Reasoning and Problem-Solving in Disciplinarily Diverse Teams: Implications for Research and Practice

Abstract

In light of recent technological, scientific, and medical innovations our societies have seen as an outcome of interdisciplinary teamwork, the study of reasoning within these teams has received heightened attention in the literature. Prior syntheses have been published on interdisciplinary teamwork. However, no reviews have systematically investigated reasoning and thinking as they occur in disciplinarily diverse teams. Thus, this systematic review was conducted to examine the literature addressing reasoning and thinking processes within these teams and how thinking and reasoning processes interact with problem characteristics. Forty documents were identified and synthesized, involving over 1,400 individuals engaged in interdisciplinary teamwork. The findings indicate that task characteristics, domain expertise, and the reasoning and thinking that underlie decision-making may shape how interdisciplinary teams approach and resolve problems. These insights highlight the cognitive complexity of interdisciplinary collaboration and suggest directions for future research on how reasoning processes support effective teamwork.

Keywords

cognition collaboration decision-making problem-solving descriptive analysis reasoning thinking teams

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Aboelela

S. W.

Larson

Bakken

Carrasquillo

Formicola

Glied

S. A.

Haas

Gebbie

K. M.

(2007). Defining interdisciplinary research: Conclusions from a critical review of the literature. Health Services Research, 42(1p1), 329–346. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6773.2006.00621.x

*Abueg

K. S.

(2020). Impact of interdisciplinary collaborative behavior coach training for school counselors, social workers, and psychologists [Doctoral Dissertation, University of Nebraska at Omaha]. ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global.

Alexander

P. A.

(2003). The development of expertise: The journey from acclimation to proficiency. Educational Researcher, 32(8), 10–14. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189x032008010

Alexander

P. A.

(2007). Bridging cognition and socioculturalism within conceptual change research: Unnecessary foray or unachievable feat? Educational Psychologist, 42(1), 67–73. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520709336919

Alexander

P. A.

(2016). Relational thinking and relational reasoning: Harnessing the power of patterning. NPJ Science of Learning, 1(1), 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1038/npjscilearn.2016.4

Alexander

P. A.

(2020). Methodological guidance paper: The art and science of quality systematic reviews. Review of Educational Research, 90(1), 6–23. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654319854352

Alexander

P. A.

(2023). The interplay of knowledge, strategies, and the interest in the development of expertise within professions. In Glückler

Winch

Punstein

A. M.

(Eds.), Professions and proficiency (pp. 63–88). Springer International Publishing.

Alexander

P. A.

Judy

J. E.

(1988). The interaction of domain-specific and strategic knowledge in academic performance. Review of Educational Research, 58(4), 375–404. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543058004375

Alexander

P. A.

Murphy

P. K.

Kulikowich

J. M.

(2009). Expertise and the adult learner: A historical, psychological, and methodological exploration. In Smith

M. C.

(Ed.), Handbook of research on adult learning and development (pp. 484–523). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203887882-21

10.

Alexander

P. A.

Schallert

D. L.

Hare

V. C.

(1991). Coming to terms: How researchers in learning and literacy talk about knowledge. Review of Educational Research, 61(3), 315–343. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543061003315

11.

*Allinson

Mahon

(2022). Modelling transdisciplinary pedagogy: A method for collaborative curriculum design. Journal of University Teaching & Learning Practice, 19(3), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.53761/1.19.3.04

12.

Anderson

J. R.

(1987). Skill acquisition: Compilation of weak method problem solutions. Psychological Review, 94, 192–210. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.94.2.192

13.

Andrews

M. A.

Areekal

Rajesh

K. R.

Krishnan

Suryakala

Krishnan

Muraly

C. P.

Santhosh

P. V.

(2020). First confirmed case of COVID-19 infection in India: A case report. Indian Journal of Medical Research, 151(5), 490–492. https://doi.org/10.4103/ijmr.IJMR_2131_20

14.

*Avery

M. L.

Arena

J. L.

Benson

N. D.

Ray

N. A.

Leary

(2024). Using design research and human-centered design to address growing pains in a busy, urban emergency department: A faculty, clinician, and student collaboration between nursing, design, and medicine. International Journal of Emergency Medicine, 17(1), 17–17. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12245-024-00586-5

15.

