Abstract
Forensic science operates at the intersection of science and law and requires graduates who can integrate disciplinary knowledge while exercising critical judgement across complex investigative contexts. This study examines self-perceived interdisciplinary learning outcomes among undergraduate and postgraduate students in a university forensic science programme, using Biggs’ Presage–Process–Product model as a pedagogical framework to contextualise how curriculum design and active learning processes may support interdisciplinary competence. Across six academic semesters from 2022 to 2024, 260 students completed an 18-item survey adapted from Lattuca, Knight, and Bergom measuring Interdisciplinary Skills, Reflective Behaviour, and Recognizing Disciplinary Perspectives on a five-point Likert scale. Students reported the highest ratings in Interdisciplinary Skills (M = 4.33), indicating confidence in integrating knowledge across scientific and legal domains. Lower ratings were observed for Reflective Behaviour (M = 3.89) and Recognizing Disciplinary Perspectives (M = 3.83), suggesting more moderate perceived development in metacognitive and epistemological dimensions of interdisciplinary learning. Item-level analysis further showed that students felt capable of synthesising knowledge across fields but were less confident in evaluating disciplinary strengths and limitations or identifying gaps in expert reasoning. These findings suggest that active and practice-based pedagogies are associated with high self-perceived disciplinary grounding and integration but require more explicit scaffolding to foster critical awareness, epistemological reflection, and metacognitive development. By mapping empirical measurements onto established interdisciplinary learning outcomes, this study provides evidence-informed directions for strengthening interdisciplinary pedagogy in applied forensic science education.
Keywords: Forensic science pedagogy, Interdisciplinary competence, Critical awareness, Metacognition, Active learning, Experiential pedagogy, Problem-based learning
Graphical abstract
Highlights
-
•
Maps forensic pedagogy to interdisciplinary outcomes.
-
•
Students reported strong disciplinary integration.
-
•
Critical awareness requires intentional curriculum scaffolding.
-
•
Item analysis reveals gaps in epistemic reflection.
-
•
Evidence-informed directions for curriculum refinement.
1. Introduction
Forensic science has emerged as an inherently interdisciplinary field that bridges diverse scientific disciplines and the justice system [1]. By integrating principles from chemistry, biology, physics, mathematics, and law, forensic science addresses complex evidentiary questions within legal contexts. Investigations in practice often demand multi-disciplinary collaboration to ensure scientifically grounded and robust analyses [2]. The diversity of forensic casework ranging from traffic incidents and environmental crimes to document forgery, nuclear accidents, white-collar offenses, and homicides, further underscores the necessity of interdisciplinary approaches [3]. Experts have increasingly emphasized the importance of stronger scientific foundations and integration across disciplines to enhance the reliability and applicability of forensic methodologies [4,5].
In Singapore, forensic science has been strategically prioritized as part of national security and public safety. The establishment of the Home Team Science and Technology Agency (HTX) in 2019 exemplifies this commitment, with initiatives advancing crime-scene forensics, digital forensics, and chemical/explosives detection among others [6]. Recent milestones, such as the launch of the Forensic Innovation and Research for Strategic Transformation (FIRST) laboratory in 2025, highlight Singapore's focus on tackling emerging threats through forensic R&D [7]. Parallel to these national initiatives, the National University of Singapore (NUS), a research-intensive university has expanded its forensic science education offerings, beginning with an undergraduate programme in 2005 and culminating in the launch of the country's first Master of Science in Forensic Science in 2020. These developments illustrate a coordinated strategy of integrating forensic science research, practice, and education to support public safety.
Within this context, forensic science education plays a critical role in training future professionals with the necessary knowledge, skills, and mindsets [8]. Contemporary forensic curricula emphasize the integration of cross-disciplinary content with hands-on practice, enabling students to bridge academic knowledge with field applications. Such approaches promote critical thinking, adaptability, and multi-faceted problem-solving [2,8]. More broadly, interdisciplinary education reflects a global shift in higher education, driven by recognition that complex challenges such as climate change, sustainability, and public health require interdisciplinary solutions [9,10].
1.1. The challenges of interdisciplinary learning in higher education
Interdisciplinary learning involves the synthesis and integration of knowledge and methods from multiple disciplines around shared problems. Boix Mansilla (2005) [11] defines its goal as “the capacity to integrate knowledge and modes of thinking in two or more disciplines to produce a cognitive advancement.” Such learning is associated with deeper critical thinking, schema reorganisation, and improved knowledge transfer [12,13]. However, achieving these outcomes in practice requires deliberate pedagogical design, as interdisciplinary intentions do not automatically translate into interdisciplinary learning experiences [14].
Building on these challenges, Borrego and Newswander (2010) [15] further note that interdisciplinary education requires students to balance disciplinary depth with the breadth needed to engage across fields while remaining grounded in a primary discipline. Furthermore, disciplinary silos and discourse communities continue to impede knowledge transfer and collaboration, limiting the exchange of insights across academic domains. Differences in language, methods, and standards of evidence also further complicate efforts to establish common ground among participants. As such, Borrego and Newswander (2010) [15] identified five key interdisciplinary learning outcomes including disciplinary grounding, integration, teamwork, communication, and critical awareness. The framework also emphasises that critical awareness which includes reflecting on epistemology, disciplinary limitations, and integration processes, is often underdeveloped yet essential for meaningful interdisciplinarity. Notably, while teamwork and communication skills are necessary for meaningful interdisciplinary learning, these are insufficient on their own. Effective interdisciplinary learning demands intentional integration of perspectives to advance understanding beyond what any single discipline can achieve.
Lattuca, Knight, and Bergom (2012) [16] advanced this understanding by developing and validating a survey-based measure of interdisciplinary competence among engineering undergraduates. Drawing from eight dimensions of interdisciplinarity, including integrative skill, reflexivity, recognition of disciplinary limitations, and the ability to find common ground, the instrument was designed to capture how students access, evaluate, synthesize, and apply knowledge across fields. The survey instrument provided empirical measure of interdisciplinary competence comprising three dimensions: Interdisciplinary Skills, Reflective Behavior, and Recognizing Disciplinary Perspectives. Interdisciplinary Skills capture students' ability to connect and apply perspectives across fields, while Reflective Behavior assesses recognition of when to reconsider one's thinking, and Recognizing Disciplinary Perspectives reflects understanding of disciplinary knowledge, methods, and boundaries.
Lattuca, Knight and Bergom (2012) [16] demonstrated that the three resulting scales possessed discriminant and concurrent validity, indicating that they measured distinct constructs and could differentiate students across engineering disciplines. The Interdisciplinary Skills scale showed particularly strong construct validity because it successfully distinguished students enrolled in disciplines with inherently broader or systems-oriented curricula, such as bioengineering and general engineering, from those in more traditionally bounded fields. This suggests that integrative abilities are both observable and sensitive to curricular design, making the construct a robust indicator of interdisciplinary competence. In contrast, fewer disciplinary differences emerged for Reflective Behaviour and Recognizing Disciplinary Perspectives, implying that metacognitive and epistemological capacities may develop less visibly or require more intentional educational support.
