Transdisciplinarity in education: Aligning conceptualisation, configuration and competencies

By Hussein Zeidan.

How can we move from broad visions of transdisciplinarity to concrete educational practices that students can meaningfully engage with? What kinds of course designs genuinely support learning in complex, real‑world settings? And how do we ensure clarity, for both students and educators, about what these courses are meant to achieve?

These questions sit at the heart of many conversations among educators seeking to bring transdisciplinarity into their teaching practice. We want students to learn how to navigate complex problems, draw on multiple ways of knowing and develop the mindsets that allow them to work across boundaries with confidence. Yet the very flexibility that makes transdisciplinarity appealing can also make it difficult to design courses that are clear, supportive and aligned.

In practice, ‘transdisciplinarity in education’ has become an umbrella for diverse pedagogical approaches that immerse students in the complexity of real‑world problems. Educators frequently repurpose methods such as problem‑based learning, challenge‑based learning and service learning. These strategies are valuable, but the assumption that they alone can develop all the knowledge, skills, and dispositions needed to navigate complex problems warrants revisiting and rethinking.

Note on terminology I use ‘transdisciplinary education’ and ‘transdisciplinarity in education’ interchangeably, though the former can be misleading. It may suggest an educational system that fully integrates academic and non‑academic domains, which is not consistently evident in the cases examined that underpin this i2Insights contribution (Zeidan et al., 2026). Most studies reviewed for this work describe practices that operate outside disciplinary boundaries but without substantial integration across them. For this reason, I use both terms to denote an educational approach informed by transdisciplinarity as a concept, even when it does not fully realise its integrative or cross‑sectoral ambitions.

The set of courses identifying as transdisciplinary education that colleagues and I examined provides a clearer picture of the tensions and gaps shaping their implementation, especially:

• Different courses inevitably emphasise different dimensions—whether crossing disciplinary boundaries, engaging with diverse knowledge traditions and positionalities, or collaborating with non‑academic stakeholders—without making it clear that transdisciplinarity encompasses multiple orientations that cannot all be addressed in a single course
• Learning activities, especially in problem-based courses, often mirror the research process, without intentional and substantial scaffolding or other knowledge‑building approaches to provide the structure students need to learn effectively
• Terms describing transdisciplinary competencies such as critical thinking, reflexivity and humility are often loosely defined. Further, limited attention is given to other factors shaping students’ competency development, such as their identities, experiences, contexts, and how competencies evolve over time.

The 3Cs: Conceptualisation, configuration and competencies

To make discussions of transdisciplinarity more intentional, these gaps were considered in relation to one another and to the specific nature of transdisciplinary education. This led to the development of the 3Cs: Conceptualisation, Configuration and Competencies, not as a fixed model but as a guiding structure for designing transdisciplinary learning. The 3Cs draw on principles of constructive alignment and curriculum design, adapted to the particular demands of transdisciplinary work.

1. Conceptualisation: Clarifying what the course aims to achieve

Rather than relying on general definitions of transdisciplinarity, educators specify:

• Which dimension of transdisciplinarity the course emphasises, such as integrating disciplinary insights, engaging with societal stakeholders or developing reflexive and epistemic awareness
• What is realistic for students to achieve within the course
• How the course fits into the broader curriculum or learning trajectory.

This helps avoid overambitious promises and supports students in understanding the purpose of their learning experience.

2. Configuration: Designing learning activities that match the aims

Transdisciplinary courses often rely on experiential, project‑based or challenge‑driven learning. These approaches are powerful, but they work best when they are intentionally structured. Thoughtful configuration involves:

• Balancing hands‑on engagement with conceptual and theoretical grounding
• Recognising the diversity of students’ disciplinary backgrounds
• Providing scaffolding that supports (rather than constrains) exploration, enabling structured opportunities for guidance and feedback
• A well‑defined role for educators, not only as facilitators but also as guides and knowledge resources.

When configuration aligns with conceptualisation, students can engage with complexity in a way that feels purposeful rather than overwhelming.

3. Competencies: Defining and assessing what students can reasonably develop

The competencies often associated with transdisciplinarity (such as collaboration, reflexivity, humility, systems thinking, integration and communication) can feel broad, overlapping and difficult to pin down. Assessing them is equally challenging, with many courses relying mainly on self‑reporting. Because these competencies develop gradually and across multiple learning experiences, a single course can only nurture certain aspects of them. Being explicit about this helps set realistic expectations for both educators and students.

A more grounded approach involves:

• Breaking competencies into smaller, observable components
• Identifying the level of mastery appropriate for the course
• Using multiple assessment methods
• Recognising that competency development is cumulative, not achieved in a single module.

This creates a clearer, more transparent and more equitable basis for supporting and evaluating student learning.

Why the 3Cs matter for educators

Transdisciplinary education is often positioned as a response to complex societal challenges. Yet its effectiveness depends on how clearly educators articulate what we are doing and why. Aligning the 3Cs helps:

• Strengthen curriculum coherence
• Support student expectations
• Improve assessment practices
• Position transdisciplinarity as part of a longer learning journey.

Rather than limiting creativity, this alignment provides a structure that enables experimentation while keeping student learning at the centre.

What do you think?

If you are an educator, how do you currently balance conceptual clarity with flexibility in your transdisciplinary teaching? In designing these courses, what do we learn about our own roles as educators navigating complexity, and how might that self awareness reshape the way we teach? How might our own assumptions about what “counts” as transdisciplinary learning shape the possibilities we create, or unintentionally limit, for our students?

To find out more:

Zeidan, H., Rai, S. S. and Zweekhorst, M. (2026). Making sense of transdisciplinarity in education: Re- visiting its conceptualisation, configuration and competencies. Review of Education, 14, 1: e70147. (Online – open access) (DOI): https://doi.org/10.1002/rev3.70147 .

Use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) Statement: Artificial intelligence (Microsoft Co-pilot) tools were used for proofreading only. (For i2Insights policy on artificial intelligence please see https://i2insights.org/contributing-to-i2insights/guidelines-for-authors/#artificial-intelligence.)

Biography: Hussein Zeidan MA is a PhD candidate at the Athena Institute, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, the Netherlands. His research examines how transdisciplinarity is translated into educational practice and how it is used to cultivate competencies that support student learning and development.