The impact of interdisciplinary education on college student development

The study summarized in this paper specifically involves an assessment of the experiences of college students who engaged in a nontraditional, interdisciplinary curriculum traditional versus those who engaged in a lecture-based curriculum. The overarching hypothesis of the study was that students involved in an interdisciplinary curriculum would demonstrate higher posttest levels on several constructs. The study employed a quasi-experimental quantitative research design, and included a total sample of 60 undergraduate college students from a mid-sized university in the Midwestern United States. Participants were 31 students enrolled in an interdisciplinary program and 29 students enrolled in traditional education classes, who were measured before and after their participation in the respective nontraditional curriculum (experimental group) or traditional curriculum (control group) using five structured instruments. The independent variables in this study were the types of education; one group received a traditional curriculum and the other group received the interdisciplinary curriculum. For the purpose of assessing for differences between the two groups, the dependent variables in this study were the posttest levels of the constructs after participation in the respective curriculums. The primary statistical technique was an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), with an alpha level of .05 for significance. The results of the study partially supported hypotheses one, three, four, six and seven; that is, some of the posttest levels on the inventories measuring wisdom and empathy and the posttest levels on the inventory scale measuring informational identity style were significantly different for nontraditional participants, whereas the posttest levels on the inventory scale measuring diffuse-avoidant identity style and the posttest levels on the inventory scale measuring commitment to an identity style were not significantly different for nontraditional participants. Conversely, the results of the study did not support hypothesis two or five; that is, the posttest levels on the creativity inventory and the posttest levels on the inventory scale measuring normative identity style were not significantly different for nontraditional participants. Implications and limitations of the current research study as well as recommendations for future practice and research are offered.