Breaking Disciplinary Silos: Implementing an Interdisciplinary Course on Multi Hazards

Practice Paper Recommended citation: Winkens, A.-K., & Reinert, J. (2025). Breaking Disciplinary Silos: Implementing an Interdisciplinary Course on Multi Hazards. In Kangaslampi, R., Langie, G., Järvinen, H.-M., & Nagy, B. (Eds.), SEFI 53rd Annual Conference. European Society for Engineering Education (SEFI), Tampere, Finland. DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.17631404. This Conference Paper is brought to you for open access by the 53rd Annual Conference of the European Society for Engineering Education (SEFI) at Tampere University in Tampere, Finland. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-Share Alike 4.0 International License. BREAKING DISCIPLINARY SILOS: IMPLEMENTING AN INTERDISCIPLINARY COURSE ON MULTI HAZARDS Ann-Kristin Winkens a, 1 , Jens Reinert b a RWTH Aachen University, Aachen, Germany, ORCID 0000-0003-4637-3905 b RWTH Aachen University, Aachen, Germany, ORCID 0009-0008-9161-6279 Conference Key Areas: Engineering skills, professional skills, and transversal skills; Sustainability and society in engineering Keywords: Interdisciplinarity, Disaster Management, Complex Problem-Solving, Climate Change ABSTRACT Interdisciplinary learning is crucial in engineering education to address complex societal challenges, yet its implementation remains difficult due to disciplinary boundaries and rigid curricula. This practice paper presents insights from the interdisciplinary course “Multi Hazards” at RWTH Aachen University, which is embedded in the university-wide “Leonardo” project. The course uses a caseand problem-based learning approach to equip students with interdisciplinary competencies for disaster and risk management. Students from diverse academic backgrounds collaboratively analyze crisis scenarios, integrating technical, social, and environmental perspectives. Findings from two course iterations (2023 and 2024) highlight the benefits of interdisciplinary teamwork in fostering problemsolving, communication, and critical thinking skills. Students gained an appreciation for different disciplinary perspectives and developed strategies for overcoming communication barriers. However, challenges emerged, particularly in balancing disciplinary expertise and integrating diverse methodologies. The study emphasizes the importance of structured facilitation, explicit training in interdisciplinary communication, and the systematic integration of interdisciplinary courses within curricula. 1 Corresponding Author A. Winkens [email protected] 1 INTRODUCTION In an increasingly volatile, uncertain, complex, and ambiguous (VUCA) world, engineering education must evolve to prepare students for the challenges ahead (Kamp, 2020). Natural hazards and disasters occur more and more frequently, with their impacts exacerbated by the interconnectedness of socio-technical systems. Addressing these challenges requires innovative, sustainable, and resilient solutions that enhance the adaptive capacity of infrastructure and society (Helmrich & Chester, 2020). Given the complexity of these global issues, future engineers must be equipped with interdisciplinary competencies to understand problems holistically and develop integrated solutions in a collaborative way (Hadgraft & Kolmos, 2020). However, current engineering education often falls short in disaster preparedness, leaving students without the necessary skills to navigate such complexities (Martin et al., 2022; Scharte, 2019; Winkens & Leicht-Scholten, 2023). Interdisciplinarity is increasingly recognized as a key competency for engineers, as it enables them to address complex socio-technical challenges by integrating diverse perspectives (Hadgraft & Kolmos, 2020; Van den Beemt et al., 2020). Interdisciplinarity involves an ongoing process of redefining problems within complex, real-world contexts. It requires participants to bridge disciplinary boundaries, critically reassess existing knowledge, and develop new perspectives. This demands a shared focus, common methodologies, and a collaborative mindset, making the coordination and communication between disciplines particularly challenging (Bertel et al., 2021). Despite its value, implementing interdisciplinary approaches remains difficult due to, e.g., rigid curricular structures, disciplinary silos and faculty views or lacking support (Bertel et al., 2021; Van den Beemt et al., 2020). Problemand project-based learning (PBL) is frequently proposed as a means to foster interdisciplinary collaboration and real-world problem-solving (Kolmos et al., 2020; Van den Beemt et al., 2020). However, many PBL applications remain confined within disciplinary boundaries, requiring a broader, systemic approach to truly develop interdisciplinary competencies (Kolmos et al., 2024). This paper presents insights into the practical implementation of an interdisciplinary course at a technical university in Germany that addresses disaster and risk management through caseand problem-based learning. Its purpose is to illustrate how structured, student-centered approaches can foster interdisciplinary competencies and to reflect on challenges and success factors that arise when students with diverse academic backgrounds work together on real-world crisis scenarios. By sharing the design, implementation, and evaluation of the course, this paper aims to provide actionable guidance for integrating interdisciplinarity into engineering education. 