More broadly, scholarship on higher education indicates that interdisciplinary learning remains conceptually valued but unevenly realised in practice. Faculty often find it challenging to articulate learning outcomes related to teamwork and interdisciplinarity, as these domains lie outside traditional technical training [17]. As such, there is a need for clearer frameworks and assessment strategies to evaluate and support meaningful implementation of interdisciplinarity.
Interdisciplinary learning is commonly conceptualised as comprising two interrelated components: a knowledge component and a skills component [18]. In forensic science education, these components are particularly salient because effective forensic practice requires practioners to engage with and integrate knowledge from multiple scientific and legal domains in order to support credible evidential interpretation.
1.1.1. Knowledge component
The knowledge component involves both understanding disciplinary paradigms and knowledge of interdisciplinarity itself [18]. In forensic science, this includes appreciating how disciplines such as chemistry, biology, psychology, digital science, and law each generate, validate, and apply knowledge differently, and how these differences influence evidential interpretation in legal contexts. Consistent with Borrego and Newswander's (2010) framework [15], this study conceptualises the knowledge component through grounding in disciplines and integration of disciplines. Students require sufficient disciplinary depth to apply scientific principles meaningfully while also synthesising insights across fields to develop explanations that are more comprehensive than any single discipline alone [11,19,20].
1.1.2. Skills component
The skills component encompasses critical reflection, communication, and collaboration [18], which align with Borrego and Newswander's (2010) [15] proposed interdisciplinary learning outcomes of critical awareness, communication, and teamwork. These skills are fundamental in forensic contexts, where practitioners must work effectively in multidisciplinary teams, communicate complex scientific findings to legal and lay stakeholders, and critically evaluate evidential strength and uncertainty.
1.2. Pedagogical framework
To fully leverage the interdisciplinary foundations of forensic science, educational programmes should aim to foster the five learning outcomes articulated by Borrego and Newswander (2010) [15]. Achieving these outcomes requires pedagogical approaches that actively engage students in applying disciplinary knowledge, negotiating perspectives, and reflecting on their reasoning processes. In this regard, active learning provides a particularly powerful teaching and learning approach. Widely recognised as an effective strategy for interdisciplinary education, active learning engages students in collaborative problem-solving, critical analysis, and reflective practice [18,20]. Such environments have been shown to improve conceptual understanding, performance, and metacognitive development, while also supporting students in navigating disciplinary boundaries and refining epistemological beliefs [[21], [22], [23], [24]]. These characteristics align naturally with the applied and integrative nature of forensic science learning.
Additionally, in interdisciplinary education, the role of teachers extends beyond content delivery to the deliberate orchestration of learning environments that enable students to engage productively across disciplinary boundaries. Teachers are responsible for selecting and sequencing disciplinary content, structuring collaborative activities, coordinating engagement with external stakeholders, and scaffolding students’ movement from disciplinary understanding toward interdisciplinary integration. This role is especially important in forensic science education, where students must connect scientific, investigative, and legal forms of reasoning within complex applied contexts. By designing inclusive and structured learning environments, teachers help ensure that students from diverse academic backgrounds can participate meaningfully, negotiate disciplinary perspectives, and develop the confidence needed to integrate knowledge across fields.
1.2.1. Framing interdisciplinary learning through Biggs’ Presage–Process–Product model
The Biggs' Presage–Process–Product (3P) model provides a structured framework for linking pedagogical design with measurable learning outcomes in this study [25]. Within this model, presage factors encompass both learner characteristics and the educational environment, process factors refer to how students engage with learning activities, and product factors represent the learning outcomes that result from these interactions. Applied to forensic science education, the 3P model helps frame how students’ diverse disciplinary backgrounds and intentionally designed active learning environments may shape their engagement with interdisciplinary tasks. In this study, these interactions are understood as supporting the development of interdisciplinary competence through the intended learning outcomes of disciplinary grounding, integration, communication, teamwork, and critical awareness [15,25].
1.2.2. Operationalising interdisciplinary learning
To empirically examine these interdisciplinary learning outcomes, this study employs self-reported measures adapted from Lattuca, Knight, and Bergom (2012) [16]. The three constructs measured, Interdisciplinary Skills, Reflective Behaviour, and Recognizing Disciplinary Perspectives, provide a means of assessing students' perceived ability to integrate knowledge across fields, reflect on their reasoning, and recognise disciplinary assumptions, methods, and boundaries. Such end-of-course reflections offer meaningful access to students’ epistemological and metacognitive development, which are often tacit, internal, and difficult to observe directly [26,27]. These measures therefore provide insight into how students perceive their interdisciplinary competence following sustained engagement with forensic science learning activities.
1.3. Purpose and aims of the study
Building on this educational context, the present study uses Biggs' Presage–Process–Product (3P) model [25] as a pedagogical framework to examine how forensic science education at a research-intensive university is associated with students' self-perceived interdisciplinary competence. In this study, the presage dimension is represented by learning environment conditions that foster interdisciplinary collaboration, including students’ diverse disciplinary backgrounds, structured engagement with peers from different fields, involvement of external forensic practitioners, and teacher-orchestrated learning activities. The process dimension is represented by active learning approaches, particularly hands-on experiential learning and problem-based learning, through which students engage with authentic forensic problems. The product dimension is operationalised through three self-report constructs adapted from Lattuca, Knight, and Bergom (2012) [16]: Interdisciplinary Skills, Reflective Behaviour, and Recognizing Disciplinary Perspectives. As such, this study is guided by the following three research questions:
-
1.
How do the learning environment conditions embedded within the NUS forensic science programme contextualise students' self-reported interdisciplinary competence outcomes within Biggs' Presage–Process–Product (3P) model?
-
2.
Which specific interdisciplinary learning outcomes are most strongly reflected in students' self-reported ratings, as operationalised through Lattuca, Knight, and Bergom's constructs of Interdisciplinary Skills, Reflective Behaviour, and Recognizing Disciplinary Perspectives?
-
3.
What do item-level differences within these constructs reveal about areas where students show stronger versus weaker development in disciplinary grounding, integration, and critical awareness?
