Towards design-based education: Exploring the relationship between higher education students’ approaches to learning, collaborative learning and interdisciplinary collaboration

Introduction

The rapidly changing world with wicked and ill-defined problems requires constant development and re-design of pedagogical practices and cultures in higher education, putting pressure on the curriculum design and the design of teaching and learning (Hero et al., 2024). Designing ways to learn competencies that are relevant for the unknown future needs to be done in close cooperation with working life stakeholders. Prior research has shown that solving wicked problems requires multidisciplinary or transdisciplinary learning and interaction (Bore & Wright, 2009; Pearce, 2010). Häme University of Applied Sciences (HAMK) is answering to future challenges and demands by implementing design-based education (Geitz & de Geus, 2019) as a cross-cutting pedagogical culture.

Students’ experiences of learning and study-related well-being have been systematically measured at HAMK since 2021 with a study experience questionnaire. Previous findings based on the questionnaire show a strong connection between students’ learning, well-being, and academic success (Rönkkönen et al., 2024), but we don’t yet know about our students’ experiences with collaborative knowledge processes and how they are related to the approaches to learning. The relevance of knowing these experiences is essential for the ongoing design-based education work conducted, as fostering collaborative learning and interdisciplinary collaboration are at the very core of the aims and intended learning outcomes of design-based education. Studying in a module-based curriculum has already required collaborative and interdisciplinary collaboration skills from the students, but the cross-cutting implementation of design-based education will increase the importance of these competencies. Previously, Geitz et al. (2023) have identified the potential of (re)designing learning environments to foster high-quality learning in the higher education context. Correspondingly, future DBE teachers emphasize the importance of students participating in genuine co-creation and interdisciplinary teamwork to address open-ended problems (Hero et al., 2024).

Methodologically, we utilise recent and extensive study experience questionnaire data collected with previously validated instruments. A practical implication of this study is to conceptualise a baseline for upcoming university-wide design-based education implementation and related research projects and interventions at HAMK.

Design-based education

According to the definition of Geitz and de Geus (2019), design-based education is a teaching and learning approach that enriches the learning process for all participants through a collaborative process involving students, industry stakeholders, and lecturers. DBE builds on the educational concepts of problem-based learning and competence-based education, but it further emphasises the role of the working life in the learning environment. In DBE, complex real-world challenges are addressed using iterative cycles aimed at closing the gap between the current situation and a desired outcome. This nonlinear, iterative process involves stages, such as empathizing, defining, ideating, prototyping, testing, and improving (Geitz & de Geus, 2019; Lahdenperä et al., 2022) to achieve the intended solution. DBE is perceived to enhance education by equipping students, professionals, and educators with multidisciplinary knowledge, fostering metacognitive skills, and generating social value (Geitz & de Geus, 2019). Design-based education (DBE) can also be defined as an umbrella term including various pedagogical practices enhancing the co-creation of new solutions in collaboration with companies, students, teachers, and even the end-users of the solutions (Sokka et al., 2024). Hence, design-based education (DBE) is a multidisciplinary or transdisciplinary, challenge-based approach to bringing students and companies together to co-create novel concrete solutions and plan solution implementation with the users. It is a “team-as-learner” -oriented approach to solving complex and ill-defined problems of companies and the rapidly changing world (Geitz et al., 2023; Guaman-Quintanilla et al., 2023).

The rationale for developing DBE learning environments is that higher education must meet the needs of the future world of work, which requires the ability to work collaboratively in multicultural and multidisciplinary teams to create solutions to ill-defined challenges, and further, education should prepare students for lifelong development (Geitz & de Geus, 2019). In practice, this means creating authentic learning environments, where students can develop their metacognitive skills and learn to regulate and evaluate their actions. It has also been proposed that the future needs graduates with innovation and creativity skills that are also assumed to develop using design paradigms and DBE (Joore et al., 2022). On a conceptual basis, DBE builds on social constructivism, problem-based learning, competence-based education and self-regulation (Zimmerman, 2000). Geitz and de Geus (2019) describe DBE as a realisation of sustainable education, in which the core is not only on how to learn to solve wicked problems, but it adds from self-regulation theory and approaches to learning (Lindblom-Ylänne et al., 2019; Marton & Saljo, 1979) into layers indicating DBE learning environment. 