*Baaki

Tracey

M. W.

Hutchinson

(2017). Give us something to react to and make it rich: Designers reflecting-in-action with external representations. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 27(4), 667–682. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-016-9371-2

16.

Bates

Brenner

Schmid

Steiner

Vogel

(2022). Towards meta–competences in higher education for tackling complex real–world problems – A cross disciplinary review. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 23(8), 290–308. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJSHE-06-2021-0243

17.

*Barré

Buisine

Aoussat

(2017). Persona logical thinking: Improving requirements elicitation for multidisciplinary teams. Codesign, 14(3), 218–237. https://doi.org/10.1080/15710882.2017.1301959

18.

Basadur

Ellspermann

S. J.

Evans

G. W.

(1994). A new methodology for formulating ill-structured problems. Omega International Journal of Management Science, 22(6), 627–645. https://doi.org/10.1016/0305-0483(94)90053-1

19.

*Biello

Yoss

Walker

E. R.

Druss

Lang

D. L.

(2022). Addressing public mental health challenges: A mixed-methods evaluation of problem-based learning. Pedagogy in Health Promotion, 8(1), 59–66. https://doi.org/10.1177/2373379920944963

20.

Borgonovi

Han

S. W.

Greiff

(2023). Gender differences in collaborative problem-solving skills in a cross-country perspective. Journal of Educational Psychology, 115(5), 747. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000788

21.

Bransford

Stein

B. S.

(1993). The ideal problem solver: A guide for improving thinking, learning, and creativity (2nd ed.). W.H. Freeman.

22.

*Brockman

J. B.

Svarovsky

G. N.

Kloser

(2015). Making “wild sound”: A case study in engineering and musical performance co-design. 2015 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, Seattle, Washington. American Society for Engineering Education-ASEE. https://doi.org/10.18260/p.24460

23.

*Brown

Power

Shortland

Gore

(2023). Expertise in action: Insights from naturalistic decision making (NDM). In Farina

Lavazza

(Eds.), Philosophy, expertise, and the myth of neutrality (pp. 128–146). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003374480-10

24.

Carmeli

Levi

Peccei

(2021). Resilience and creative problem-solving capacities in project teams: A relational view. International Journal of Project Management, 39(5), 546–556. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2021.03.007

25.

Chan

Paletz

S. B.

Schunn

C. D.

(2012). Analogy as a strategy for supporting complex problem-solving under uncertainty. Memory & Cognition, 40, 1352–1365. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-012-0227-z

26.

*Chan

Schunn

(2015). The impact of analogies on creative concept generation: Lessons from an in vivo study in engineering design. Cognitive Science, 39(1), 126–155. https://doi.org/10.1111/cogs.12127

27.

Chang

T.-S.

Wang

H.-C.

Haynes

A. M.

Song

M.-M.

Lai

S.-Y.

Hsieh

S.-H.

(2022). Enhancing student creativity through an interdisciplinary, project-oriented problem-based learning undergraduate curriculum. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 46, 101173. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2022.101173

28.

*Chen

Y. V.

Qian

Z. C.

(2014). Enhance creative thinking by collaborating with designers [Conference Paper]. Association for Engineering Education–Engineering Library Division Papers. ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global.

29.

Chi

M. T. H.

Feltovich

P. J.

Glaser

(1981). Categorization and representation of physics problems by experts and novices. Cognitive Science, 5, 121–152. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog0502_2

30.

Chiu

M. M.

Khoo

(2005). A new method for analyzing sequential processes: Dynamic multilevel analysis. Small Group Research, 36(5), 600–631. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046496405279309

31.

Choi

H. H.

Kim

M. J.

(2017). The effects of analogical and metaphorical reasoning on design thinking. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 23, 29–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2016.11.004

32.

*Christensen

B. T.

Ball

L. J.

(2016). Creative analogy use in a heterogeneous design team: The pervasive role of background domain knowledge. Design Studies, 46, 38–58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2016.07.004

33.

Ciriello

R. F.

Richter

Mathiassen

(2024). Emergence of creativity in IS development teams: A socio-technical systems perspective. International Journal of Information Management, 74, 102698. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2023.102698

34.

*Collin

(2009). Multidisciplinary, interdisciplinary, and transdisciplinary collaboration: Implications for vocational psychology. International Journal for Educational and Vocational Guidance, 9(2), 101–110. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10775-009-9155-2

35.