2. Methods
2.1. Forensic science program in research-intensive university
The National University of Singapore offers forensic science education at both undergraduate and postgraduate levels. At the undergraduate level, forensic science is offered through structured programmes that supplement students’ primary fields of study by providing foundational and advanced exposure to forensic concepts, evidence interpretation, and applied forensic reasoning. At the postgraduate level, the Master of Science in Forensic Science is a coursework-based programme that provides foundational training alongside opportunities for advanced specialisation across forensic subfields. Together, these programmes provide an interdisciplinary educational setting in which students from diverse academic backgrounds engage with scientific, investigative, and legal dimensions of forensic practice. The present study was conducted across selected undergraduate and postgraduate forensic science courses delivered between 2022 and 2024, with the detailed programme structures provided in Supplementary Tables 1 and 2.
2.2. Study design
Guided by the Presage–Process–Product framework [25], the study design mapped the forensic science learning environment onto presage conditions, learning processes, and product outcomes. In this study, presage conditions comprised the features that supported interdisciplinary collaboration, including students’ diverse disciplinary backgrounds, interaction with peers from different fields, engagement with external forensic practitioners, and teacher-orchestrated learning activities. These conditions provided the foundation for interdisciplinary engagement within the curriculum.
The process dimension comprised the active learning approaches through which students engaged with interdisciplinary forensic problems. Hands-on experiential learning and problem-based learning were used to immerse students in authentic investigative and legal contexts, including laboratory work, field activities, staged crime scene investigations, and moot court simulations. The product dimension was represented by students’ self-perceived interdisciplinary learning outcomes, measured through Interdisciplinary Skills, Reflective Behaviour, and Recognizing Disciplinary Perspectives.
2.2.1. Presage conditions for interdisciplinary collaboration
Interdisciplinary collaboration was supported through two main presage conditions. First, forensic practitioners were engaged as external stakeholders in course design and delivery through guest lectures, mentorship, and co-development of instructional materials, ensuring alignment between academic learning and professional forensic practice [8,28]. Second, students from different disciplinary backgrounds participated in team-based activities, including collaborative laboratory work, mock crime scene investigations, and moot court simulations. These interactions required students to integrate disciplinary insights, supporting integrative reasoning and interdisciplinary communication [2,29].
2.2.2. Hands-on experiential learning as process mechanism
Hands-on experiential learning emphasized “learning by doing” through laboratory experiments, field activities, and simulated investigative tasks. Grounded in Kolb's experiential learning cycle, students moved between concrete experience and structured reflection [30]. This approach strengthened application and analytical thinking while promoting metacognitive skills, adaptive expertise, and deeper knowledge retention [23].
2.2.3. Problem-based learning (PBL) as process mechanism
Problem-based learning was implemented through staged mock crime scene investigations. Students assumed the role of forensic experts by identifying and analysing physical evidence, reconstructing events using Henry Lee's Four-Way Linkage Theory [31] and communicating findings as expert witnesses in moot court proceedings [32]. This immersive approach mirrors authentic forensic practice and supports critical thinking, teamwork, and communication [33].
2.2.4. Interdisciplinary learning outcomes as product component
Learning outcomes were conceptualised using Borrego and Newswander's (2010) [15] interdisciplinary competencies and measured using three self-report scales adapted from Lattuca, Knight, and Bergom (2012) [16]:
-
1.
Interdisciplinary Skills – perceived ability to integrate knowledge across fields
-
2.
Reflective Behaviour – metacognitive ability to evaluate one's problem-solving approaches
-
3.
Recognizing Disciplinary Perspectives – awareness of disciplinary assumptions, boundaries, and methods
These constructs represent the product component of the 3P model, supporting alignment between presage conditions, learning processes, and intended interdisciplinary outcomes.
2.3. Data collection
An 18-item online survey (Supplementary Table 3) adapted from Lattuca, Knight, and Bergom (2012) [16] was administered post-course to undergraduate and postgraduate students in the NUS forensic science programmes. Each item was answered on a five-point Likert-scale, ranging from 1-Strongly disagree, 2-Disagree, 3-Neither agree nor disagree, 4-Agree and 5-Strongly Agree. This study was implemented across four undergraduate courses (FSC4201, FSC4202, FSC4204, FSC4205) and three postgraduate level courses (FSC5202, FSC5204, FSC5206) in the NUS forensic science program across six academic semesters over the period from 2022 to 2024.
The study was conducted anonymously, and only limited demographic information, including gender and primary academic major, was collected. A summary of students’ primary majors is presented in Fig. 1.
Fig. 1.
Breakdown of respondents' primary disciplinary backgrounds, illustrating the range of academic majors represented among participants.
2.4. Statistical analysis
Descriptive statistics (mean and standard deviation) were computed for each survey item. Internal consistency was evaluated using Cronbach's alpha, with α ≥ 0.70 considered indicative of acceptable reliability. Normality was assessed using the Shapiro–Wilk test, following which aggregated construct scores were compared using the Kruskal–Wallis test. Where significant differences were detected, Dunn's post hoc tests with Bonferroni adjustment were applied.
In addition to construct-level comparisons, detailed item-level analyses were conducted for each of the three constructs. This approach enabled examination beyond overall mean scores to identify specific items reflecting relatively stronger or weaker self-perceived ratings. These analyses provided more nuanced insights into how students engaged with different dimensions of interdisciplinary learning, thereby supporting interpretation of which aspects of the curriculum were most effective and which areas may require further pedagogical enhancement. All analyses were performed in Python.
2.5. Ethical approval
Prior to survey administration, ethical approval was obtained from the National University of Singapore Institutional Review Board (NUS-IRB; Reference No. NUS-IRB-2022-37). In line with institutional ethical standards, students were informed about the purpose of the study and assured that their responses would remain anonymous. Electronic informed consent was obtained before participants participated in the survey.
3. Results
Consistent with the Presage–Process–Product framework, the results are organised beginning with the presage dimension, focusing on the characteristics of the student cohort and the learning environments in which they were situated. Understanding students’ backgrounds, including their primary disciplines and programme level, is critical because such presage factors shape how learners engage with interdisciplinary tasks and influence the learning processes they are likely to adopt [25]. Accordingly, we first report the respondent profile and disciplinary demographics across the undergraduate and postgraduate forensic science courses surveyed.
3.1. Participant characteristics and disciplinary backgrounds
Across six academic semesters between 2022 and 2024, a total of 260 students completed the 18-item post-course survey. Among these respondents, 153 were enrolled at the undergraduate level and 107 at the masters level. All participants had undertaken one or more of the following course codes: FSC4201, FSC4202, FSC4204/5, FSC5202, FSC5204, and FSC5206 (Table 1).
Table 1.