Fostering collaborative learning and interdisciplinary collaboration through DBE

In learning environments utilising DBE, a central goal is to foster the development of students’ generic competences. There are various definitions for the concept of generic competences. Muukkonen et al. (2020) have followed the definition given by Strijbos et al. (2015) stating that “generic competences are competences applicable across different professional contexts and beyond the field of study” (p. 20). In this paper, we are specifically interested in the competence, which refers to the capability to solve messy problems in interdisciplinary collaboration. When solving complex problems and finding new solutions in co-creational processes, knowledge work competence is one of the key competences. Knowledge work competence refers to the knowledge and skills required to work effectively both individually but also with others in diverse contexts. Such skills are essential for complex problem-solving and taking part in creating novel solutions (Muukkonen et al., 2020, 2022). Understanding different disciplines and related expertise, development through feedback and utilising diverse tools and technology are also central elements of knowledge work competence (Karlgren et al., 2019).

To analyse students’ study experiences, we use the Collaborative Knowledge Practices (CKP) questionnaire (Muukkonen et al., 2020) that is specifically validated to assess the development of collaborative knowledge work competence in higher education. The questionnaire measures various dimensions of CKP, of which two dimensions (learning to collaborate on shared objects and integrating individual and collaborative working) measure aspects of collaborative learning, while the other two dimensions (understanding various disciplines and practices and interdisciplinary collaboration and communication) focus on interdisciplinary collaboration, all of which are central competences to be developed in a DBE environment.

Approaches to learning

In the context of higher education, the concept of approaches to learning (Marton & Saljo, 1979) refers to students’ learning processes, intentions, and strategies that they utilise to learn. What is essential about the approaches to learning is that they are not individual nor stable traits, but something that can be influenced through pedagogical factors related to teaching and the learning environment (Biggs et al., 2001). Approaches to learning are not permanent, but it is still to some extent unclear how they evolve over time (Asikainen & Gijbels, 2017).

Three distinct approaches to learning have been identified in previous literature: deep approach, unreflective (previously called “surface approach”) approach, and organised studying (Entwistle, 1991; Lindblom-Ylänne et al., 2019; Parpala & Lindblom-Ylänne, 2012). Characteristics of the deep approach are aiming to relate the new material to previous knowledge, making conclusions and reflecting on one’s learning. In turn, the unreflective approach often manifests as memorising and rote learning, often resulting in having trouble making sense of the things under study. The topics studied may feel fragmented and irrelevant if applying the unreflective approach (Heikkilä & Lonka, 2006). The third approach, organised studying, entails efficient time management, effort, and prioritising studying over other things (Entwistle, 1998).

The approaches to learning have been shown to be connected with higher education students’ study success and progress in a way that the deep approach relates to high-quality learning (Lindblom-Ylänne & Lonka, 1998; Román et al., 2008; Trigwell et al., 2012), particularly when connected with organised studying (Parpala et al., 2022). Correspondingly, the unreflective approach has been connected with weaker learning and other unwanted phenomenona such as challenges in study-related wellbeing (Asikainen et al., 2022; Parpala et al., 2022).

The aim

The aim of this study is to report a baseline of the first-year bachelor’s students’ self-reported experiences on collaborative learning and interdisciplinary collaboration at the end of their first study year, prior to the implementation of design-based education. This makes it possible to monitor the development afterwards. Additionally, our aim is to identify how students’ approaches to learning correlate with collaborative learning and interdisciplinary collaboration experiences, that are in the core of DBE pedagogics.

Method

The participants were first-year bachelor’s students at HAMK, representing the fields of technology and traffic, natural resources and biotechnology, IT and ICT, health and social services, entrepreneurship and business, and design. The number of participants was 680 in 2021 and 798 in 2023. The average age was 26.5 (SD = 7.9) and 28.2 (SD = 8.3) years in 2021 and 2023, respectively. Over half of the respondents identified as women (63% in 2021, and 59% in 2023). The cross-sectional data was collected with an online LearnWell study experience questionnaire. The participants replied to the questionnaire individually either during a course or on their own time at the end of their first year of studies.