Collins

M. M.

(2021). Teachers’ knowledge, beliefs, and experiences in supporting students to become scientifically literate citizens: A community of practice perspective. ProQuest Dissertations & Theses.

36.

Danaher

Schoepp

(2020). Effective assessment of workplace problem-solving in higher education. Journal of Information Technology Education, 19, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.28945/4496

37.

Darley

J. M.

Glucksberg

Kamin

L. J.

Kinchla

R. A.

(1984). Psychology (2nd ed.). Princeton-Hall.

38.

Davidsen

Ryberg

Bernhard

(2020). “Everything comes together”: Students’ collaborative development of a professional dialogic practice in architecture and design education. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 37, 100678. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2020.100678

39.

DeChurch

L. A.

Mesmer-Magnus

J. R.

(2010). Measuring shared team mental models: A meta-analysis. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 14(1), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0017455

40.

Denzin

N. K.

(2009). The research act: A theoretical introduction to sociological methods. Aldine Transaction.

41.

Dinsmore

D. L.

Fryer

L. K.

Dumas

D. G.

(2023). A theoretical and metatheoretical reframing of the development of cognitive processing and learning. Educational Psychology Review, 35(3), 66. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-023-09789-3

42.

Dringenberg

Purzer

. (2018). Experiences of first-year engineering students working on ill-structured problems in teams. Journal of Engineering Education, 107(3), 442–467. https://doi.org/10.1002/jee.20220

43.

Dumas

(2017). Relational reasoning in science, medicine, and engineering. Educational Psychology Review, 29, 73–95. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-016-9370-6

44.

Dunbar

(1998). Problem-solving. In Bechtel

Graham

(Eds.), A companion to cognitive science (pp. 289–298). Blackwell.

45.

Dunbar

(2001). The analogical paradox: Why analogy is so easy in naturalistic settings yet so difficult in the psychological laboratory. In Gentner

Holyoak

K. J.

Kokinov

B. N.

(Eds.), The analogical mind: Perspectives from cognitive science (pp. 313–334). The MIT Press.

46.

Ertl

Steinmair

Löffler-Stastka

(2021). Encouraging communication and cooperation in e-learning: Solving and creating new interdisciplinary case histories. GMS Journal for Medical Education, 38(3), Doc62. https://doi.org/10.3205/zma001458

47.

Fassett

K. T.

Wolcott

M. D.

Harpe

S. E.

McLaughlin

J. E.

(2022). Considerations for writing and including demographic variables in education research. Currents in Pharmacy Teaching and Learning, 14(8), 1068–1078. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cptl.2022.07.022

48.

Fiore

S. M.

Elias

Salas

Warner

Letsky

(2010). From data, to information, to knowledge: Measuring knowledge building in the context of collaborative cognition. In Patterson

Miller

(Eds.), Macrocognition metrics and scenarios: Design and evaluation for realworld teams (pp. 179–200). Ashgate.

49.

*Flannery

K. A.

Malita

(2014). An interdisciplinary team project: Psychology and computer science students create online cognitive tasks. College Teaching, 62(4), 143–149. https://doi.org/10.1080/87567555.2014.956040

50.

Fleuren

Nübold

Hülsheger

(2021). COVID-19 and the need for integrative holistic research. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 14(1–2), 152–155. https://doi.org/10.1017/iop.2021.37

51.

Frederiksen

, (1984). Implications of cognitive theory for instruction in problem solving. Review of Educational Research, 54(1), 363–407. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2330-8516.1983.tb00019.x

52.

Frederiksen

(1986). Toward a broader conception of human intelligence. American Psychologist, 41(4), 445. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.41.4.445

53.

Frey

L. R.

(1994). The naturalistic paradigm: Studying small groups in the postmodern era. Small Group Research, 25(4), 551–577. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046496494254008

54.

Gick

(1986). Problem-solving strategies. Educational Psychologist, 21(1), 99–120. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep2101&2_6

55.

*Goel

A. K.

Wiltgen

Lamontagne

Plaza

(2014). On the role of analogy in resolving cognitive dissonance in collaborative interdisciplinary design. In Keane

M. T.

Wiratunga

(Eds.), Case-based reasoning research and development (pp. 185–199). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-11209-1_14

56.

Goldman

A. I.

(1983). Epistemology and the theory of problem-solving. Synthese, 55, 21–48. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00485372

57.