Number of student responses received for each course across the respective academic semesters.
| Course Level | Course Code | Academic Year | Number of Student Responses | Total number of student responses |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 4000 Undergraduate | FSC4201 Articulating Probability and Statistics in Court |
AY22/23 Sem 1 | 14 | 260 |
| AY23/24 Sem 1 | 12 | |||
| AY24/25 Sem 1 | 30 | |||
| FSC4202 Forensic Human Identification |
AY21/22 Sem 2 | 24 | ||
| AY22/23 Sem 2 | 42 | |||
| AY23/24 Sem 2 | 37 | |||
| FSC4204/5 Criminalistics |
AY21/22 Sem 4 | 10 | ||
| 5000 Masters |
FSC5202 Forensic Defense Science |
AY21/22 Sem 2 | 15 | |
| AY23/24 Sem 2 | 15 | |||
| FSC5204 Forensic Psychiatry and Psychology |
AY21/22 Sem 2 | 11 | ||
| AY22/23 Sem 2 | 19 | |||
| AY23/24 Sem 2 | 13 | |||
| FSC5206 Wildlife Forensics |
AY24/25 Sem 1 | 18 |
Students represented a wide range of disciplinary backgrounds (Fig. 1). Among respondents, 58.8% reported science-related majors, 10.3% reported non-science majors, and 30.9% did not specify a primary major. Notably, the science-related respondents were themselves heterogeneous, spanning life sciences, forensic science, chemistry, data science, biomedical science, pharmaceutical science, and related applied science fields. This disciplinary diversity provides an important presage condition within Biggs’ 3P framework, as it establishes an authentic interdisciplinary learning environment.
3.2. Construct-level comparisons across undergraduate and Master's students
To evaluate self-perceived interdisciplinary learning outcomes at the end of the forensic science courses, students completed an 18-item self-evaluation survey measuring three constructs of interdisciplinary competence: Interdisciplinary Skills (IS), Reflective Behaviour (RB), and Recognizing Disciplinary Perspectives (RDP). Among undergraduates, IS received the highest mean score (M = 4.31), followed by RB (M = 3.91) and RDP (M = 3.81). A similar pattern was observed among master's students, with IS (M = 4.39) exceeding RB (M = 3.85) and RDP (M = 3.87) (Table 2, Fig. 2).
Table 2.
Comparison of mean self-perceived scores for Interdisciplinary Skills, Reflective Behaviour, and Recognizing Disciplinary Perspectives between undergraduate and master's forensic science students.
| Interdisciplinary Learning Constructs | Undergraduate | Masters |
|---|---|---|
| Interdisciplinary Skills (IS) | 4.31 ± 0.46 | 4.39 ± 0.42 |
| Reflective Behaviour (RB) | 3.91 ± 0.56 | 3.85 ± 0.47 |
| Recognizing Disciplinary Perspective (RDP) | 3.81 ± 0.63 | 3.87 ± 0.58 |
Fig. 2.
Distribution of self-perceived scores for undergraduate and master's forensic science students across Interdisciplinary Skills, Reflective Behaviour, and Recognizing Disciplinary Perspectives. Scores were obtained using an 18-item Likert-scale instrument (1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree). As data were non-normally distributed, within-group differences were examined using the Kruskal–Wallis H test, and between-group comparisons were conducted using the Mann–Whitney U test. Asterisks (∗∗∗) denote statistically significance below the Bonferroni-adjusted alpha level.
Within each academic level, a Kruskal–Wallis H test indicated significant differences among the three constructs (p < 0.05). Dunn's post-hoc pairwise comparisons with Bonferroni correction showed that IS scores were significantly higher than both RB and RDP in both undergraduate and master's cohorts, while no significant differences were found between RB and RDP. A Mann–Whitney U test comparing undergraduate and master's students revealed no significant differences across any of the constructs (p > 0.05).
These findings demonstrate a consistent pattern across both undergraduate and master's cohorts whereby students reported stronger confidence in interdisciplinary integration than in reflective or epistemological dimensions.
3.3. Reliability assessment and construct-level findings in the combined sample
Given the absence of cohort differences, responses from undergraduate and master's students were combined for subsequent analyses. The survey demonstrated strong internal consistency across all constructs, with IS (α = 0.854), RB (α = 0.812), and RDP (α = 0.905).
In the combined forensic science student cohort, IS received the highest mean score (M = 4.33, SD ± 0.45), followed by RB (M = 3.89, SD ± 0.54) and RDP (M = 3.83, SD ± 0.61) (Table 3, Fig. 3). Dunn's post hoc tests confirmed that IS scores were significantly higher than both RB and RDP (p < 0.05), while RB and RDP did not differ significantly.
Table 3.
Mean self-perceived ratings of forensic science students on the three interdisciplinary learning constructs, derived from the post-course self-report survey.
| Interdisciplinary Learning Constructs | Forensic Science Students |
|---|---|
| Interdisciplinary Skills (IS) | 4.33 ± 0.45 |
| Reflective Behavior (RB) | 3.89 ± 0.54 |
| Recognizing Disciplinary Perspective (RDP) | 3.83 ± 0.61 |
Fig. 3.
Box plots displaying self-perceived scores across the three interdisciplinary learning constructs (Interdisciplinary Skills, Reflective Behaviour, and Recognizing Disciplinary Perspectives) for all participants combined (undergraduate and master's). Responses were rated on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = Strongly disagree to 5 = Strongly agree). Asterisks (∗∗∗) denote statistically significance below the Bonferroni-adjusted alpha level.
3.4. Unpacking student perceptions across interdisciplinary competencies
While mean construct scores provide a useful overview, they may mask important variations in how students experience different dimensions of interdisciplinary learning. To further examine patterns within each construct, item-level analyses were conducted to identify specific items reflecting relatively higher or lower self-reported ratings.
3.4.1. Student-reported Interdisciplinary Skills
Across the eight items measuring Interdisciplinary Skills (IS), students reported consistently high levels of confidence in their ability to integrate knowledge across different fields (Table 4).
Table 4.
Survey items assessing Interdisciplinary Skills and students’ self-perceived ratings.
| Learning Construct | Items | Rating |
|---|---|---|
| Interdisciplinary Skills |
|
4.35 ± 0.66 |
|
4.37 ± 0.64 | |
|
4.30 ± 0.69 | |
|
4.41 ± 0.62 | |
|
4.23 ± 0.61 | |
|
4.39 ± 0.60 | |
|
4.24 ± 0.64 | |
|
4.35 ± 0.61 |
Likert scale: 1 = Strongly disagree, 2 = Disagree, 3 = Neither agree nor disagree, 4 = Agree, 5 = Strongly agree.
Across the eight IS items, mean ratings ranged from 4.23 to 4.41 (Table 4), indicating consistently high perceived competence.
Highest agreement was observed for items reflecting cross-disciplinary engagement and seeking external expertise, including: Seeking information from experts in other fields (M = 4.41, SD ± 0.62), recognizing connections between science and law or humanities (M = 4.39, SD ± 0.60), and enjoying consideration of how different fields approach the same problem (M = 4.37, SD ± 0.64).