The LearnWell questionnaire contains four dimensions of CKP (Muukkonen et al., 2020) and three dimensions measuring the approaches to learning (Parpala & Lindblom-Ylänne, 2012). The dimensions of learning to collaborate on shared objects (Collaborate on objects) and integrating individual and collaborative working (Integrate efforts) focus on developing one’s collaborative learning skills. The dimensions of understanding various disciplines and practices (Various disciplines) and interdisciplinary collaboration and communication (Interdisciplinary collaboration) concern the development of interdisciplinary understanding and collaboration.

The approaches to learning were measured with a set of items measuring the three dimensions (deep, unreflective, organised), developed by Parpala and Lindblom-Ylänne (2012) and modified from the ALSI questionnaire (Entwistle et al., 2003) and further developed for the context of the university of applied sciences at the case university.

The dimensions, the number of items and sample items are listed in table 1.

Table 1. Study dimensions, number of items, and sample item of each dimension.

Dimensions	Number of items	Sample item
Collaborative Knowledge Practices (CKPs)
Collaborate on objects	4	During my studies, I have learned to take responsibility for the shared group work.
Integrate efforts	4	During my studies, I have learned to understand the benefits of working in collaboration.
Various disciplines	4	During my studies, I have learned the practices of people with different kinds of expertise.
Interdisciplinary collaboration	3	During my studies, I have learned to present my expertise to representatives of another field.
Approaches to learning
Deep approach	4	I try to relate new material to my previous knowledge.
Unreflective approach	4	I often have trouble making sense of the things I have to learn.
Organised studying	4	On the whole, I’ve been systematic and organised in my studying.

Analysis and baseline results

We present the mean scores on the four CKPs and the approaches to learning in 2021 and 2023 in Table 2. The means indicate that in both samples, first-year students scored higher on the two CKPs focusing on the development of collaborative skills compared to the two CKPs focusing on interdisciplinarity. Namely, on average, students scored the highest on the dimensions of collaborate on objects and integrate efforts, while the various disciplines and interdisciplinary collaboration scored the lowest amongst the CKP dimensions.

To explore the associations between each of the three approaches to learning and the four dimensions of CKP, we ran Pearson’s correlation analyses in SPSS Statistics. We found that both deep and organised approaches to learning were positively correlated with all four CKP dimensions in both student samples. This means that students who reported a higher deep and organised approach to learning also reported higher collaborative learning and interdisciplinary collaboration. The unreflective approach to learning was negatively related to all four CKP dimensions, meaning that students with a higher unreflective approach to learning had lower scores on the CKP dimensions. All correlations between variables are shown in table 2.

Table 2. Means, standard deviations, Cronbach’s alphas, and correlations between different approaches to learning and CKP dimensions.

	2021 sample			2023 sample
Variable	M	SD	a	M	SD	a	1.	2.	3.	4.	5.	6.	7.
1. Deep approach	3.6	0.7	.76	3.7	0.7	.76		-.22	.47	.32	.26	.37	.32
2. Unreflective approach	2.7	0.8	.78	2.6	0.7	.71	-.34		-.17	-.15	-.12	-.19	-.13
3. Organised approach	3.4	0.8	.76	3.4	0.8	.76	.47	-.18		.29	.19	.18	.18
4. Collaborate on objects	3.9	0.7	.81	4.0	0.7	.82	.33	-.30	.28		.79	.38	.36
5. Integrate efforts	3.9	0.8	.86	3.9	0.8	.86	.24	-.20	.21	.78		.36	.33
6. Various disciplines	3.1	0.9	.88	3.2	0.9	.85	.36	-.31	.22	.42	.40		.80
7. Interdisciplinary collaboration	2.9	0.9	.86	3.0	0.9	.84	.34	-.28	.23	.41	.37	.80

