Setting parameters for developing undergraduate expertise in transdisciplinary problem solving at a university-wide scale: a case study

The paper addresses how a university can implement, at scale, undergraduate education that develops expertise in transdisciplinary problem solving. It situates the work within long-standing calls for universities to better prepare graduates for tackling complex societal challenges by integrating diverse disciplinary and stakeholder perspectives. The authors describe ANU’s commitment—made during a 2021 curriculum reform—to introduce a universal graduate attribute: Capability to Employ Discipline-based Knowledge in Transdisciplinary Problem Solving. The purpose is to detail the context, process and outcomes of the working group charged with setting parameters for implementation across a diverse cohort (~13,000 undergraduates) while maintaining small, interactive classes. The introduction reviews the importance of transdisciplinarity, notes limited university-wide models globally (e.g., Leuphana University; UTS), and frames this paper as a case study documenting ANU’s development process, proposed framework, example learning outcomes, pedagogy, and key implementation challenges (course identification and cross-course coordination).

The paper references six decades of calls for integrating disciplinary insights with societal engagement to address complex problems (e.g., Jantsch, 1970; Gibbons et al., 1994; National Academies, 2005; National Research Council, 2014; Bammer, 2013; Bammer et al., 2020; Ledford, 2015; Jacob, 2015). It notes growing but fragmented undergraduate efforts and highlights rare institution-wide attempts (Leuphana University; UTS). Conceptually, the proposed framework draws from transdisciplinary research design principles (Pohl & Hirsch Hadorn, 2007), knowledge co-production principles (Norström et al., 2020), and Integration and Implementation Sciences (i2S) indexing areas (i2Insights). The literature underpins the six characteristics (change-oriented, systemic, context-based, pluralistic, interactive, integrative) and grounds the case for undergraduate transdisciplinary capability-building.

Design: Case study of a university-wide curriculum reform working group tasked with setting parameters for implementing a transdisciplinary problem-solving graduate attribute at ANU. Context and composition: A chair (GB) convened a multidisciplinary working group with representation from academic staff (including an Associate Dean of Education), students, professional staff, and an academic observer. Roles included liaison with the Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Academic). Terms of reference covered: best-practice principles for curriculum design; standards for course approval/evaluation; case studies of good practice; and professional learning for staff. Process and timeline: The group had five months, meeting online for one hour fortnightly (nine meetings). Early activities included written reflections on members’ experience and conceptualizations of transdisciplinarity. A reference group of academics and students across ANU was established and invited submissions on experience, examples, core capabilities, challenges, and suggestions; 17 submissions were received. Data collection on existing practice: Rather than a full audit, the group solicited course templates from conveners of identified promising ANU courses. Eighteen detailed templates (17 existing, 1 proposed) captured staff expertise, student cohorts, learning outcomes, real-world problems, practical experiences, knowledge/skills/dispositions, pedagogy/assessment, and relevant scholarship. An additional 31 likely relevant courses were identified with input from college education leaders, spanning all seven colleges. Framework development: Drawing on members’ experience, reference-group insights, and key literature (Pohl & Hirsch Hadorn; i2S; Norström et al.), the group iteratively derived an ANU framework with six characteristics: change-oriented, systemic, context-based, pluralistic, interactive, integrative. Analytic steps: The framework was used to map and test existing course learning outcomes (from templates), both to validate course claims of contributing to transdisciplinary problem solving and to refine/clarify outcomes. Hypothetical and actual learning outcomes were compiled for each characteristic (Tables 2–7). Pedagogical analysis synthesized common approaches (in-depth engagement, student-led learning, real-world problems, hands-on work, teamwork) with illustrative quotations from course conveners. Implementation parameterization: To address university-wide scalability and student navigation, the group proposed a tag-and-points system to classify courses by breadth and depth of coverage of the six characteristics, with an illustrative points requirement over a degree. Feasibility was checked via rough capacity estimates provided by reference-group physicists. Limitations acknowledged: No comprehensive audit; limited time; reliance on templates and submissions; coordination across courses left for subsequent implementation structures.