Similarly high ratings were observed for items reflecting the application and synthesis of interdisciplinary knowledge, such as the ability to transfer learning across contexts (M = 4.35, SD ± 0.61), to synthesize ideas from outside science (M = 4.24, SD ± 0.64), and to select appropriate knowledge from different fields to solve problems (M = 4.23, SD ± 0.61). No significant differences were detected among the eight IS items, indicating uniformly positive self-perceptions across the construct. This pattern suggests that students’ perceived interdisciplinary development is broad rather than selective, encompassing valuing other disciplines, recognizing cross-disciplinary linkages, and applying integrated knowledge in problem-solving contexts.
3.4.2. Moderate ratings in reflection and epistemological awareness
Compared with Interdisciplinary Skills, students reported moderately high but comparatively lower self-perceived competence in Reflective Behaviour (RB), with item scores ranging from 3.60 to 4.16 (Table 5). Students expressed stronger agreement with general reflective behaviours such as: Stopping to reconsider problem-solving approaches (M = 4.16, SD ± 0.66) and stepping back to reflect on one's thinking (M = 4.15, SD ± 0.60).
Table 5.
Survey items assessing Reflective Behaviour and Recognizing Disciplinary Perspectives and students’ self-perceived ratings.
| Interdisciplinary Learning Constructs | Items | Rating |
|---|---|---|
| Reflective Behaviour |
|
4.15 ± 0.60 |
|
4.16 ± 0.66 | |
|
3.92 ± 0.79 | |
|
4.01 ± 0.72 | |
|
3.79 ± 0.82 | |
|
3.60 ± 0.91 | |
|
3.62 ± 0.93 | |
| Recognizing Disciplinary Perspectives |
|
3.90 ± 0.67 |
|
4.06 ± 0.62 | |
|
3.52 ± 0.93 |
Likert scale: 1 = Strongly disagree, 2 = Disagree, 3 = Neither agree nor disagree, 4 = Agree, 5 = Strongly agree.
Lower ratings were observed for discipline-specific reflection, particularly evaluating the strengths and weaknesses of law (M = 3.60–3.62) and the limitations of science (M = 3.79).
Within RDP, students reported moderate confidence in identifying distinctive disciplinary knowledge (M = 3.90, SD ± 0.67) and recognizing differing evidentiary standards (M = 4.06, SD ± 0.62). The lowest rating in the construct was recorded for the ability to identify what experts from different fields may have overlooked (M = 3.52, SD ± 0.93).
Overall, item-level patterns indicate stronger confidence in general integration and reflection than in discipline-specific critique or identification of disciplinary blind spots. These patterns align with broader themes in interdisciplinary learning, where higher-order metacognition and critical awareness often develop more slowly than integrative skills. The implications of these results, and their relationship to curriculum design and pedagogical strategies in forensic science education, are elaborated in the discussion section.
4. Discussion
This study examined students' self-perceived interdisciplinary learning outcomes in forensic science education, focusing on Interdisciplinary Skills, Reflective Behaviour, and Recognizing Disciplinary Perspectives. Drawing on self-reported data from 260 undergraduate and postgraduate students across multiple forensic science courses, the findings provide empirical insight into how students perceive their ability to integrate disciplinary knowledge, reflect on their reasoning, and recognise disciplinary assumptions and boundaries. Biggs' Presage–Process–Product (3P) model [25] is used as an interpretive framework to contextualise how disciplinary diversity, deliberately designed learning environments, and active learning processes may be associated with these measured outcomes. The discussion therefore focuses on how the observed patterns align with Borrego and Newswander's (2010) [15] interdisciplinary learning outcomes and what they suggest about strengths and limitations in current pedagogical design.
4.1. Presage conditions and disciplinary diversity
The demographic data reveal a broad disciplinary mix among forensic science students, with 58.8% reporting science-related majors and 10.3% coming from non-science backgrounds such as law, psychology, and the humanities. A further 30.9% did not specify their primary major, suggesting that the actual disciplinary diversity may be even greater. This heterogeneity constitutes a strong presage condition within Biggs’ (2003) framework [25], as students enter the learning environment with varied epistemic assumptions, methodological training, and ways of reasoning.
From an interdisciplinary learning perspective, this diversity directly supports Borrego and Newswander's (2010) [15] outcomes of grounding in disciplines and integration of disciplines. Students are required to draw on their own disciplinary strengths while engaging with peers who approach problems differently, creating authentic conditions for integrative reasoning. The presence of non-science majors also highlights the accessibility of forensic science education beyond traditional scientific pathways, reflecting the multidisciplinary composition of professional forensic practice [2,3].
4.2. Presage conditions and interdisciplinary collaboration
The strong Interdisciplinary Skills scores observed in both undergraduate and master's cohorts suggest that the presage conditions embedded within the forensic science curriculum supported students' perceived ability to integrate knowledge across disciplinary boundaries. As described in the Study Design, these conditions included student disciplinary diversity, structured peer collaboration, engagement with forensic practitioners, and teacher-orchestrated learning activities. Together, these features created an interdisciplinary learning environment in which students were repeatedly exposed to different disciplinary perspectives and required to apply them to forensic problems. This interpretation is consistent with literature showing that teamwork exposes students to alternative viewpoints, supports articulation of disciplinary assumptions, and enables integration of knowledge across fields [15,16].
These presage conditions help explain why students reported confidence in connecting ideas across science, law, and other disciplinary domains. Peer interaction likely supported negotiation of disciplinary perspectives, while practitioner engagement grounded interdisciplinary learning in authentic forensic contexts. This is particularly important in forensic science, where investigations involve complex and ill-structured problems requiring coordinated reasoning across biological, chemical, psychological, digital, and legal domains [2,3]. Teacher orchestration was also central, as instructors provided the structural and epistemic scaffolding needed for students from diverse backgrounds to engage productively with complex tasks while maintaining disciplinary coherence. Such scaffolding is important because interdisciplinary competence develops cumulatively through repeated opportunities for integration, reflection, and confidence building [[34], [35], [36]].
However, the comparatively lower scores for Reflective Behaviour and Recognizing Disciplinary Perspectives indicate that exposure to interdisciplinary collaboration alone may not be sufficient to foster deeper critical awareness. While collaborative and practice-based learning environments appear effective in supporting disciplinary grounding and integration, the findings suggest that students may require more explicit teacher-guided scaffolding to evaluate disciplinary assumptions, limitations, and blind spots. This distinction is consistent with active learning and interdisciplinary education literature, which indicates that collaboration and experiential engagement can promote higher-order thinking and metacognitive development, but that epistemological reflection often requires deliberate instructional support [[21], [22], [23],37,38]. Thus, presage conditions can create opportunities for interdisciplinary engagement, but metacognitive and epistemological development require more targeted pedagogical scaffolding.