Gooding

Parry

Alpay

(2024). Identification and facilitation: Can the competencies for multidisciplinary, interdisciplinary, and transdisciplinary work be distinguished from one another? In Anand

D. K.

Hazelwood

D. A.

Pecht

M. G.

Kapilashrami

(Eds.), Engineering for social change (pp. 916–925). IOS Press.

58.

Graesser

A. C.

Fiore

S. M.

Greiff

Andrews-Todd

Foltz

P. W.

Hesse

F. W.

(2018). Advancing the science of collaborative problem-solving. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 19(2), 59–92. https://doi.org/10.1177/1529100618808244

59.

*Hanum

Findyartini

Soemantri

(2023). Collaborative clinical reasoning learning using an integrated care pathway in undergraduate interprofessional education: An explorative study. Journal of Interprofessional Care, 37(3), 438–447. https://doi.org/10.1080/13561820.2022.2086221

60.

Hardt

Mayer

Rincke

(2025). Who does the talking here? The impact of gender composition on team interactions. Management Science, 71(5), 3641–4531. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2023.03411

61.

Hattery

A. J.

Smith

Magnuson

Monterrosa

Kafonek

Shaw

Mhonde

R. D.

Kanewske

L. C.

(2022). Diversity, equity, and inclusion in research teams: The good, the bad, and the ugly. Race and Justice, 12(3), 505–530. https://doi.org/10.1177/21533687221087373

62.

*Hjörne

Säljö

(2014). Analysing and preventing school failure: Exploring the role of multi-professionality in pupil health team meetings. International Journal of Educational Research, 63, 5–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2012.09.005

63.

Holyoak

K. J.

(1991). Symbolic connectionism: toward third-generation theories of expertise. In Ericsson

Toward a general theory of expertise: Prospects and limits (pp. 301-335). Cambridge University Press.

64.

Holyoak

K. J.

Morrison

R. G.

(2005). The Oxford handbook of thinking and reasoning. Oxford University Press.

65.

Humphrey

(1951). Thinking. Methuen.

66.

Jacob

J. W.

(2015). Interdisciplinary trends in higher education. Palgrave Communications, 1(1), 1–5. https://doi.org/10.1057/palcomms.2015.1

67.

Jacobsohn

G. C.

Leaf

Liao

Maru

A. P.

Engstrom

C. J.

Salwei

M. E.

Pankratz

G. T.

Eastman

Carayon

Wiegmann

D. A.

Galang

J. S.

Smith

M. A.

Shah

M. N.

Patterson

B. W.

(2022). Collaborative design and implementation of a clinical decision support system for automated fall-risk identification and referrals in emergency departments. Healthcare (Amsterdam, Netherlands), 10(1), 100598. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hjdsi.2021.100598

68.

Johnson

D. W.

Johnson

R. T.

(1989). Cooperation and competition: Theory and research. Interaction Book Co.

69.

Johnson-Laird

P. N.

Wason

P. C.

(1977). Thinking: readings in cognitive science. Cambridge University Press.

70.

Jonassen

Strobel

Lee

C. B.

(2006). Everyday problem-solving in engineering: Lessons for engineering educators. Journal of Engineering Education, 95(2), 139–151. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2168-9830.2006.tb00885.x

71.

Jonassen

D. H.

(1997). Instructional design models for well-structured and ill-structured problem-solving learning outcomes. Educational Technology Research and Development, 45(1), 65–94. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02299613

72.

Jones

Buntting

de Vries

M. J.

(2013). The developing field of technology education: A review to look forward. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 23, 191–212. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-011-9174-4

73.

Jurdak

M. E.

(2006). Contrasting perspectives and performance of high school students on problem-solving in real world, situated, and school contexts. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 63(3), 283–301. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-005-9008-y

74.

*Kiernan

Ledwith

Lynch

(2020a). Comparing the dialogue of experts and novices in interdisciplinary teams to inform design education. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 30(1), 187–206. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-019-09495-8

75.

*Kiernan

Ledwith

Lynch

(2020b). Design teams management of conflict in reaching consensus. International Journal of Conflict Management, 31(2), 263–285. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJCMA-06-2019-0097

76.

*Kiernan

Ledwith

Lynch

(2022). An exploration of the cognitive processes of design teams to inform design education and practice. Design and Technology Education, 27(1), 82–101. https://doi.org/10.24377/DTEIJ.article1154

77.

