its graduates: “Learning by heart”. New York: Teachers College Press.
Berland, L. K., & Reiser, B. J. (2010). Classroom communities’ adaptations of the practice of scientific argumentation. Science Education,95(2), 191–216.
Bernstein, J. H. (2015). Transdisciplinarity: A review of its origins, development, and current issues. Journal of Research Practice,11(1), 1–20.
Blikstein, P. (2008). Travels in Troy with Freire: Technology as an agent for emancipation. In P. Noguera & C. A. Torres (Eds.), Social justice education for teachers: Paulo Freire and the possible dream (pp. 205–244). Rotterdam: Sense.
Blikstein, P. (2013). Digital fabrication and ‘making’ in education: The democratization of invention. In J. Walter-Herrmann & C. Buching (Eds.), FabLabs: Of machines, makers and inventors. Bielefeld: Transcript Publishers.
Blikstein, P., & Krannich, D. (2013). The makers’ movement and FabLabs in education: Experiences, technologies, and research. In Proceedings of the 2013 Conference on Interaction, Design, Children (pp. 613–616). ACM.
Becker, C. (Ed.). (1994). The subversive imagination: Artists, society and social responsibility. New York: Routledge.
Boix-Mansilla, V. (2005). Assessing student work at disciplinary crossroads. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning,37(1), 14–21.
Boix-Mansilla, V. (2006). Interdisciplinary work at the frontier: An empirical examination of expert interdisciplinary epistemologies. Issues in Integrative Studies,24, 1–31.
Boix-Mansilla, V., & Duraising, E. D. (2007). Targeted assessment of students’ interdisciplinary work: An empirically grounded framework proposed. The Journal of Higher Education,78(2), 215–237.
Bullock, A. L., & Galbraith, L. (2015). Images of art teaching: Comparing the beliefs and practices of two secondary art teachers. Studies in Art Education,33(2), 86–97.
Campbell, T., Schwarz, C., & Windschitl, M. (2016). What we call misconceptions may be necessary stepping-stones toward making sense of the world. Science and Children,53(7), 28–33.
Carolan, M. S. (2008). The bright- and blind-spots of science: Why objective knowledge is not enough to resolve environmental controversies. Critical Sociology,34(5), 725–740.
Coburn, C. (2004). Beyond decoupling: Rethinking the relationship between the institutional environment and the classroom. Sociology of Education,77, 211–244.
Dervin, B., & Naumer, C. M. (2009). Sense-Making. In S. W. Littejohn & K. A. Foss (Eds.), Encyclopedia of communication theory (pp. 877–880). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education. New York: Macmillan Publishing.
Dewey, J. (1944). Democracy and education. New York: Free Press.
diSessa, A. A. (2000). Changing minds: Computers, learning, and literacy. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Efland, A. (1976). The school art style: A functional analysis. Studies in Art Education,17(2), 37–44.
Fields, D. A., Landa, J., Nakajima, T., Kafai, Y. B., Goode, J., Margolis, J., et al. (2018). Stitching the loop: An electronic textiles unit in exploring computer science. Exploring computer science. https://exploringcs.org. Accessed 30 Nov 2019.
Finch, L., Shaprio, R. B., & Carstens, F. (2018). Teachers' values in co-design of an art-science-computing unit. In Proceedings of the International Conference of the Learning Sciences (pp. 663–670). ISLS.
Finch, L., Moreno, C., & Shapiro, R. B. (in press). Luminous science: Teachers designing for and developing transdisciplinary thinking and learning. Cognition and Instruction.
Fischer, G., & Giaccardi, E. (2006). Meta-design: A framework for the future of end-user development. In Lieberman H., Paterno F., Wulf V. (Eds) End user development (pp. 427–457). Human-Computer Interaction Series, Vol 9. Dordrecht: Springer.
Gaztambide-Fernández, R. (2013). Why the arts don’t do anything: Toward a new vision for cultural production in education. Harvard Educational Review,83(1), 211–236.
Giladi, P. (2016). Embodied meaning and art as sense-making: A critique of Beiser’s interpretation of the “End of Art Thesis”. Journal of Aesthetics and Culture,8, 1–11.