- ANU framework: Defined six equally important characteristics for transdisciplinary problem solving—change-oriented, systemic, context-based, pluralistic, interactive, integrative—each elaborated conceptually and operationalized through example learning outcomes. - Learning outcomes evidence: Mapping of real course outcomes (and hypothetical exemplars) demonstrated existing ANU courses already cover various characteristics, validating claims of current capacity and providing a basis to sharpen outcome statements. - Pedagogical modalities: Synthesis of effective teaching approaches across courses: in-depth engagement and dialogic teaching; student-led projects; work on real-world problems with external partners; hands-on making/experimentation; and structured teamwork skill development. - Vision for student experience: All undergraduates should gain basic understanding of the six characteristics; early (first-year) exposure; opportunities to learn with peers across disciplines; ability to tailor pathways; explicit synergies with other graduate attributes (Indigenous knowledge; critical thinking); options for advanced transdisciplinary training. - University context readiness: ANU’s comprehensive disciplinary coverage across seven colleges, existing transdisciplinary research entities, and evidence of relevant courses provide a strong base. Undergraduate cohort size (~13,000) and small-class ethos inform design constraints. - Implementation parameters: Proposed a pragmatic tag-and-points course-classification system to help students find relevant offerings and accumulate sufficient breadth/depth across the framework. Illustratively, over three years, students could be required to earn nine points, with courses tagged from 1 to 6 points depending on the number and depth of characteristics addressed. - Challenges identified: (1) Course identification/visibility and signaling of coverage depth (addressed via tag-and-points). (2) Cross-course coordination to minimize duplication and enable progressive skill building (recognized as a major need for future implementation structures). - Feasibility: Preliminary capacity estimates suggest the approach is viable within small-class constraints if supported by appropriate administrative processes, curated course lists, and professional development for staff.

The paper’s core question—how to implement a university-wide undergraduate capability in transdisciplinary problem solving—is addressed through a pragmatic framework, evidence of existing course capacity, and an implementation mechanism to guide student navigation. By specifying six characteristics and demonstrating how they translate into learning outcomes and pedagogy, the authors provide actionable guidance for course design and evaluation. The tag-and-points system helps reconcile small-class commitments with universal coverage by enabling distributed learning across multiple courses tailored to student interests and degree structures (including flexible double degrees). The approach capitalizes on ANU’s disciplinary breadth and existing transdisciplinary research culture while acknowledging the need for coordination mechanisms and administrative adaptations. The findings are relevant beyond ANU, offering a replicable structure adaptable to different institutional contexts, and suggesting that transdisciplinary capability can be scaffolded progressively across curricula rather than centralized in a single course.

The working group concluded that it is feasible to develop university-wide undergraduate expertise in transdisciplinary problem solving by leveraging a mix of existing and new courses delivered in small, interactive formats. The ANU framework (six characteristics), illustrative learning outcomes, and pedagogy examples provide a practical basis for course design, approval, and evaluation. A tag-and-points system is proposed to help students identify and assemble sufficient breadth and depth across the framework. Two major implementation needs were identified: an administrative mechanism to support tagging/points and processes to coordinate coverage across courses. Implementation at ANU is scheduled to begin with the 2025 undergraduate cohort, with further work to develop new courses, support teaching staff, and establish administrative designations. For other institutions, the paper highlights context-specific planning considerations (origin of initiative, institutional features, expertise base, terminology choices, vision for student experience, process governance, and administrative feasibility) and encourages sharing experiences to collectively advance transdisciplinary education.

- No comprehensive audit of all undergraduate offerings at ANU or elsewhere; reliance on a purposive sample of 18 detailed course templates and 31 additional identified courses. - Time and resource constraints (five months; nine meetings; limited dedicated time for most members) limited depth of analysis and stakeholder engagement. - Single courses cannot feasibly cover all six characteristics in depth; the framework necessitates multi-course pathways. - The proposed tag-and-points system presents administrative and technological challenges within current university systems and requires future development for quality control, course approval, communication, and timetabling. - Cross-course coordination and progressive skill-building mechanisms were identified as crucial but were outside the working group’s remit to design in detail.