Kilpatrick

(1969). Problem-solving in mathematics. Review of Educational Research, 39(4), 523–534. https://doi.org/10.2307/1169713

78.

Klauer

K. J.

Phye

G. D.

(2008). Inductive reasoning: A training approach. Review of Educational Research, 78(1), 85–123. http://www.jstor.org/stable/40071122

79.

Klein

J. T.

(2011). A taxonomy of interdisciplinarity. In Frodeman

Klein

J. T.

Mitcham

(Eds.), The Oxford handbook of interdisciplinarity (pp. 15–30). Oxford University Press.

80.

Kodkanon

Pinit

Murphy

(2018). High-school teachers’ experiences of interdisciplinary team teaching. Issues in Educational Research, 28(4), 967–989.

81.

Kozlowski

S. W. J.

(2025). A multilevel, emergent journey to unpack team process dynamics. Small Group Research, 56(3), 487–523. https://doi.org/10.1177/10464964241281347

82.

Kulikowich

J. M.

DeFranco

T. C.

(2003). Philosophy’s role in characterizing the nature of educational psychology and mathematics. Educational Psychologist, 38(3), 147–156. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15326985EP3803_4

83.

Kuo

H. C.

Tseng

Y. C.

Yang

Y. T. C.

(2019). Promoting college student’s learning motivation and creativity through a STEM interdisciplinary PBL human-computer interaction system design and development course. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 31, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2018.09.001

84.

Lajoie

S. P.

(2003). Transitions and trajectories for studies of expertise. Educational Researcher, 32(8), 21–25. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X032008021

85.

*Lee

C.-Y.

Lee

C.-H.

Yau

S.-Y.

Lai

H.-Y.

Chen

P.-J.

Chen

M.-M.

(2025). Enhancing collaborative clinical reasoning among multidisciplinary healthcare teams in a neurosurgery ICU: Insights from video-reflexive ethnography. BMC Medical Education, 25(1), 207–212. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-025-06782-y

86.

*Lee

(2019). Revitalising traditional street markets in rural Korea: Design thinking and sense-making methodology. The International Journal of Art & Design Education, 38(1), 256–269. https://doi.org/10.1111/jade.12183

87.

Leonard

J. I.

(2020). A systems analysis approach to understanding the physiological adaptation to spaceflight. Glenn Research Center.

88.

Lipman

(2003). Thinking in education (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press.

89.

List

Sun

(2023). To clarity and beyond: Situating higher-order, critical, and critical-analytic thinking in the literature on learning from multiple texts. Educational Psychology Review, 35(2), 40. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-023-09756-y

90.

Luksyte

Avery

D. R.

Parker

S. K.

Wang

Johnson

L. U.

Crepeau

(2022). Age diversity in teams: Examining the impact of the least agreeable member. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 43(3), 546–565. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2570

91.

*McMahon

Bhamra

(2017). Mapping the journey: Visualizing collaborative experiences for sustainable design education. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 27(4), 595–609. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-016-9365-0

92.

McNeill

N. J.

Douglas

E. P.

Koro-Ljungberg

Therriault

D. J.

Krause

(2016). Undergraduate students’ beliefs about engineering problem-solving. Journal of Engineering Education, 105(4), 560–584. https://doi.org/10.1002/jee.20150

93.

Meah

Hake

Wilkerson

S. D.

(2020). A multidisciplinary capstone design project to satisfy ABET student outcomes. Education Research International, 2020, 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1155/2020/9563782

94.

Merriam

S. B.

Tisdell

E. J.

(2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. Jossey-Bass.

95.

Millar

M. M.

Dillman

D. A.

(2013). Trends in interdisciplinary dissertation research: An analysis of the survey of earned doctorates (Working Paper NCSES 12-200). National Science Foundation, National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics.

96.

*Miller

V. J.

Murphy

E. R.

Cronley

Fields

N. L.

Keaton

(2019). Student experiences engaging in interdisciplinary research collaborations: A case study for social work education. Journal of Social Work Education, 55(4), 750–766. https://doi.org/10.1080/10437797.2019.1627260

97.

Murphy

P. K.

Greene

J. A.

Firetto

C. M.

Hendrick

B. D.

Montalbano

Wei

(2018). Quality talk: Developing students’ discourse to promote high-level comprehension. American Educational Research Journal, 55(5), 1113–1160. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831218771303

98.

