Epistemic Fluency in Interdisciplinary Learning Environments; Interdisciplinary education and the complications of integration

Renate G. Klaassen^1*Miles MacLeod^2,3Kostas Nizamis⁴Siara R. Isaac⁵

• ¹EEMCS, Delft Institute of Mathematics, Prime- Research, Delft University of Technology - 4TU Centre for Engineering Education, Delft, Netherlands
• ²University of Twente, Enschede, Netherlands
• ³Department of Philosophy, Faculty of Behavioural, Management and Social Sciences, University of Twente, Enschede, Netherlands
• ⁴Faculty of Engineering Technology, University of Twente, Enschede, Netherlands
• ⁵Center for Learning Sciences, Ecole Polytechnique Federale de Lausanne, Lausanne, Geneva, Switzerland

Learning occurs increasingly in collaborative, emerging complex and dynamic situations in which moving problems, changing contexts, and the need to rely on a plethora of methods from multiple disciplines are the new normal (Ankrah et al., 2015;Lury, 2021;Dooremalen (2021, p. 559). Many view interdisciplinary education as a 'solution' to this emerging complexity (Markauskaite et al., 2024). This special issue, 'Epistemic Fluency in Interdisciplinary Learning Environments,' is a collaborative exploration of 'How uncertainty about knowing, the discovery of epistemological gaps, and different knowledge systems and environments impact the development of epistemic fluency.' The relevance of this special issue lies in its potential to provide insights and frameworks for researchers and educators in interdisciplinary learning design. Epistemic fluency is the capacity of a learner to understand, switch between and combine different kinds of knowledge sources while participating in knowledge creation in various inter and transdisciplinary learning environments in Higher Education.In our call for papers, we utilised Savin-Baden's concept of "modes of learning," also referred to as levels of knowing, to identify the situated conditions that support students in developing epistemic fluency-the modes of learning increase in terms of complexity, uncertainty, and gaps in knowledge. Savin Baden (2008Baden ( , 2014Baden ( , 2020) ) identified five levels of knowing, which she defines as "modes of learning", with a different learning focus:1. Mode 1 represents a traditional learning environment. 2. Mode 2 transcends different existing disciplines, inquiry, and problem-solving practices. 3. Mode 3, which involves creating new knowledge, is becoming increasingly challenging. 4. Mode 4 puts the learner in the driver's seat, orchestrating input, learning, and knowledge application. 5. Mode 5 finally refers to the professional who supposedly orchestrates their learning relevant to a specific context and its requirements. We assume these modes of learning represent levels of interdisciplinary complexity in learning contexts and help design and navigate interdisciplinary learning. Interdisciplinary learning environments at the Mode 2 level, which transcend existing disciplines and inquiry and problem-solving practices, are discussed in the articles by Beckerle et al. (2022) and van Gogh (2023). Beckerle emphasises the need to develop shared terminology, facilitating integration through collaborative learning, the use of diverse instructional methods, and structured guidance. These elements in the curriculum design not only enable learners to acquire epistemic fluency as they move between different disciplinary perspectives but also inspire cognitive development through reflection and interaction with broader academic contexts. However, misalignment between the target group and the context can lead to unintended outcomes. Indeed, this underscores the challenges of learning epistemic fluency. Showing the boundary conditions through handling practical constraints, the necessity for making collaboration work, and discovering and accessing relevant sources.Norris, Grohs, and Knight (2022) focus on mode 3, the creation of new knowledge. Students learn to determine through systems engineering practices and the acquisition of competencies which systems modelling approaches contribute to operating in increasingly complex systems. These practices include the reducing complexity by creating problem schemata involving reductionism, prior experience, and assessment prompt-driven approaches. It enables students to develop fluency by identifying knowledge gaps and relevant constructs and employing analogical reasoning with specific tools across various domains.Another approach in mode 3 is the more attitudinal approach, which addresses how teachers can scaffold students' learning of meta-cognitive strategies to deal with uncertainty (Bohm et al., 2023). Moreover, how to acquire intellectual humility as a precursor to epistemic fluency (Sivakumar et al., 2024). Bohm uncovers the metacognitive skills, such as interactional skills to collaborate with stakeholders, coping mechanisms on a personal level, and a different attitude towards knowing through empathy, flexibility, and relativism, needed to deal with uncertainty. Sivakumar argues epistemic fluency can only be achieved through intellectual humility practising i) the ability to question one's perspectives and beliefs, (ii) the recognition that diverging perspectives exist, (iii) the willingness to learn about other disciplinary viewpoints and their underlying assumptions, and (iv) the understanding and appreciation of the role these differing perspectives play in an interdisciplinary setting.Lambalgen and Vos (2023) unpack how knowledge emerges in an interdisciplinary research course of a liberal science arts bachelor programme at mode 4. They ask, "How do students making use of the platform Miro solve interdisciplinary problems in teams?" They particularly examined the process of concept construction, conflict, co-construction, and integration levels as a mental process for students who engage in boundary crossing through an artefact in interdisciplinary research. Importantly, they point out the enlightening fact that epistemic fluency is not a competence with a beginning or an end. It is a regenerative process that emerges from different starting points and iterates to various or more in-depth types of epistemological knowing, facilitated through reflection on and in action. Group participation is considered necessary to enhance the level of interdisciplinary integration and the development of epistemic fluency.How does one acquire epistemological fluency for inter and transdisciplinary practices, and how do we shape the educational environment to accommodate this type of learning? These are typically bound to (1) how knowledge emerges, (2) the nature of knowledge and (3) the situatedness of learning. This insight means each context needs to be unravelled along these three dimensions to offer the appropriate methods and scaffolds for learning. Based on the notion of pedagogical modes, we found epistemological fluency takes on a different colour for different modes of learning offered. The environment thus provides the opportunity to experience responsibility for learning, critical reflection, collaboration, and the co-construction of knowledge in dialogic, trialogic, and professionally situated ecosystems or environments.Learning occurs within an epistemic environment that fosters activities and participation to enhance epistemic fluency. The capacity of students to navigate these different modes of learning shows the effectiveness of instructional designs and the acquisition of epistemic fluency competencies in interdisciplinary education. Contributions to this special issue focus on attitudinal skills that foster epistemic fluency and guide decision-making. Moreover, they help identify instructional design indicators and constraints in different learning modes intended to foster epistemic fluency in interdisciplinary learning contexts.We hope this special issue will be a valuable resource for researchers and educators, providing new insights and frameworks for learning epistemic fluency in inter-and transdisciplinary contexts, as well as instructional design.