Giudici, C., Rinaldi, C., Barchi, P., & Children, R. (2001). Making learning visible: Children as individual and group learners. Cambridge, MA: Project Zero, Harvard Graduate School of Education.
Goodwin, C. (1994). Professional vision. American Anthropologist,96(3), 606–633.
Green, M. (1987). Creating, experiencing, sense-making: Art worlds in schools. The Journal of Aesthetic Education,21(4), 11–23.
Greeno, J. G., & Hall, R. P. (1997). Practicing representation: Learning with and about representational forms. The Phi Delta Kappan,78(5), 361–367.
Grisoni, L., & Collins, B. (2012). Sense making through poem houses: An arts-based approach to understanding leadership. Visual Studies,27(1), 35–47.
Guzdial, M. (2010). Does contextualized computing education help? ACM Inroads,1(4), 4–6.
Guzdial, M. (2019a). Task-specific programming languages: People aren’t dumb. Programming is hard. Retrieved March 25, 2019, from https://computinged.wordpress.com/2019/03/25/task-specific-programming-languages-past-guzdial-is-smarter-than-present-guzdial/
Guzdial, M. (2019b). Computing education as a foundation for 21st century literacy. Keynote at Special Interest Group in Computer Science Education (SIGCSE) Conference, Minneapolis, MN, February.
Hall, S., Stevens, R., & Torralba, T. (2002). Disrupting representational infrastructure in conversations across disciplines. Mind, Culture, and Activity,9(3), 179–210.
Halverson, E. R., & Sheridan, K. (2014). The maker movement in education. Harvard Educational Review,84(4), 495–504.
Harris, C. J., Phillips, R. S., & Penuel, W. R. (2012). Examining teachers' instructional moves aimed at developing students' ideas and questions in learner-centered science classrooms. Journal of Science Teacher Education,23, 769–788.
Hmelo-Silver, C. E., Duncan, R. G., & Chinn, C. A. (2007). Scaffolding and achievement in problem-based and inquiry learning: A response to Kirshner, Sweller, and Clark (2006). Educational Psychologist,42(2), 99–107.
Herrenkohl, L. R., Lund, K. S., Polman, J. L., Radinsky, J. Suthers, D., Tabak, I., et al. (2018). Life-long life-wide learning within and beyond the disciplines. In J. Kay & Luckin, R. (Eds.), Rethinking learning in the digital age: Making the learning sciences count, 13th International Conference of the Learning Sciences (ICLS) (pp. 1290–1295). London: International Society of the Learning Sciences.
Herrenkohl, L. R., & Polman, J. L. (2018). Learning within and beyond the disciplines. In F. Fischer, C. E. Hmelo-Silver, S. R. Goldman, & P. Reimann (Eds.), International handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 106–115). New York: Routledge/Taylor & Francis.
Heskett, J. (1980). Industrial design. New York: Thames and Hudson.
Holley, K. A. (2009). Special issue: Understanding interdisciplinary challenges and opportunities in higher education. ASHE Higher Education Report,35(2), 1–131.
Kafai, Y., Fields, D., & Searle, K. (2014). Electronic textiles as disruptive designs: Supporting and challenging maker activities in schools. Harvard Educational Review,84(4), 532–556.
Kafai, Y., Franke, M. L., Ching, C. C., & Shih, J. C. (1998). Game design as an interactive learning environment for fostering students’ and teachers’ mathematical inquiry. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning,3, 149–184.
Keller, E. F. (1983). A feeling for the organism: The life and work of Barbara McClintock. New York: Henry Holt and Company.
Kidron, A., & Kali, Y. (2015). Boundary breaking for interdisciplinary learning. Research in Learning Technology. https://doi.org/10.3402/rlt.v23.26496.
Kirschner, P. A., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. E. (2006). Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: An analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experimental, and inquiry-based teaching. Educational Psychologist,41(2), 75–86.