Nelson

King

J. R.

(2023). Discourse synthesis: Textual transformations in writing from sources. Reading & Writing, 36(4), 769–808. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-021-10243-5

99.

Newell

Simon

H. A.

(1972). Human problem-solving. Prentice-Hall.

100.

Nisbett

R. E.

(1993). Rules for reasoning. L. Erlbaum Associates.

101.

Nissani

(1995). Fruits, salads, and smoothies: a working definition of interdisciplinarity. Journal of Educational Thought, 29(2), 121–128.

102.

*Noroozi

(2013). Fostering argumentation-based computer-supported collaborative learning in higher education [Doctoral Dissertation, Wageningen University]. ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global.

103.

*Noroozi

Teasley

S. D.

Biemans

H. J. A.

Weinberger

Mulder

(2013). Facilitating learning in multidisciplinary groups with transactive CSCL scripts. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 8(2), 189–223. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-012-9162-z

104.

O’Bryan

Oxendahl

Chen

McDuff

Segarra

Wettergreen

Beier

M. E.

Sabharwal

(2024). Objective communication patterns associated with team member effectiveness in real-world virtual teams. Human Factors, 66(5), 1414–1430. https://doi.org/10.1177/00187208221147341

105.

Oleson

Xie

Salac

Everson

Kivuva

F. M.

A. J.

Vahrenhold

Fisler

Franklin

Hauswirth

(2022). A decade of demographics in computing education research: A critical review of trends in collection, reporting, and use. Proceedings of the 2022 ACM Conference on International Computing Education Research, 1, 323–343. https://doi.org/10.1145/3501385.3543967

106.

Oprisan

S. A.

(2022). Interdisciplinary curriculum for computational neuroscience at primarily undergraduate institutions. Journal of Computational Science, 61, 101642. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jocs.2022.101642

107.

*Packard

Chelal

Maio

Doll

Furze

Huggett

Jensen

Jorgensen

Wilken

(2012). Interprofessional team reasoning framework as a tool for case study analysis with health professions students: A randomized study. Journal of Research in Interprofessional Practice and Education, 2(3), 250–263. https://doi.org/10.22230/jripe.2012v2n3a96

108.

Page

M. J.

McKenzie

J. E.

Bossuyt

P. M.

Boutron

Hoffmann

T. C.

Mulrow

C. D.

Shamseer

Tetzlaff

J. M.

Akl

E. A.

Brennan

S. E.

Chou

Glanville

Grimshaw

J. M.

Hróbjartsson

Lalu

M. M.

Loder

E. W.

Mayo-Wilson

McDonald

. . . Moher

(2021). The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ, 372, n71. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n71

109.

Paletz

S. B. F.

Schunn

C. D.

Kim

K. H.

(2011). Intragroup conflict under the microscope: Micro-conflicts in naturalistic team discussions. Negotiation and Conflict Management Research, 4(4), 314–351. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1750-4716.2011.00085.x

110.

*Paletz

S. B. F.

Schunn

C. D.

Kim

K. H.

(2013). The interplay of conflict and analogy in multidisciplinary teams. Cognition, 126(1), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2012.07.020

111.

Payne

D. G.

Westerman

D. L.

(2003). Research methods in cognition. In Davis

S. F.

(Ed.), Handbook of research methods in experimental psychology (pp. 365–388). Blackwell Publishing.

112.

Phoenix

Osborne

N. J.

Redshaw

Moran

Stahl-Timmins

Depledge

M. H.

Fleming

L. E.

Wheeler

B. W.

(2013). Paradigmatic approaches to studying environment and human health: (Forgotten) implications for interdisciplinary research. Environmental Science & Policy, 25, 218–228. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2012.10.015

113.

Poirier

Forgues

Staub-French

(2016). Collaboration through innovation: Implications for expertise in the AEC sector. Construction Management and Economics, 34(11), 769–789. https://doi.org/10.1080/01446193.2016.1206660

114.

Poluektova

Kappas

Smith

C. A.

(2023). Using Bandura’s self-efficacy theory to explain individual differences in the appraisal of problem-focused coping potential. Emotion Review, 15(4), 302–312. https://doi.org/10.1177/17540739231164367

115.

Pólya

(1945). How to solve it: A new aspect of mathematical method. Princeton University Press.

116.

