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 |
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.
Dear Hussein,
It is a pleasure to celebrate the results of your versatile activities!
I have already participated in the comments to your blog posts. This allowed us to clarify our individual points of view on the essence of transdisciplinarity and the transdisciplinary approach in science and education. I hope this exchange of views was interesting to the readers of the blog.
However, after reading your message about the organization of transdisciplinary education and the problems that you have identified in your research on this topic, I have a desire to know your opinion on some objective circumstances.
A. Einstein is credited with the phrase: “Problems can never be solved by the way of thinking that first created them.” If this phrase is correct, can it serve as an objective circumstance that contributes to problems with terminology, goals and objectives, as well as ways of transdisciplinary education and competencies?
Our research shows that the main group of enthusiasts who promote the wonderful idea of transdisciplinary education is facing similar problems today. Could an honest self-analysis and self-assessment of whether these enthusiasts themselves possess a “new level of thinking” serve as a way out of this situation? What quantitative and qualitative characteristics will thinking have at this new level? What context will transdisciplinary education acquire at this new level of thinking?
Thank you.
Vladimir Mokiy
Dear Vladimir,
Thank you for your kind words. I also felt that our exchanges were beautiful and insightful, the kind of conversations in which ideas grow precisely because they are challenged.
Your questions resonate deeply. Without consistent self‑reflection and honest self‑assessment, it is easy to slip into reproducing the very problems we aim to address. This is why, when it comes to education, I appreciate the work of Ronald Barnett: he consistently brings discussions about the operationalisation of education back to the broader purposes we hold for it, and to an understanding of students as complex human beings. This more authentic, humanist layer is often missing in conversations about transdisciplinary education.
One striking observation from our review was that none of the articles we included examined the competencies of the transdisciplinary teacher. This is particularly interesting given that teachers are often both the subjects of these studies and the ones writing about transdisciplinary education, meaning they are the very people shaping how it is understood. For me, this highlights how easily the field fixates on students as the primary object of study while overlooking the dynamics that teachers create. Reflecting on the role of the educator (and on the competencies we ourselves may be missing) can open up new ways of thinking about the challenges we face and how we might address them.
Appreciate your contribution
Thank you
Hussein
Dear Hussein,
Thank you for this insightful article and post. Your points on the need to better recognise both the ‘input’ diversity of students and the cumulative nature of competency development particularly resonate with the approaches we have developed for the Master of Applied Cybernetics at the Australian National University (selecting students cohorts & maintaining a community of practice with our alumni).
The question that emerges for me: to what extent does transdisciplinary education benefit from, or even require, an educational approach that includes (mandatory or at least highly recommended) Continuing Professional Development?
Dear Thomas,
Thank you for your comment. I’m keen to learn more about your approach, and I’ll reach out to continue the conversation.
Your question really hit the nail on the head. What I’ve observed is that many of us have subconsciously internalised a competency‑based orientation that frames competencies primarily as forms of professional development, things we can assess, measure, and later use to judge candidates. This language often slips into our discussions of transdisciplinary competencies, and it risks narrowing them into what Barnett (The Limits of Competence) calls operational competence, which privileges know‑how, efficiency, outcomes and utility.
Once we start treating competencies in this way, it becomes easier to slide into treating students as passive actors who, with a bit of training, can simply “carry” an ever‑expanding list of competencies. Barnett (A Will to Learn), however, urges us to see students as beings, not just as carriers of skills. This shift can feel unsettling, perhaps because we ourselves have not fully internalised the uncertainty that comes with transdisciplinarity.
Seeing students as beings pushes us to look beyond the classroom. These students arrive with identities, backgrounds, ideologies and lived experiences; our courses interact with their entire reservoir of meaning‑making. They also interact with other courses, with institutional cultures, and with the hidden curriculum. Recognising this does not mean we cannot be precise about what we focus on, but it does mean there is a meaningful difference between saying “our course introduces students to…” and “our course produces students who can…”. Hoping this approach nurtures spaces where students and educators can examine their dispositions, actions, and modes of being from multiple angles, instead of being steered toward one predetermined direction.
Dear Hussein, thank you for this interesting post. I will read your paper in detail, but I am curious to learn more about the competencies associated to transdisciplinarity you identified in your study. You mentioned these need to be broken down into smaller components. Can you share an example? Which were useful strategies to then assess such components?
thank you!
Bianca
Dear Bianca,
Thank you for your question
In this study, we identified a set of transdisciplinary competencies and based on our observations it seems to continue to expand and evolve. What stood out, however, is that none of the studies we reviewed clearly define what they mean by the specific competencies they claim their courses cultivate. Terms such as humility or reflexivity gesture toward something important, but we lack a shared understanding of what these competencies actually entail or how they connect to concrete learning activities.
This becomes even more complicated when we consider that competencies like humility and reflexivity are fundamentally attitudinal or character‑based. This raises the question of how such constructs can meaningfully be assessed, and, indeed, whether educational assessment is the appropriate mechanism at all, especially given that many transdisciplinary educators remain disconnected from developments in educational and psychology research, which often contradict the assumptions found in transdisciplinary education. Although I personally believe these constructs should not be assessed in the conventional sense (a position I develop further in another piece), the tension itself is worth making explicit.
We therefore suggest that it may be more practical to begin with the objectives of the teaching and negotiate competencies in relation to those objectives. To do this, we need clarity about what a classroom is actually trying to achieve. A course that claims to prepare students to “navigate complex contemporary problems” and to cultivate critical thinking, humility, and reflexivity simply by exposing them to such problems is articulating a vague and arguably unachievable goal, and such claims deserve to be critically questioned.
By contrast, a course that says: we recognise the need for transdisciplinary approaches to address complex problems, and one aspect of this is engaging with non‑academic voices; therefore, we introduce students to qualitative methods that support this, or to theories that challenge the centrality of Western ways of knowing and doing. This gives us a much clearer basis for identifying assessable outcomes. And this does not mean we lose sight of the by‑products of such learning activities, such as reflexivity or humility; rather, it acknowledges that these dispositions may emerge through practice, without needing to be assessed directly.
I am looking forward to your insights on the paper and to discussing it with you soon.
To me, this is an important contribution.
Since doing my thesis research, I came to realize that transdisciplinary engagement calls for Susan Leigh Star’s boundary objects – objects co-owned and created by all participants. Boundary objects call for boundary infrastructures which enable them to work.
An outcome of my research led to the working hypothesis that the artifacts and discipline of MMOs, when coupled with quests which serve as attractor basins for structured research conversations, is a powerful architecture for learning – not just the domain knowledge entailed by the quest, but including basic conversational and collaborative literacy and critical thinking.
I have an engineering prototype of one such system at https://sensecraft.garden/ which is just now entering early stage “clinical trials” with two teenagers, each on a different continent. We are a long way from establishing anything like a full dissertation on this work, but it is grounded in the realities of complex, adaptive, anticipatory systems, game mechanics, and guild social dynamics, all well documented.
We have spoken with a few teachers – and librarians – who see this as a benefit. Our game is to measure that benefit, if any.
Final comment, our prototype is by no means complete or ready to be made public, but it is open source and available to schools and libraries to use (just not anytime soon)
Thank you, Jack, for sharing this beautifully designed approach to sparking rich, multifaceted conversations. I’m definitely interested in trying it out in the classroom soon.