Decoding the disciplines: creating mutual understanding in multiprofessional education

The study addresses how the pedagogical approach of Decoding the Disciplines can help multiprofessional student groups overcome bottlenecks and threshold concepts, particularly in the context of academic/scientific work. Threshold concepts are transformative, integrative, troublesome, bounded, and often irreversible moments in learning that require crossing disciplinary boundaries. The authors situate their work within inter-/multi-professional education, where developing common language and mutual understanding is often a key challenge. Using a Scholarship of Teaching and Learning (SoTL) lens, the guiding research question is: Can multiprofessional groups use the Decoding the Disciplines method to create mutual understanding? Sub-questions, framed by Normalization Process Theory (NPT), focus on the sense-making (coherence), engagement (cognitive participation), enactment (collective action), and appraisal (reflexive monitoring) of the method. The purpose is to evaluate interview-based and reflective writing implementations of decoding in online group settings to enhance students’ abilities to select appropriate theoretical frameworks for research questions and to foster shared understanding across professional backgrounds.

The paper reviews foundational work on threshold concepts (Meyer and Land, 2005, 2012, 2021), characterizing them as transformative and often difficult junctures in learning, and relates them to liminality and identity shifts. It outlines Decoding the Disciplines (Middendorf and Pace, 2004; Pace, 2021) as a seven-step approach to address bottlenecks, originally content-focused and later expanded (Decoding 2.0) to encompass emotional, bodily, and social dimensions, including role changes and faculty development. In inter-/multiprofessional contexts, literature indicates that shared learning can yield irreversible ‘aha’ moments and shifts toward interprofessionality (Royeen et al., 2010; Hubbard Murdoch, 2019), while collaboration also presents thresholds intra-professionally (Bhat and Goldszmidt, 2020). For interdisciplinary learning, decoding has been used to build common language and problem-solving across disciplines (Heigl, 2010; Brink Pinto et al., 2020), and to support research training, especially formulating theoretical/empirical questions and hypotheses (Sacher et al., 2021; McKeown, 2019). Additionally, team formation and bottlenecks in interdisciplinary research are discussed (Lungeanu et al., 2014). Overall, the literature positions decoding as a promising tool to make tacit expert processes explicit, foster shared understanding, and address persistent learning bottlenecks.

Design: Qualitative, exploratory SoTL case study applying Decoding the Disciplines within a multiprofessional master’s program course session conducted online (Zoom). The study analyzed how the method was implemented and normalized in group work using Normalization Process Theory (NPT). Participants and setting: Seven part-time master’s students (ages ~25–50) from diverse professional/disciplinary backgrounds (including social work, pedagogy/education, architecture, music therapy) who had studied together for three semesters. The course targeted scientific/academic work skills. The session was held online during the COVID-19 pandemic. Communication was restricted to oral interaction (no chat) for evaluation purposes. Intervention: The bottleneck chosen was selecting an appropriate theoretical frame of reference for a research question. Two decoding formats were implemented in parallel breakout rooms over 90 minutes:

• Group A (n=3): Interview-based decoding. Roles included: expert (with a relevant bottleneck), Interviewer I (active decoding), Interviewer II (support), plus observers/peer questioners. A structured handout with predetermined decoding questions was provided (e.g., How do you do that? Decision criteria? Next steps? Consequences?). Role changes were allowed as needed. The process emphasized eliciting tacit expert knowledge and modeling expert problem-solving steps.
• Group B (n=4): Reflective writing-based decoding (Kaduk & Lahm, 2018) with a 12-step guided structure (identify barrier, explain barrier, self-actions, checks, review professional models, obtain and confirm feedback, iteratively write and detect difficulties, final checks, and process reflection). All participants wrote keywords simultaneously, then presented, compared, and discussed. Data collection: The entire class session and the final 20-minute plenary group discussion were video/audio recorded and transcribed. The post-activity plenary enabled cross-group presentation, reflection on benefits, challenges, and expert strategies. Analysis: Qualitative content analysis using Mayring’s structuring content analysis. A coding guide was deductively derived from NPT’s four constructs: coherence (sense-making and individual goals), cognitive participation (commitment and relationship work), collective action (enacting/implementing the method), and reflexive monitoring (appraisal of the practice). Statements were assigned to these categories to evaluate facilitators and barriers for each method in multiprofessional groups.