Price

Salehi

Burkholder

Kim

Isava

Flynn

Wieman

(2022). An accurate and practical method for assessing science and engineering problem-solving expertise. International Journal of Science Education, 44(13), 2061–2084. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2022.2111668

117.

Puntambekar

(2022). Distributed scaffolding: Scaffolding students in classroom environments. Educational Psychology Review, 34(1), 451–472. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-021-09636-3

118.

Raine

Xanthopoulou

Wallace

a’Bháird

C. N.

Lanceley

Clarke

Livingston

Prentice

Ardron

Harris

King

Michie

Blazeby

J. M.

Austin-Parsons

Gibbs

Barber

(2014). Determinants of treatment plan implementation in multidisciplinary team meetings for patients with chronic diseases: A mixed-methods study. BMJ Quality & Safety, 23(10), 867–876. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjqs-2014-002818

119.

Razak

A. A.

Ramdan

M. R.

Mahjom

Zabit

M. N. M.

Muhammad

Hussin

M. Y. M.

Abdullah

N. L.

(2022). Improving critical thinking skills in teaching through problem-based learning for students: A scoping review. International Journal of Learning, Teaching and Educational Research, 21(2), 342–362. https://doi.org/10.26803/ijlter.21.2.19

120.

Razzouk

Shute

(2012). What is design thinking and why is it important? Review of Educational Research, 82(3), 330–348. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654312457429

121.

Reed

S. K.

(2016). The structure of ill-structured (and well-structured) problems revisited. Educational Psychology Review, 28(4), 691–716. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-015-9343-1

122.

Rhodes

K. T.

Richland

L. E.

Alcalá

(2024). Problem solving is embedded in context… so how do we measure it? Frontiers in Psychology, 15, Article 1380178. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1380178

123.

Salas

Cooke

N. J.

Rosen

M. A.

(2008). On teams, teamwork, and team performance: Discoveries and developments. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 50(3), 540–547. https://doi.org/10.1518/001872008x288457

124.

*Schöfer

Maranzana

Aoussat

Bersano

Buisine

(2018). Distinct and combined effects of disciplinary composition and methodological support on problem-solving in groups. Creativity and Innovation Management, 27(1), 102–115. https://doi.org/10.1111/caim.12258

125.

Schunn

C. D.

(2017). Building from in vivo research to the future of research on relational thinking and learning. Educational Psychology Review, 29(1), 97–104. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-016-9384-0

126.

*Seidel

V. P.

Fixson

S. K.

(2013). Adopting design thinking in novice multidisciplinary teams: The application and limits of design methods and reflexive practices. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 30, 19–33. https://doi.org/10.1111/jpim.12061

127.

*Seif

Coker-Bolt

Kraft

Gonsalves

Simpson

Johnson

(2014). The development of clinical reasoning and interprofessional behaviors: Service-learning at a student-run free clinic. Journal of Interprofessional Care, 28(6), 559–564. https://doi.org/10.3109/13561820.2014.921899

128.

*Shen

Sung

Zhang

(2015). Toward an analytic framework of interdisciplinary reasoning and communication (IRC) processes in science. International Journal of Science Education, 37(17), 2809–2835. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2015.1106026

129.

Simon

H. A.

(1973). The structure of ill structured problems. Artificial Intelligence, 4(3–4), 181–201. https://doi.org/10.1016/0004-3702(73)90011-8

130.

Singh

Chakrabarti

(2024). Assessment of structuredness of problems in design. Proceedings of the Design Society, 4, 1085–1094. https://doi.org/10.1017/pds.2024.111

131.

Sioshansi

Denholm

Arteaga

Awara

Bhattacharjee

Botterud

Cole

Cortés

de Queiroz

DeCarolis

Ding

DiOrio

Dvorkin

Helman

Johnson

J. X.

Konstantelos

Mai

Pandžić

Sodano

. . . Zhang

(2021). Energy-storage modeling: State-of-the-art and future research directions. IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, 37(2), 860–875. https://doi.org/10.1109/TPWRS.2021.3104768

132.

Slavin

R. E.

(1995). Cooperative learning: Theory, research, and practice (2nd ed.). Allyn and Bacon.

133.