2 CONTEXT AND COURSE DESIGN 2.1 The “Multi Hazards” Course and the “Leonardo” Project “Multi Hazards – Interdisciplinary Perspectives on Dealing with Crises” is a recurring, elective 4 ECTS seminar at RWTH Aachen University, one of the largest technical universities in Germany. It aims to sensitize students from diverse academic backgrounds with interdisciplinary competencies to address natural hazards and disasters. The course is open to all students and due to the concept limited to a maximum of 35 participants. The course is embedded in the university-wide “Leonardo” project, an initiative designed to foster interdisciplinary learning and collaboration in response to global societal challenges (Leonardo Project, no date; Winkens et al., 2021). Its guiding principles are interdisciplinarity, responsibility, and participation, aligning with the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). The primary objectives are to go beyond departmental and disciplinary boundaries, enabling students to engage with diverse perspectives and disciplinary approaches through joint, interdisciplinary efforts. To foster interdisciplinarity, courses are co-facilitated by academics from different disciplines, promoting constructive integration of diverse subject matter and academic cultures. Courses are designed to minimize barriers, not presupposing specialized prior knowledge. Where necessary, foundational knowledge is provided within the courses. “Leonardo” courses are open to all students, both Bachelor’s and Master’s. In a few programs, such as environmental or civil engineering, the courses are also integrated into the curriculum. 2.2 Teaching and Learning Approach By the end of the “Multi Hazards” course, students should be able to explain theoretical concepts from disaster management, analyze failure mechanisms, derive implications for future crises, and present their findings effectively across disciplines. The course adopts a student-centered, interactive approach that integrates active learning, reflective practice and peer feedback, with core elements including collaborative and problem-based learning, which have been shown to be effective in fostering interdisciplinary collaboration (e.g., Kolmos et al., 2024; Kolmos et al., 2025; Van den Beemt et al., 2020), and are supported by expert lectures. Table 1 provides an overview of the methods and activities used in the course. Table 1. Overview of Teaching and Learning Activities Activity Description Lectures Invited experts and researchers from various disciplines present theoretical and applied aspects of disaster and risk management, providing students with insights into interdisciplinary scientific discourses and practical work. The lectures are followed by discussions, allowing students to engage directly with the experts. Collaborative Learning Students work in groups throughout the course. For the final assessment, instructors compose teams with maximal heterogeneity in terms of disciplinary backgrounds to foster interdisciplinary exchange and ensure that a broad diversity of perspectives is represented, which is essential for interdisciplinary learning (Kolmos et al., 2025). Caseand Problem-based Learning Students work collaboratively on given fictitious, complex and illstructured crisis scenarios to develop interdisciplinary and creative solutions. (Peer) Feedback Through feedback, students actively reflect on their learning process and performance, as constructive feedback has been shown to enhance learning outcomes (Das, 2023). They provide feedback to other groups on their work and share their thoughts on the course concept with the instructor. In return, students receive both oral and structured written feedback from the instructors and have the opportunity to attend consultation hours at any time. Reflective Writing Students submit a reflection report evaluating the relevance of interdisciplinarity for their learning process, as well as the challenges and opportunities of interdisciplinary group work, as the continuous reflection during and after collaborative experiences in interdisciplinary contexts is crucial (Kolmos et al., 2025). 