4.3. Product outcomes
4.3.1. High self-reported Interdisciplinary Skills
Across both undergraduate and postgraduate cohorts, Interdisciplinary Skills (IS) received the highest self-perceived scores, with means of 4.31 ± 0.46 and 4.39 ± 0.42, respectively. Statistical analyses confirmed that IS scores were significantly higher than both Reflective Behaviour (RB) and Recognizing Disciplinary Perspectives (RDP) for both groups (p < 0.05), with no significant differences between undergraduate and masters students. These findings suggest that additional years of education alone do not necessarily lead to higher perceived interdisciplinary competence, reinforcing the importance of pedagogical design over academic seniority.
Item-level analysis further supports this interpretation. All eight IS items showed consistently high ratings with no significant differences among them, indicating stable self-reported confidence across valuing interdisciplinary knowledge, seeking expertise beyond one's field, synthesising ideas, and transferring knowledge across contexts. Collectively, these results suggest that the programme effectively supports students' grounding in disciplines while enabling meaningful integration of disciplines, two central outcomes identified by Borrego and Newswander (2010) [15].
These high ratings are consistent with the programme's active learning strategies such as collaborative laboratory work, mock crime scene investigations, and problem-based learning scenarios. Prior research indicates that hands-on problem-solving and collaborative engagement are key drivers of student-perceived interdisciplinary proficiency and confidence [18,20]. In forensic science, where problem solving inherently requires the integration of scientific evidence with legal and contextual reasoning, such pedagogical alignment appears particularly effective.
4.3.2. Moderate ratings for Reflective Behaviour and Recognizing Disciplinary Perspectives
In contrast to the consistently high ratings for Interdisciplinary Skills, students reported moderate ratings though comparatively lower ratings for Reflective Behaviour (RB) and Recognizing Disciplinary Perspectives (RDP), with mean scores below 4.0 across both undergraduate and postgraduate cohorts. Within Borrego and Newswander's (2010) framework [15], these constructs collectively map onto the interdisciplinary learning outcome of critical awareness, which is defined as the capacity to question assumptions, evaluate disciplinary limitations, and engage in reflective judgement. The findings therefore indicate that while students felt confident in integrating knowledge across fields, they were less assured about their capacity to critically interrogate how that knowledge is constructed, justified, and bounded by disciplinary traditions.
Item-level analysis offers more nuanced insight into these trends. Within the RB construct, students expressed relatively strong agreement with general reflective statements such as stepping back to reconsider thinking (M ≈ 4.15–4.16) (Table 5). However, substantially lower scores emerged on items requiring discipline-specific reflection, particularly evaluating the strengths and weaknesses of science and law in solving problems (M = 3.60–3.79). This suggests that students are more comfortable engaging in generic metacognitive reflection than in deeper epistemic critique of disciplinary assumptions. Similarly, within the RDP construct, students demonstrated moderate confidence in identifying distinctive disciplinary ideas and evidentiary standards (M = 3.90–4.06), but the lowest agreement was recorded for the item assessing their ability to identify what experts from different fields may have overlooked (M = 3.52). This indicates uncertainty in recognizing disciplinary blind spots, gaps in reasoning, or implicit biases embedded in disciplinary practice.
These patterns are consistent with prior research showing that metacognitive and epistemological growth is both cognitively demanding and difficult for learners to self-recognize [39]. Unlike technical skills or integrative tasks, which produce tangible outputs and clear performance indicators, critical awareness develops more implicitly and often lacks visible markers of “success.” In forensic science specifically, many educational activities emphasize procedural precision and task execution, such as laboratory analysis, evidence packaging, and documentation. In such contexts, students often prioritise accuracy, efficiency, and assessment performance over reflecting on how disciplinary frameworks shape interpretation [40]. Students may therefore engage successfully in interdisciplinary tasks without always being given sufficient structured opportunities to articulate the metacognitive and epistemological reasoning underlying their decisions.
Additionally, epistemological development requires tolerating ambiguity and uncertainty, conditions that can be unsettling for students grounded in structured scientific traditions. Forensic practice is inherently probabilistic, interpretive, and open to competing explanations. However, students may perceive ambiguity as confusion or inadequacy rather than as an invitation for epistemic reflection [11,18]. Without explicit scaffolds guiding students to examine disciplinary norms, evidentiary standards, and interpretive constraints, learners may engage effectively in interdisciplinary integration while remaining less aware of how and why different disciplines “know” differently. This is particularly important in forensic science, where scientific, investigative, and legal domains may differ in what they consider valid evidence, acceptable uncertainty, and persuasive explanation. Structured activities such as discipline-comparison exercises, guided debriefs, and reflective prompts can help students make these epistemic differences visible, thereby supporting deeper critical awareness rather than integration alone [[39], [40], [41], [42]].
Collectively, these findings suggest that while the programme effectively cultivates grounding in disciplines and integration of disciplines, development of critical awareness can be further improved. This does not indicate pedagogical failure but rather reflects the inherently complex, gradual, and often tacit nature of metacognitive and epistemological growth.
4.4. Active learning as the central process mechanism
Within Biggs’ 3P framework [25], the findings suggest that active learning including hands-on experiential learning and problem-based learning functions as the central process mechanism that bridge presage conditions with product outcomes. The strong IS scores indicate that active learning effectively supports grounding and integration of disciplines, teamwork, and communication. However, the comparatively lower RB and RDP scores suggest that critical awareness does not emerge automatically from active learning alone.
This distinction reinforces arguments in interdisciplinary education that while collaborative and experiential pedagogies are effective for integration, metacognitive and epistemological outcomes require explicit and sustained instructional attention [40]. In the context of forensic science, reflective judgement must be intentionally cultivated through structured reflection, guided debriefs, and explicit discussion of disciplinary assumptions.
4.5. Implications for curriculum design
Taken together, the data indicate that the forensic science programme is effective in achieving Borrego and Newswander's (2010) [15] proposed interdisciplinary learning outcomes of grounding in disciplines and integration of disciplines. The consistent and high IS scores across cohorts provide strong evidence of this success.
However, the findings also highlight a need to strengthen curricular support for critical awareness. This may involve embedding discipline-contrast activities, structured reflective prompts, and explicit discussion of epistemic uncertainty within laboratory and problem-based learning settings. Without such scaffolds, students may develop technical and integrative competence without fully recognizing how knowledge is constructed, justified, and limited across disciplines.
4.6. Future pedagogical improvements for critical awareness and metacognition
To further strengthen students’ development of critical awareness and metacognition, several pedagogical enhancements may be incorporated into future course design. One improvement involves embedding structured metacognitive prompts throughout laboratory sessions and PBL activities. Rather than assuming reflection will occur organically, instructors can include guided questions that prompt students to articulate their reasoning, identify uncertainties, and consider how their disciplinary background shapes their interpretations. Research suggesting that students benefit when reflection is made an explicit and integral part of task design [41,42] supports this approach.