Notes: N2021 = 680. N2023 = 798. Correlations for the 2021 sample are shown below the diagonal, and for the 2023 sample, above the diagonal. All correlations are significant at p < .001 level.V

Conclusions

The aim of this study was to provide a baseline of HAMK’s first-year students’ collaborative learning and interdisciplinary collaboration competencies before the implementation of design-based education and related interventions. Thus, when the DBE is implemented, it will be possible to assess its impact on developing students’ capabilities concerning interdisciplinary and collaborative working. We utilised data from two measuring points (2021 and 2023) collected from different student cohorts. Additionally, our goal was to show how students’ different approaches to learning (Entwistle, 1991) were related to the dimensions of collaborative learning and interdisciplinary collaboration (Muukkonen et al., 2020).

Firstly, our findings show that at the end of their first year, students’ self-reported levels of CKP were roughly equal in the two measurement points (2021 and 2023) on collaborate on objects; integrate efforts; various disciplines and on interdisciplinary collaboration. Secondly, our findings show a connection between the approaches to learning and CKP: students who report higher deep and organised approaches to learning also report higher collaborative learning skills and interdisciplinary collaboration. Accordingly, the unreflective approach to learning is negatively related to all four dimensions measuring collaborative knowledge work competence in this study.

Investigation of the means and standard deviations from both years show that, on average, the experiences of the 2021 and 2023 cohorts have been similar. Both cohorts started their studies at HAMK before the DBE approach was implemented. When interpreting the results describing the “baseline” of DBE development work, it is worth remembering that the cohort during both years represented 1st year students. It can be expected that the levels of self-reported interdisciplinary collaboration and understanding of different disciplines are relatively low among students who have only recently started their studies. Future data collections will provide important information that allows us to compare the cohorts to see whether adopting the DBE approach promotes students’ collaborative learning and interdisciplinary collaboration already during their first year of studies.

Our correlational research design showed associations between different approaches to learning and CKPs. Yet, it remains unknown whether adapting a deep and organised approach to learning assists students in developing stronger collaborative learning and interdisciplinary collaboration skills or whether working in ways that promote CKP skills helps students to develop the deep and organised approach and avoid using the unreflective approach to learning. However, the results of this study indicate that it is highly important to pay attention to students’ approaches to learning when moving towards DBE. Based on our findings, it can be anticipated that students who tend to adopt the unreflective approach may have challenges in collaborative learning practices in the DBE environment. Thus, their approaches to learning should be supported through, for example, study skills courses. Moreover, teachers should pay specific attention to supporting students to adopt a deep approach to learning through student-centred and activating teaching methods. Students also need systematic support in developing their collaborative study practices when moving towards DBE. These could also be developed through study skills courses, but particularly through enhancing teachers’ awareness of how they can facilitate positive group dynamics and group activities. In line, Muukkonen et al. (2022) have identified that collaborative knowledge creation with structured support (for example, modelling professional work methods and allocating time for reflection with students), is one of the most effective pedagogical practices for enhancing students’ collaboration competence. Also, creating a positive and safe environment for learning is important for the development of collaboration skills, since, unfortunately, social anxiety is relatively common among higher education students (Bolsoni-Silva & Loureiro, 2014; Brook & Willoughby, 2015).

There might be large individual variation in first-year students’ self-evaluations of collaborative learning and interdisciplinary collaboration during their studies, depending on their previous work experience which may influence how they evaluate the skills gained during their first year of studies (Muukkonen et al., 2022). Therefore, future research should consider not only students’ first-year status but their previous experience. This is especially important in the UAS context where students usually have more heterogenic background in terms of their earlier studies and work experience than students in research universities. This is partly because UAS programs often require relevant work experience for admission. A goal for the future is to utilize the data collected with the LearnWell questionnaire to evaluate the effectiveness of DBE in terms of the quality of students’ learning. Additionally, as a development initiative, implementing the CKP questionnaire at the end of new DBE courses or modules could serve as an effective evaluation tool for teachers and DBE developers. In addition to collecting quantitative survey data, it is also highly important to apply various qualitative research designs to deepen the understanding of student and teacher experiences before, during and after DBE implementations.