Participants and process: 7 students (Group A interview n=3: social work, pedagogy, architecture; Group B writing n=4: social work, education, music therapy). 90 minutes of group work; 20-minute plenary discussion; online Zoom setting with oral communication only.

• Coherence (sense-making): Group A perceived clear value; interview elicited tacit knowledge and highlighted personal knowledge gaps. Group B reported fewer individual goals and perceived greater sense in the interview method than in the writing process. Professional/disciplinary differences were not viewed as influential for this bottleneck.
• Cognitive participation (commitment): Group A valued the ability to ask iterative follow-up questions, which uncovered aspects not spontaneously offered by the expert. Barriers noted were uncertainty about the correctness of the method and the need for sufficient expert background knowledge to assume the expert role. Group B found guiding questions helpful for structuring knowledge and communication; no specific barriers were noted.
• Collective action (implementation): Group A found formal address helpful to support role-taking and expert–lay communication; students could change perspectives and identify knowledge gaps; they reported solving the bottleneck. Group B emphasized that feedback was easier and more beneficial than the writing itself; trust within the group aided openness. Due to time constraints, the writing process was incomplete; most learning occurred in the feedback stages.
• Reflexive monitoring (appraisal): Cost–benefit: Group A reported low effort/high knowledge gain for learners, higher effort for the expert to explain clearly. Group B reported mixed cost–benefit: writing was effortful with variable perceived returns, but documenting one’s own knowledge and receiving feedback was useful for verification. Aptitude for multiprofessional practice: A combination of self-reflection/writing and interviewing was considered optimal; creating common ground requires time/space. Bottleneck resolution: Group A—resolved; Group B—likely resolvable with more time. Decoding 2.0: Group A experienced fluid role changes (expert/novice) depending on topic; Group B did not report on role dynamics. Overall: The interview method better supported creation of common ground and active participation via role flexibility and real-time questioning; reflective writing was time-intensive and benefited substantially from peer feedback.

The findings address the research question by showing that Decoding the Disciplines can facilitate mutual understanding in multiprofessional groups, particularly through the interview format. Real-time questioning and role flexibility enabled participants to surface tacit knowledge, clarify understanding, and co-construct solutions to the bottleneck of selecting theoretical frameworks. While students reported that disciplinary backgrounds did not directly impede this specific bottleneck, the interview method fostered expert–novice exchanges and perspective shifts consistent with threshold concept transitions. The writing method supported self-structuring and documentation but required more time; most gains emerged during feedback phases. In line with prior literature, the study provides indications of transformative moments (identifying knowledge gaps and ‘aha’ insights) but fewer explicit threshold transitions in the plenary, possibly due to small-group confidentiality and time limits. Applying NPT clarified where sense-making, engagement, enactment, and appraisal were supported or hindered, guiding practical improvements (e.g., ensuring expertise for the expert role, allowing sufficient time, combining methods). Overall, the decoding approach, especially interviews, appears promising for building common ground and mutual understanding in interprofessional education.

The study contributes evidence that Decoding the Disciplines, particularly in interview format, supports mutual understanding and common ground in multiprofessional learning groups by enabling role changes, eliciting tacit knowledge, and promoting active questioning. Reflective writing adds value for self-structuring but is time-intensive; combining both methods is recommended. NPT proved useful for identifying facilitators and barriers across sense-making, participation, action, and appraisal stages. Practical implications include allowing students to choose preferred methods, assessing initial knowledge levels, allocating more time (and follow-up sessions), and documenting the achieved common ground for reuse. Future research should apply and evaluate decoding in larger and more diverse inter-/multiprofessional cohorts, compare formats in face-to-face settings, incorporate longitudinal follow-up to capture threshold transitions, and explore Decoding 2.0 role dynamics across topics.

Small sample size (n=7) and a single cohort that had already established rapport limit generalizability. Online delivery during COVID-19 may have constrained engagement and depth; concentration limits shortened effective working time. The writing group lacked sufficient time to complete all steps, affecting outcomes. No longitudinal follow-up was possible due to cohort completion. High organizational effort is required to embed SoTL elements within a course. Heterogeneity of backgrounds and prior familiarity may both aid and limit transferability. Potential underreporting of threshold ‘aha’ moments in plenary versus small-group discussions.