Second, reflective debriefing sessions following major activities, such as crime scene simulations or moot court simulations, can create intentional space for students to analyse their decision-making processes. These debriefings may be facilitated by instructors or external practitioners, allowing students to compare their thought processes with professional reasoning patterns, thus illuminating epistemic assumptions they may not have recognised during the task itself.
Third, incorporating disciplinary contrast activities can help students develop clearer awareness of disciplinary perspectives. For example, students might compare how a chemist, a psychologist, and a legal expert interpret the same piece of evidence, followed by class discussion that explicitly identifies differences in epistemic values, standards of evidence, and interpretive frameworks. Activities that foreground such comparisons have been shown to promote epistemological growth by helping students unpack how disciplines produce and justify knowledge [39].
Finally, promoting longitudinal reflective practice across courses, such as through portfolios, reflective journals, or cumulative integrative assignments, may help students recognise growth that unfolds gradually over time. Metacognition and epistemological awareness develop incrementally, and extended reflective trajectories help students document, monitor, and articulate these developments more accurately.
Together, these pedagogical strategies can strengthen the programme's ability to cultivate the deeper cognitive dimensions of interdisciplinary learning, complementing the strong performance already achieved in integrative skill development.
4.7. Limitations
Several limitations should be considered when interpreting the findings of this study. First, the reliance on self-reported survey data introduces potential biases related to students’ subjective perceptions. Students may overestimate or underestimate their interdisciplinary competence, particularly in metacognitive and epistemological domains, which are inherently difficult for learners to assess accurately. Second, the absence of pre-course measurements limits the ability to make definitive claims about growth over time; the findings reflect post course perceptions rather than measurable change from baseline. Third, while the sample includes students from diverse disciplinary backgrounds, approximately 30.9% of respondents did not report their primary major. This incomplete demographic information adds uncertainty towards the conclusion on how disciplinary background influences learning outcomes. Fourth, the study was conducted within a single institutional context, the forensic science programmes at the National University of Singapore. The results may therefore not generalise fully to other institutions with different pedagogical approaches, student demographics, or forensic science specialisations.
Finally, although the curriculum includes reflective and epistemologically oriented activities, the study did not directly measure the quality or depth of students' reflective outputs. The lower scores for Reflective Behaviour and Recognizing Disciplinary Perspectives may reflect not only student perceptions but also the difficulty of evaluating implicit learning outcomes through quantitative survey instruments alone. Future research would benefit from triangulating self-report data with qualitative analyses of reflective writing, performance tasks, or observational data to obtain a richer understanding of students’ metacognitive and epistemic development.
5. Conclusion
This study examined how interdisciplinary learning is supported and actualised within the forensic science programmes at a research-intensive university through the lens of Biggs’ Presage-Process-Product model. By intentionally designing presage conditions that leverage the diverse disciplinary backgrounds of students and incorporating collaborative, experiential, and problem-based learning environments, the curriculum creates fertile ground for interdisciplinary engagement. The process of active learning, shaped by these presage factors, provides meaningful opportunities for students to integrate scientific, legal, and contextual reasoning in ways that mirror authentic forensic practice. The high student-reported Interdisciplinary Skills scores suggest that these pedagogical strategies effectively promote integrative thinking and application across disciplinary boundaries.
At the same time, the moderate but comparatively lower scores for Reflective Behaviour and Recognizing Disciplinary Perspectives highlight the ongoing challenges of fostering metacognition and epistemological awareness within interdisciplinary contexts. These outcomes, which develop gradually and are less tangible to learners, require deliberate and sustained scaffolding to become visible and meaningful. The findings therefore underscore the need to complement hands on and problem-based activities with explicit reflective structures and disciplinary transparency so that students can better understand how they think, why they reason in particular ways, and how disciplinary assumptions shape forensic interpretation.
Overall, the study demonstrates that interdisciplinary competence in forensic science emerges not from isolated activities but from coherent alignment across presage, process, and product dimensions. The educational approaches implemented in these programmes offer promising strategies for strengthening interdisciplinary learning in forensic science globally, especially as the field evolves to address increasingly complex and multifaceted investigative challenges. By attending to both the integrative and reflective dimensions of interdisciplinary learning, forensic science education can better prepare future practitioners to navigate uncertainty, collaborate across domains, and exercise sound professional judgement in real world contexts.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Xin-Xiang Lim: Conceptualization, Formal analysis, Methodology, Project administration, Visualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. Yi-Lian Nicole Low: Formal analysis, Methodology, Project administration, Visualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. Joo-Seng Gan: Formal analysis, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. Wei-Ling Stella Tan: Writing – review & editing.
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgement
The authors sincerely acknowledge the Department of Biological Sciences at the National University of Singapore for its institutional support and facilitation of this research.
Footnotes
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fsisyn.2026.100713.