2.3 Course Structure The course consists of three main parts, each building on the previous to support students’ learning. While the specific content of each session varies, the overall structure is based on a flexible approach that combines input phases by instructors or invited experts with collaborative group work and reflective discussions. First, students are introduced to the course concept, the motivation behind it, and the growing relevance of natural and climate-related hazards. They also explore key terms and foundational concepts, including how the term “disaster” is understood and used across different disciplines (McPhillips et al., 2018). Another session focuses on the relevance and challenges of interdisciplinary teamwork, highlighting that prior experience in disciplinary group work does not automatically translate to effective collaboration across disciplines (Kolmos et al., 2024). Within this session and to develop an awareness of the challenges in interdisciplinary collaboration, students were asked to explain a typical term from their respective discipline (e.g., habitus in sociology, surface load in civil engineering, or life-cycle assessment in environmental engineering) to their peers without using technical jargon. The second part of the course features expert lectures from various disciplines on topics related to disaster and risk management. The experts are invited by the instructors of the course. These lectures provide students with the necessary background knowledge from different perspectives and are followed by a joint discussion. Example topics include an introduction to national institutions dealing with (natural) disasters by the German Federal Office of Civil Protection and Disaster Assistance; natural hazards and psychological stress; challenges in early warning systems and risk communication, and gender-related aspects in the context of climate hazards (see course website for the program in 2024). The third part focuses on group work, where students collaboratively analyze a case study, which they then present in the form of a screencast. This presentation serves as the basis for their final assessment. In a concluding session, the course concept is jointly reviewed and discussed with the students. 2.4 Cases and Examination The assignment for the course consists of group presentations (graded) and an individual reflection report (ungraded). Students work in interdisciplinary teams of up to six members and analyze a chosen case study from a set of five scenarios. The groups are divided up by the instructors at the beginning of the semester in order to ensure the greatest possible heterogeneity between study programs and degrees. Students present their interim results in a pitch, where they receive feedback from the other groups and the instructors to improve their final screencast. Each case study has been fictionally co-developed by the instructors and provides background information on three crisis phases: pre-crisis stage, crisis escalation, and post-crisis impact to ensure that students consider a crisis situation holistically. The cases specifically address VUCA aspects, meaning that the information provided is intentionally uncertain, sometimes contradictory, and highly complex. The five case studies include: 1. Rare Flood Event – a sudden crisis caused by an extreme flood 2. Debris Flow – a gradually developing crisis due to geological instability 3. Severe Drought – a long-term water scarcity crisis 4. Strong Earthquake – a rapid-onset urban disaster (new in 2024) 5. Large-Scale Power Outage – a slowly emerging energy crisis (new in 2024) Each group must justify their case selection, i.e., the selection of a case is the first challenge for the groups. To illustrate, one case scenario involves a rare flood event in a mountainous region. Initial forecasts predict heavy rainfall, but authorities treat it as a routine situation. As the crisis unfolds, riverbanks fail, infrastructure collapses, and emergency communication systems are overwhelmed. A dam breaks, leading to casualties and severe disruptions to energy supply. Students are required to define and analyze the underlying problems of the case, damage patterns and failure mechanisms by considering the main triggers, affected people and involved actors, interdependencies of (sub-)systems as well as possible early warnings systems. The key focus is on learning from failure, and students are encouraged to incorporate their own assumptions and creative solutions. 