*Sorici

C. O.

Sălceanu

Matei

R. S.

Sburlan

D. F.

Țiței

Gîrțu

M. A.

(2023). An extracurricular project-based training course in innovation and entrepreneurship delivered to a transdisciplinary group of students in engineering, social sciences, arts and medicine. Education Sciences, 13(10), 967. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci13100967

134.

*Soukup Ascencao

. (2017). Socio-cognitive factors that affect decision-making in cancer multidisciplinary team meetings [Doctoral Dissertation, Imperial College London]. ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global.

135.

*Spelt

E. J. H.

Luning

P. A.

van Boekel

M. A. J. S.

Mulder

(2017). A multidimensional approach to examine student interdisciplinary learning in science and engineering in higher education. European Journal of Engineering Education, 42(6), 761–774. https://doi.org/10.1080/03043797.2016.1224228

136.

Spiro

R. J.

Jehng

J. C.

(1990). Cognitive flexibility and hypertext: Theory and technology for the nonlinear and multidimensional traversal of complex subject matter. In Nix

Spiro

R. J.

(Eds.), Cognition, education, and multimedia (pp. 163–205). Erlbaum.

137.

Stafford

R. E.

(1972). Hereditary and environmental components of quantitative reasoning. Review of Educational Research, 42(2), 183–201. https://doi.org/10.2307/1170016

138.

Steffensen

S. V.

Vallée-Tourangeau

(2016). Cognitive events in a problem-solving task: A qualitative method for investigating interactivity in the 17 Animals problem. Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 28(1), 79–105. https://doi.org/10.1080/20445911.2015.1095193

139.

*Tan

de Weerd

J. G.

Stoyanov

(2021). Supporting interdisciplinary collaborative concept mapping with individual preparation phase. Educational Technology Research and Development, 69(2), 607–626. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-021-09963-w

140.

Tang

(2019). Fostering creativity in intercultural and interdisciplinary teams: The VICTORY model. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 455257. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02020

141.

Wagner

C. S.

Roessner

J. D.

Bobb

Klein

J. T.

Boyack

K. W.

Keyton

. . . Börner

(2011). Approaches to understanding and measuring interdisciplinary scientific research (IDR): A review of the literature. Journal of Informetrics, 5(1), 14-26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2010.06.004

142.

*Ward

L. D.

Bray

B. S.

Odom-Maryon

T. L.

Richardson

Purath

Woodard

L. J.

Kobayashi

Beary

Willson

M. N.

Clauser

J. M.

Fitzgerald

(2016). Development, implementation and evaluation of a longitudinal interprofessional education project. Journal of Interprofessional Education & Practice, 3, 35–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.xjep.2016.04.003

143.

*Wu

T.-T.

Huang

Y.-M. R.

(2017). Board #37: Work in progress: Influence of cognitive concept connection, personal motivations, and personal characteristics when assessing creativity [Conference Paper]. Association for Engineering Education–Engineering Library Division Papers. ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global.

144.

Xun

Land

S. M.

(2004). A conceptual framework for scaffolding ill-structured problem-solving processes using question prompts and peer interactions. Educational Technology Research and Development, 52(2), 5–22. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02504836

145.

Yang

Green

A. E.

Chen

Kenett

Y. N.

Sun

Wei

Qiu

(2022). Creative problem-solving in knowledge-rich contexts. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 26(10), 849–859. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2022.06.012

146.

*Yong

Sauer

S. J.

Mannix

E. A.

(2014). Conflict and creativity in interdisciplinary teams. Small Group Research, 45(3), 266–289. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046496414530789

147.

Zhang

Shen

(2015). Disciplinary foundations for solving interdisciplinary scientific problems. International Journal of Science Education, 37(15), 2555–2576. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2015.1085658

148.

Zhang

Pastel

(2015). Interdisciplinary team collaboration between software engineers and technical communicators. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, 59(1), 1137–1141. https://doi.org/10.1177/1541931215591166

149.

*Zhou

X.-Y.

Wang

Y.-F.

Dou

C.-X.

Tian

X.-Y.

Chen

Y.-Y.

Yan

F.-X.

Yang

Q.-H.

Wang

(2022). Evaluating the effects of simulated interprofessional teaching on the development of clinical core competence in nursing students: A mixed methods study. BMC Nursing, 21(1), 362–362. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12912-022-01108-5

150.

*Zyfers

(2019). Creativity in action: University students use metacognition when completing creativity exercises [Doctoral Dissertation, University of Washington Libraries]. ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.05 MB