Klein, J. T. (2000). A conceptual vocabulary of interdisciplinary science. In P. Weingart & N. Stehr (Eds.), Practising interdisciplinarity (pp. 3–24). Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
Knorr-Cetina, K. (1993). Construction and fiction: The prospect of constructionism in the study of science and beyond. Danish Yearbook of Philosophy,28, 80–98.
Krakauer, D. C. (2011). Transscience: Disciplines and the advance of plenary knowledge. SFI Bulletin,25, 1–3.
Kuhn, T. S. (1970). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Kwon, S. M., Wardrip, P. S., & Gomez, L. M. (2014). Co-design of interdisciplinary projects as a mechanism for school capacity growth. Improving Schools,17(1), 54–71.
Latour, B., & Woolgar, S. (1979). Laboratory life: The construction of scientific facts. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications.
Lattuca, L. R. (2001). Creating interdisciplinarity: Interdisciplinary research and teaching among college and university faculty. Nashville: Vanderbilt University Press.
Liao, C. (2016). From interdisciplinary to transdisciplinary: An arts-integrated approach to STEAM education. Art Education,69(6), 44–49.
Lofland, J., & Lofland, L. H. (1995). Analyzing social settings: A guide to qualitative observation and analysis. Belmont: Wadsworth.
Marallo, L. A. (2014). Integrating Art+STEM: An exploratory study of three science centers. Masters thesis. Retrieved from Washington ResearchWorks Archive.
Markauskaite, L., Muukkonen, H., Damsa, C., Reimann, P., Shaffer, D. W., Kali, Y., et al. (2019, June). Theories and methods for researching interdisciplinary learning. Workshop conducted at International Conference on Computer Supported Collaborative Learning, Lyon, France.
Marshall, J. (2014). Transdisciplinarity and art integration: Toward a new understanding of art-based learning across the curriculum. Studies of Art Education,55(2), 104–127.
Marshall, J., & Donahue, D. M. (2014). Art-centered learning across the curriculum: Integrating contemporary art in the secondary school classroom. New York: Teachers College Press.
MC2 STEM High School. (2016). About Us. Retrieved on November, 30, 2019, from https://www.mc2stemhighschool.org/about_us.
National Core Arts Standards. (2015). National Coalition for Core Arts Standards. Retrieved on November 30, 2019, from https://www.nationalartsstandards.org/.
National Research Council (NRC). (1996). National science education standards. Washington DC: National Academy Press.
NGSS Lead States. (2013). Next generation science standards: For states, by states. Retrieved on May 5, 2020, from https://www.nextgenscience.org/.
Nicolescu, B. (2005). Transdisciplinary—Past, present and future. Vitoria: Centro de Educacao Transdisciplinar.
Nikitina, S. (2002). Three strategies for interdisciplinary teaching: Contextualizing, conceptualizing, and problem-solving. Interdisciplinary Studies Project, Project Zero: Harvard Graduate School of Education.
Odden, O. B., & Russ, R. S. (2018). Defining sensemaking: Bringing clarity to a fragmented theoretical construct. Science Education,103(1), 1–19.
Oleson, A., & Voss, J. (1979). The organization knowledge in modern America, 1860–1920. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Pagosa Peak Open School. (n.d.). Retrieved on November 30, 2019, from https://pagosapeakopenschool.org/.
Papert, S. A. (1980). Mindstorms: Children, computers, and powerful ideas. New York: Basic Books.
Peppler, K. A., & Bender, S. (2013). Maker movement spreads innovation one project at a time. Phi Delta Kappan,95(3), 22–27.
Peppler, K. A., & Glossen, D. (2013). Stitching circuits: learning about circuitry through e-textile materials. Journal of Science Education Technology,22(5), 751–763.
Peppler, K. A., & Wohlwend, K. (2017). Theorizing the nexus of STEAM practice. Arts Education Policy Review, 119(2), 88–99.
Pippin, R. B. (2014). After the beautiful: Hegel and the philosophy of pictorial modernism. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Plummer, J. D., & Ozcelik, A. T. (2015). Preservice teachers developing coherent inquiry investigations in elementary astronomy. Science Education,99(5), 932–957.
Pluta, W. J., Chinn, C. A., & Duncan, R. G. (2011). Learners’ epistemic criteria for good scientific models. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,48(5), 932–957.