3 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION The course has been conducted twice so far, in 2023 and 2024. The second iteration included adjustments based on lessons learned from the previous year. 3.1 Participants In 2023 and 2024, 15 and 17 students participated in the seminar and group work, respectively. Additionally, some students attended the lectures out of interest but did not complete the formal assessment. Table 2 shows the distribution of study programs for each year. While engineering students dominated in 2023, the 2024 cohort was more diverse. To ensure interdisciplinary perspectives, students were assigned to groups of 3–6 members with diverse academic backgrounds. Table 2. Overview of Course Participants’ Backgrounds Academic Field Study Programs 2023 2024 Engineering Civil Engineering (MSc), Electrical Engineering & IT (BSc), Energy Engineering (MSc), Environmental Engineering (BSc, MSc), Mechanical Engineering (BSc), Materials Science (MSc), Engineering Geohazards (MSc), Sustainable Resources and Energy Supply (MSc) 11 6 Geosciences Applied Geography (BSc), Georesources Management (BSc, MSc) 1 4 Architecture Architecture (BSc, MSc) 1 2 Natural Sciences Chemistry (MSc) 1 - Social Sciences and Humanities Social Sciences (BA), Sociology (BA) 1 5 Number of students 15 17 3.2 Case Selection and Group Work Students were free to select any of the five case studies to foster self-directed learning (Bertel et al., 2021). Notably, in both years, each group chose a different case. The reasons for their choices varied, including the alignment with their field of study (to apply existing knowledge), exploring unfamiliar topics (to broaden their perspective), interest in current issues such as the flooding in Germany in 2021, and personal curiosity. Groups worked highly autonomously, with no group opting for optional consultation sessions. The mid-course pitch session allowed students to receive structured (peer) feedback on strengths, weaknesses, challenges, and potential improvements, which was positively received. The final screencasts demonstrated high quality and diversity in approaches. Since no strict format was imposed for the screencasts, students had creative freedom in their presentation styles. Some groups followed a structured and analytical approach, systematically answering the guiding questions. Others took a very creative approach, stepping into the perspective of fictional affected individuals within their case. Examples included simulating a TED Talk or producing a TV discussion with experts and citizens. We observed the trend that in 2023, where most participants had an engineering background, groups tended to adopt a more methodical, analytical approach. In contrast, the more heterogeneous cohort in 2024 produced more creative and narrative-driven presentations. This observation can be attributed to the distinction between narrow and broad interdisciplinarity, where the first involves disciplines with similar methods and paradigms, such as different engineering disciplines, and the latter different disciplines, such as engineering and social sciences, characterized each by different methodological approaches and perspectives (Kolmos et al., 2020; Kolmos et al., 2024). 3.3 Evaluation The course was evaluated using two methods: A structured discussion with students at the end of the semester and an analysis of student reflection reports, in which they provided feedback on interdisciplinary collaboration, the case study process, and connections to their study programs and professional fields. The structured discussion is facilitated using a guided reflection format with prompts on interdisciplinary collaboration, challenges, lessons learned and the content of the expert lectures. Moreover, students are encouraged to provide concrete suggestions for improvement. They first reflect on these questions in small groups and then present their findings to the plenary. The discussion is documented and serves as a key feedback mechanism for the iterative development of the course. Students’ Learnings Students in both years emphasized the value of interdisciplinary collaboration, particularly in relation to disaster management: “I realized that it is not just about technical solutions when dealing with events like droughts and floods, but also about cooperation, communication, and the organization of authorities and the population.” Their reflections indicated that working in interdisciplinary groups helped them develop essential problem-solving skills by integrating multiple perspectives in disaster-related scenarios. Additionally, they improved their ability to use digital tools effectively, enhance creativity, and think critically – skills which are attributed to interdisciplinarity (Ming et al., 2024). Many students reported gaining a (deeper) understanding of different disciplinary viewpoints, which fostered openness, curiosity, and adaptability. They also noted the importance of patience and compromise when working with diverse team members, as well as the ability to communicate complex concepts across disciplines. The experience further strengthened their organizational skills and provided them with a more holistic understanding of disaster management by incorporating technical, social, and environmental aspects, as one engineering student realized: “As an engineer, I bear far more social responsibility than I had previously realized – especially when it comes to ensuring the supply of critical infrastructure, which forms the foundation of a healthy and developing society.” The reflection reports also highlighted that interdisciplinarity offers distinct advantages. Students agreed