Appendix A. Supplementary data
The following is the Supplementary data to this article:
References
- 1.Katz E., Halámek J. John Wiley & Sons; 2016. Forensic Science: a Multidisciplinary Approach. [Google Scholar]
- 2.Shukla R.K. A new systematic approach of teaching and learning of forensic science for interdisciplinary students: a step towards renovating the forensic education system. Forensic Sci. Int.: Synergy. 2021;3 doi: 10.1016/j.fsisyn.2021.100146. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Dutton G.J., Laporte G.M., Wagstaff I.R., Spivak H.R. Cultivating the next generation of forensic scientists through science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) J. Forensic Res. 2017;8:1–3. [Google Scholar]
- 4.Bell S., Sah S., Albright T.D., Gates Jr S.J., Denton M.B., Casadevall A. A call for more science in forensic science. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 2018;115(18):4541–4544. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1712161115. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Illes M., Wilson P., Bruce C. Forensic epistemology: a need for research and pedagogy. Forensic Sci. Int.: Synergy. 2020;2:51–59. doi: 10.1016/j.fsisyn.2019.11.004. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Home Team Science and Technology Agency (HTX) Home team force multiplier to keep Singapore safe and secure through science and technology. 2019. https://www.htx.gov.sg/whats-happening/all-news---events/all-news/2019/media-release-home-team-force-multiplier-to-keep-singapore-safe-and-secure-through-science-and-tech
- 7.Home Team Science and Technology Agency (HTX) 2025. HTX Unveils FIRST — an Advanced Forensic R&D Lab.https://www.htx.gov.sg/whats-happening/all-news---events/all-news/2025/htx-unveils-first-an-advanced-forensic-rd-lab [Google Scholar]
- 8.Nilendu D. Enhancing forensic education: exploring the importance and implementation of evidence-based education system. Egypt. J. Food Sci. 2024;14(1):6. [Google Scholar]
- 9.Paletz S., Smith-Doerr L., Vardi I. Erişim Adresi. 2010. National science foundation workshop report: interdisciplinary collaboration in innovative science and engineering fields.https://www.bu.edu/sociology/files/2011/03/nsf-workshop-report.pdf [Google Scholar]
- 10.National Institutes of Health . 2006. NIH Roadmap for Medical Research. http://nihroadmap. nih. gov/clinicalresearch/overview-translational. asp. [Google Scholar]
- 11.Mansilla V.B. Assessing student work at disciplinary crossroads. Change Mag. High. Learn. 2005;37(1):14–21. [Google Scholar]
- 12.Repko A.F., Szostak R. Sage publications; 2020. Interdisciplinary Research: Process and Theory. [Google Scholar]
- 13.Repko A.F., Szostak R., Buchberger M.P. Sage Publications; 2019. Introduction to Interdisciplinary Studies. [Google Scholar]
- 14.Stentoft D. From saying to doing interdisciplinary learning: is problem-based learning the answer? Act. Learn. High. Educ. 2017;18(1):51–61. [Google Scholar]
- 15.Borrego M., Newswander L.K. Definitions of interdisciplinary research: toward graduate-level interdisciplinary learning outcomes. Rev. High. Educ. 2010;34(1):61–84. [Google Scholar]
- 16.Lattuca L.R., Knight D.B., Bergom I.M. 2012 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition. 2012, June. Developing a measure of interdisciplinary competence for engineers; pp. 25–415. [Google Scholar]
- 17.DeZure D. The Oxford Handbook of Interdisciplinarity. 2010. Interdisciplinary pedagogies in higher education; pp. 372–386. [Google Scholar]
- 18.Spelt E.J., Biemans H.J., Tobi H., Luning P.A., Mulder M. Teaching and learning in interdisciplinary higher education: a systematic review. Educ. Psychol. Rev. 2009;21(4):365–378. [Google Scholar]
- 19.Tytler R., Prain V., Hobbs L. Rethinking disciplinary links in interdisciplinary STEM learning: a temporal model. Res. Sci. Educ. 2021;51(Suppl 1):269–287. [Google Scholar]
- 20.Mansilla V.B., Duraisingh E.D., Wolfe C.R., Haynes C. Targeted assessment rubric: an empirically grounded rubric for interdisciplinary writing. J. High Educ. 2009;80(3):334–353. [Google Scholar]
- 21.Prince M. Does active learning work? A review of the research. J. Eng. Educ. 2004;93(3):223–231. [Google Scholar]
- 22.Johnson R.T., Johnson D.W. Active learning: cooperation in the classroom. Ann. Rep. Educat. Psychol. Japan. 2008;47:29–30. [Google Scholar]
- 23.Freeman S., Eddy S.L., McDonough M., Smith M.K., Okoroafor N., Jordt H., Wenderoth M.P. Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 2014;111(23):8410–8415. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1319030111. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24.Kalman C.S., Sobhanzadeh M., Thompson R., Ibrahim A., Wang X. Combination of interventions can change students' epistemological beliefs. Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 2015;11(2) [Google Scholar]
- 25.Biggs J.B. From theory to practice: a cognitive systems approach. High Educ. Res. Dev. 1993;12(1):73–85. [Google Scholar]
- 26.Hofer B.K., Pintrich P.R. The development of epistemological theories: beliefs about knowledge and knowing and their relation to learning. Rev. Educ. Res. 1997;67(1):88–140. [Google Scholar]
- 27.Kienhues D., Bromme R., Stahl E. Changing epistemological beliefs: the unexpected impact of a short‐term intervention. Br. J. Educ. Psychol. 2008;78(4):545–565. doi: 10.1348/000709907X268589. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 28.Smith J.H., Horne J.S. Forensic training-bridging the gap between education and workplace. Forensic Sci. Int.: Synergy. 2024;8 doi: 10.1016/j.fsisyn.2024.100463. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 29.Wu Y., Lu X., Lin C. Bridging disciplines: enhancing integrative thinking via collaborative problem-based learning in higher education. Think. Skills Creativ. 2025 [Google Scholar]
- 30.Kolb D.A., Boyatzis R.E., Mainemelis C. Perspectives on Thinking, Learning, and Cognitive Styles. Routledge; 2014. Experiential learning theory: previous research and new directions; pp. 227–247. [Google Scholar]
- 31.Lee H.C., Palmbach T., Miller M.T. Academic Press; 2001. Henry Lee's Crime Scene Handbook. [Google Scholar]
- 32.Heavey A.L., Houck M.M. Rethinking scientific communication in courts: a question of credibility. Forensic Sci. Int.: Synergy. 2024;9 doi: 10.1016/j.fsisyn.2024.100483. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 33.Hmelo-Silver C.E., Duncan R.G., Chinn C.A. Scaffolding and achievement in problem-based and inquiry learning: a response to Kirschner, Sweller, and. Educ. Psychol. 2007;42(2):99–107. [Google Scholar]
- 34.Vienni-Baptista B., van Goch M., van Lambalgen R., Lindvig K.E. Routledge; 2024. Interdisciplinary Practices in Higher Education. [Google Scholar]
- 35.Dack H., Ann Tomlinson C. Preparing novice teachers to differentiate instruction: implications of a longitudinal study. J. Teach. Educ. 2025;76(1):12–28. [Google Scholar]
- 36.Matthews K.E., Firn J., Schmidt S., Whelan K. A comparative study on student perceptions of their learning outcomes in undergraduate science degree programmes with differing curriculum models. Int. J. Sci. Educ. 2017;39(6):742–760. [Google Scholar]
- 37.Baumber A. Transforming sustainability education through transdisciplinary practice. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 2022;24(6):7622–7639. doi: 10.1007/s10668-021-01731-3. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 38.Fam D., Palmer J., Riedy C., Mitchell C., editors. Transdisciplinary Research and Practice for Sustainability Outcomes. Routledge; New York: 2017. [Google Scholar]
- 39.Hofer B.K., Pintrich P.R. The development of epistemological theories: beliefs about knowledge and knowing and their relation to learning. Rev. Educ. Res. 1997;67(1):88–140. [Google Scholar]
- 40.Pintrich P.R. The role of metacognitive knowledge in learning, teaching, and assessing. Theor. Pract. 2002;41(4):219–225. [Google Scholar]
- 41.Tanner K.D. Promoting student metacognition. CBE-Life Sci. Educ. 2012;11(2):113–120. doi: 10.1187/cbe.12-03-0033. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 42.Ambrose S.A., Bridges M.W., DiPietro M., Lovett M.C., Norman M.K. John Wiley & Sons; 2010. How Learning Works: Seven Research-based Principles for Smart Teaching. [Google Scholar]
Associated Data
This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.