||With the rapid advancement of science and technology in the era, the single-disciplinary major is no longer enough to cope with this era, which has led to a lot of attention in the field of interdisciplinary courses in recent years, and the methods of studying and learning in cross-disciplinary courses are also being done. Adjustments are in line with contemporary needs, so this study is intended to explore the learning outcomes of cross-disciplinary courses.|
This study aims to analyze the comparison and comparison of the learning outcomes of college students′ cross-disciplinary courses, from the various aspects of college students, including gender, the level of application for cross-disciplinary courses, the urban-rural gap in population areas, the first generation of college students, the application for colleges, The main source of income, the entrance to the school, and the differences in cross-disciplinary courses such as double majors, assistants, credits, second majors, and educational programs, and analysis and comparison of learning outcomes after application. Affect the relevance of these orientations in cross-disciplinary reading and learning outcomes.
The research subjects were studied by 13686 students from the Central University from the 97th to the 105th academic year. The rankings of the students′ performance in each semester were compared with those of the previous narrative.
The results showed that the rate of regression in the study performance of students applying for cross-disciplinary courses was significantly lower than that of students who did not apply for cross-disciplinary courses, although some specific ethnic groups, such as: the first generation of college students have differences, vulnerable students These areas are not significant, but they are still ethnic groups and issues that deserve constant attention.
Acker, S. (1987). Feminist theory and the study of gender and education. International Review of Education, 33(4), 419-435. doi: 10.1007/bf00615157.
Bakeman, R., & Gottman, J. M. (1997). Observing interaction: An introduction to sequential analysis. Cambridge UP.
Bakeman, R., & Quera, V. (1995). Analyzing interaction: Sequential analysis with SDIS and GSEQ. Cambridge UP.
Cheng, J. L., Henisz, W. J., Roth, K., & Swaminathan, A. (2009). From the Editors: Advancing interdisciplinary research in the field of international business: Prospects, issues and challenges. Journal of International Business Studies, 40(7), 1070–1074.
Harding, S. G. (2004). Introduction: Standpoint theory as a site of political, philosophic, and scientific debate. In S. G. Harding (Ed.), The Feminist Standpoint Theory Reader: Intellectual and Political Controversies (pp. 1-15). London: Routledge.
Harding, S. G. (1991). Whose science? Whose knowledge?: Thinking from women′slives. New York: Cornell University Press.
Kek, M. Y. C. A., & Huijser, H. (2017). Problem-based Learning into the Future. Springer, Singapore.
Lattuca, L. R., Knight, D., Seifert, T. A., Reason, R. D., & Liu, Q. (2017). Examining the impact of interdisciplinary programs on student learning. Innovative Higher Education, 42(4), 337-353.
Braßler, M. (2016). Interdisciplinary problem-based learning—a student-centered pedagogy to teach social sustainable development in higher education. In Leal Filho, W., & Pace, P. Teaching education for sustainable development at university level (pp. 245-257). Springer, Cham.
Newell, W. H. (1990). Interdisciplinary curriculum development. Interdisciplinary Studies, 30(1), 23-40.
Rich, S. J. (2009). Interdisciplinary Learning: A Stimulant for Reflective Practice. In Chhem, R. K., Hibbert, K. M. & Deven, T. V. (Eds.) Radiology Education (pp. 51-61). Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg.
Xu, J., Liu, G., Liu, S., & Xu, R. (2018). The Collaboration Learning in the Interdisciplinary Workshop Based on Design Thinking: A Learning Outcome Perspective. In Marcus, A., & Wang, W. (Eds.) Design, User Experience, and Usability (pp. 158-168).