Alexander LIN*, Anqi SHI, and TAY En Rong Stephen
Department of the Built Environment, College of Design and Engineering (CDE)
Lin, A., Shi, A., & Tay, E. R. S. (2023). Fostering interdisciplinarity in PF2203: Quality and productivity management [Lightning talk]. In Higher Education Campus Conference (HECC) 2023, 7 December, National University of Singapore. https://blog.nus.edu.sg/hecc2023proceedings/fostering-interdisciplinarity-in-pf2203-quality-and-productivity-management/
SUB-THEME
Interdisciplinarity and Education
KEYWORDS
Quality and productivity management, industry relevance, knowledge integration, constructivism learning
CATEGORY
Lightning Talks
INTRODUCTION
This discussion elucidates a pedagogical transformation of the course PF2203 “Quality and Productivity Management (QPM)”, which amalgamates an interdisciplinary management philosophy. Interdisciplinary learning integrates knowledge from multiple domains while considering their interrelationships (Ivanitskaya et al., 2002). This enables an interprofessional education with a deeper understanding of thinking processes practiced by different professionals (Cooper et al. 2001) and hence, is essential for coordinating and integrating the operations of different teams within the construction industry.
The approach to enhancing the interdisciplinary elements within the PF2203 curriculum revolved around a shift from a traditional, teacher-centred pedagogy to a more inclusive, student-centred approach. This paradigm shift was motivated by the need to ensure that students are not merely passive recipients of knowledge but active constructors of their learning experience (Anthony, 1996). It is through this shift that we sought to foster an interdisciplinary constructivism learning experience.
METHODOLOGY
This transformative journey involved enriching the traditional lecture format through the incorporation of (i) current industry insights, (ii) research findings, and (iii) multidisciplinary concepts, of which examples are presented in Table 1. This is to enable students to link theoretical principles to real-world applications for authentic learning, thereby enhancing their understanding and critical thinking abilities (Lombardi & Oblinger, 2007).
Table 1
Content added for lectures
| Topic for the Lecture | Content Added | Purpose |
| Nature of the construction industry | Robotic fabrication in construction and automobile industries. | To understand how different disciplines in construction and manufacturing industries affect the consideration of applying robotic fabrication. |
| The debate on quality | A case introduction about design, construction, and operation of a university building. | To provide a practical example from the industry where the effectiveness of collaborations between different professionals, such as engineers, architects, and managers, affects the project outcomes. |
| Construction Productivity, Quality and Technologies | A case introduction about design and fabrication of a 3D-printed concrete arch structure. | To utilise a real case to elaborate how considerations and knowledge in fields of architecture, structure, construction/fabrication, and quality management are integrated in a design-to-fabrication process. |
| Just-in-time productivity | A case introduction about a real-time quality monitoring system of fresh concrete during delivery. | To utilise a real case to elaborate how technology can help one achieve just-in-time productivity. |
In parallel, the tutorials were utilised as explorative platforms where students could delve into the intricate interplay between the sub-domains of engineering, management, policy, and human aspects to synthesise them into a cohesive understanding of QPM, thus enforcing interdisciplinary learning. This also allows the passive acceptance of knowledge from lectures to be transferred to active learning (Anthony, 1996), with knowledge construction based on constructivism learning theory (Piaget, 1954). During the tutorial sessions, students presented their findings and the lecturer provided guidance and feedback focusing on the interrelationship of different disciplines.
The framework illustrated in Figure 1 was deployed herein and fosters a constructivist learning process for interdisciplinary learning, which builds upon previous works on constructivism for interdisciplinary teaching and learning (Ledoux & McHenry, 2004; Scheer et al., 2012). Merging knowledge from both technical and non-technical subdomains, it builds upon students’ prior knowledge acquired from earlier lectures and courses, integrating it into tutorial activities. Within this approach, students explore the nuances of subdomain knowledge through an iterative balance between two main pillars: active learning and social interaction (Ledoux & McHenry, 2004). The former involves students actively constructing knowledge for their presentation, while the latter centres on obtaining feedback from peers and the lecturer. This cyclical engagement between the two processes across interdisciplinary sub-domains deepens comprehension and encourages a collaborative learning environment (Scheer et al., 2012).