Polman, J. L. (2000). Designing project-based science: Connecting learners through guided inquiry. New York: Teachers College Press.
Puntambekar, S., Stylianou, A., & Goldstein, J. (2007). Comparing classroom enactments of an inquiry curriculum: Lessons learned from two teachers. The Journal of the Learning Sciences,16(1), 81–130.
Rabinow, P. (1999). French DNA: Trouble in purgatory. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Reiser, B. J. (2013). What professional development strategies are needed for successful implementation of the Next Generation Science Standards? Invitational Research Symposium on Science Assessment. 1–22.
Richman-Abdou, K. (2019). Ceramicist uses science to crafthea clay bowls covered in electroformed crystals. My Modern Met. Retrieved on November 30, 2019, from https://mymodernmet.com/nature-bowls-sabri-ben-achour/.
Rodgers, C. (2002). Defining reflection: Another look at John Dewey and reflective thinking. Teachers College Record,104(4), 842–866.
Root-Bernstein, R., Pathak, A., & Root-Bernstein, M. (2019). A review of ACD-STEMM integration. Leonardo,52(5), 496–497.
Russ, R. S., Coffey, J. E., Hammer, D., & Hutchinson, P. (2008). Making classroom assessment more accountable to scientific reasoning: A case for attending to mechanistic thinking. Science Studies and Science Education,93(5), 876–891.
Schunn, C. D. (2017). Scientific sensemaking: A critical resource for science learning in school. Education, 20(8), 1467–1468.
Searle, K. A., & Kafai, Y. B. (2015). Boys' Needlework: Understanding gendered and indigenous perspectives on computing and crafting with electronic textiles. In Proceedings of ICER'15 (pp. 31–39).
Severance, S., Penuel, W. R., Sumner, T., & Leary, H. (2016). Organizing for teacher agency in curricular co-design. Journal of the Learning Sciences,25(4), 531–564.
Shulman, L. S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review,57(1), 1–22.
Silander, P. (2019). Phenomenal education: Phenomenon based learning. Retrieved on May 5, 2020, from https://www.phenomenaleducation.info/phenomenon-based-learning.html.
Simon, H. A. (1969). The sciences of the artificial. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Spillane, J. P., & Hopkins, M. (2013). Organizing for instruction in educational systems and school organizations: How the subject matters. Journal of Curriculum Studies,45(6), 721–747.
Stein, Z., Connell, M., & Gardner, H. (2008). Exercising quality control in interdisciplinary education: Toward an epistemologically responsible approach. Journal of Philosophy of Education,42(3–4), 401–414.
Stember, M. (1991). Advancing the social sciences through interdisciplinary enterprise. Social Science Journal,28(1), 1–14.
Stevens, R., Wineburg, S., Herrenkohl, L. R., & Bell, P. (2005). Comparative understanding of school subjects: Past, present, and future. Review of Educational Research,75(2), 125–157.
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. M. (1997). Grounded theory in practice. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Sturloni, S., & Vecchi, V. (Eds.). (1999). Everything has a shadow, except ants. Reggio Emilia: Reggio Children.
Tan, M. (2019). When makerspaces meet school: Negotiating tensions between instruction and construction. Journal of Science Education and Technology,28(2), 75–89.
Ulbricht, J. (1998). Interdisciplinary art education reconsidered. Art Education,51(4), 13–17.
Warren, B., Ballenger, C., Ogonowski, M., Rosebery, A. S., & Hudicourt-Barns, J. (2001). Rethinking diversity in learning science: The logic of everyday sense-making. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,38(5), 529–552.
The writing of this article was made possible in part a gift from Oracle. We thank the teachers and students who participated in this study, who were willing to try out new things, teach us about their personal and disciplinary perspectives, and figure out how to develop transdisciplinary learning environments with new and at times challenging tools.
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
About this article
Cite this article
Finch, L., Moreno, C. & Shapiro, R.B. Teacher and student enactments of a transdisciplinary art-science-computing unit. Instr Sci (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-020-09518-1
- Art education
- Computer science education
- Science education
- Educational innovation