RESULTS
The transformation of the pedagogical approach was met with positive student feedback in an end-of-course survey. Table 2 shows some representative student feedback, indicating that the revamped course allowed students to learn how QPM theory was applied to the construction industry [refer to feedback (a) and (b)], and the peer learning in tutorials allowed students to have a deeper understanding on comprehensive sub-domains relevant to QPM [refer to feedback (c) and (d)].
Table 2
Qualitative student feedback reproduced as they are
| Feedback |
| (a) Further discusses applications and real world applications of the topics taught in the module. Content from slides and readings are closely related. |
| (b) Took a closer look into real-life examples of QPM and how it is implemented within a company |
| (c) The group projects are definitely useful as the various presentations done by the different groups covers a lot of different areas in QPM. This wide coverage of content is good in allowing us to learn as much from everyone. |
| (d) Understanding the different factors relating to quality and productivity, Listening and learning from other groups. |
Table 3 shows the responses for the end-of-course survey utilising a five-point Likert scale. Survey responses for Questions (1) to (3) indicate a general agreement that the innovative learning activities contributed to a deeper understanding of the interdisciplinary relationships among the course’s subtopics and the integration of them. Most students appreciated the value derived from seeing the practical application of theoretical concepts (Question 4) and the lecturer’s approachability (Question 6). Additionally, students acknowledged that these activities fostered their ability to critically analyse and apply QPM concepts in the construction industry [Questions (5) and (6)]. Examples and images of students’ work will be shown in the presentation during the conference.
Table 3
Survey results indicating the average response based on a five-point Likert scale with 1 (Strongly Disagree) and 5 (Strongly Agree) (n = 27)
| Questions | Average Score |
| (1) Quality and Productivity Management consists of many sub-topics. Through the learning activities for tutorials and group projects, I gained an understanding of the relationship between these sub-topics. | 3.8 |
| (2) Quality and Productivity Management consists of many sub-topics. Through the activities for tutorials and group projects, I learnt how to integrate these sub-topics. | 3.6 |
| (3) Quality and Productivity Management consists of many sub-topics. Through the activities for tutorials and group projects, I appreciate how these sub-topics connections to my prior knowledge/experiences about the built environment industry. | 4.2 |
| (4) Through the activities for tutorials and group projects, I learnt how quality and productivity management concepts/principles have been implemented in the construction industry and other industries/sectors. | 4.1 |
| (5) The activities for tutorials and group projects facilitate my critical thinking for deployment of Quality and Productivity Management. | 4.0 |
| (6) In the activities for tutorials and group projects, the guidance (if any) presented by the tutor(s) were instructive and inspired me and my group members to think critically and delivery our own ideas. | 4.0 |
CONCLUSION AND SIGNIFICANCE
In conclusion, this study highlights how interdisciplinarity could be achieved through a course revamp incorporating i) current industry insights, ii) research findings, and iii) multidisciplinary concepts. Through this transformation, we have observed students actively participating in their learning journey while at the same time applying interdisciplinary knowledge from other domains of knowledge. This model potentially serves as a blueprint for other courses looking to foster an interdisciplinary and industry-relevant learning environment.
REFERENCES
Anthony, G. (1996). Active learning in a constructivist framework. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 31(4), 349-69. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00369153
Cooper, H, Carlisle, C., Gibbs, T., & Watkins, C. (2001). Developing an evidence base for interdisciplinary learning: a systematic review, Journal of Advanced Nursing, 35(2), 228-37. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2648.2001.01840.x
Ivanitskaya, L., Clark, D, Montgomery, G., & Primeau, R. (2002). Interdisciplinary learning: Process and outcomes. Innovative Higher Education, 27(2), 95-111. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1021105309984
Ledoux, M. & McHenry, N. (2004). A constructivist approach in the interdisciplinary instruction of science and language arts methods. Teaching Education, 15(4), 385-99. https://doi.org/10.1080/1047621042000304510
Lombardi, M. M., & Oblinger, D. G. (2007). Authentic learning for the 21st century: An overview. Educause Learning Initiative, 1(2007), 1-12. https://library.educause.edu/resources/2007/1/authentic-learning-for-the-21st-century-an-overview
Piaget, J. (1954). The construction of reality in the child. (M. Cook, Trans.). Basic Books.
Scheer, A., Noweski, C., & Meinel, C. (2012). Transforming constructivist learning into action: Design thinking in education. Design and Technology Education, 17(3), 8-19. https://openjournals.ljmu.ac.uk/DATE/article/view/1679