that complex challenges, such as climate-related hazards, can only be addressed effectively when different perspectives and problemsolving approaches are combined. They valued the opportunity to think more comprehensively about problems, learn alternative analytical methods, and develop a broader understanding of the issues at hand. It is also noteworthy that engineering students particularly emphasized the relevance and inclusion of social perspectives in disaster preparedness and response, while social science students appreciated the practical and application-oriented aspects of the course, as their studies are typically more theory-driven. Many saw this experience as an opportunity for personal growth, as it required them to be flexible, adaptable, and open to different ways of thinking. However, students also acknowledged several challenges associated with interdisciplinarity. Understanding and respecting different disciplinary perspectives required effort and self-reflection: “[...] to consider different perspectives and disciplinary backgrounds equally. During the collaboration, I often noticed that I placed greater emphasis on technical and scientific aspects compared to social perspectives. However, I see this as an opportunity of interdisciplinary collaboration – to first acknowledge that one’s own perspective is not necessarily the most important one and that it is impossible to take all relevant aspects into account alone.” Moreover, differences in working styles, methodological approaches and priorities sometimes led to difficulties in collaboration. Communication barriers emerged as another challenge, as each discipline tended to use specialized terminology that was not always easily understood by others. This sometimes led to misunderstandings, requiring additional effort to clarify concepts and ensure effective discussions. One student expressed this very aptly: “People with different backgrounds also have very different perspectives on the same problem. In my opinion, the key is to learn to speak the same language.” Furthermore, students noted that interdisciplinary work required a high degree of compromise and flexibility, as differing viewpoints and problem-solving approaches needed to be reconciled. Managing time effectively and distributing tasks fairly within the group also proved to be challenging, particularly when expectations regarding workload and deadlines varied. Students’ perceptions of the opportunities and challenges of interdisciplinary teamwork align with existing research (e.g., Bertel et al., 2021; Kolmos et al., 2024; Van den Beemt et al., 2020). This is especially true for the challenges, as it is indicated that interdisciplinary teams struggle to apply their disciplinary expertise effectively in an interdisciplinary context due to the increased complexity of the collaborative learning process (Bertel et al., 2021; Kolmos et al., 2024). Moreover, while the 2023 cohort (narrow interdisciplinarity) reported high satisfaction with group work, the 2024 cohort (broad interdisciplinarity) experienced some challenges due to differing levels of motivation among team members. Considering that it is easier for students to collaborate when disciplines share common knowledge paradigms, as when disciplines diverge significantly (e.g., engineering and social sciences), additional efforts are needed to facilitate integration (Kolmos et al., 2024; Kolmos et al., 2025). Our Learnings Based on student feedback from the 2023 cohort, we made several adjustments to the course concept in 2024. One key change was expanding the selection of case studies, incorporating earthquake and power outage scenarios in response to specific student requests. Moreover, we improved communication and moderation between experts and students aimed to strengthen connections between lectures and case studies. Another concern raised was that a significant portion of expert lectures focused on flooding, particularly the 2021 flood disaster in Germany. While this example was not explicitly requested from speakers, it was frequently referenced due to its relevance and diverse failure mechanisms. To diversify perspectives, we plan to invite experts specializing in earthquake research and power outages for the next course iteration. In both years, a recurring theme was uncertainty regarding the assignment requirements and expectations, as the course encourages creative freedom. After observing the exceptionally strong final presentations in 2023, we deliberately chose not to impose stricter guidelines but instead worked on making the assignment’s open-ended nature more transparent. Despite offering optional consultation sessions in both years, no group chose to attend. However, given the perceived uncertainty among students, we plan to make these sessions mandatory in the next iteration to provide additional and more structured guidance. Notably, a key insight is that students successfully navigated interdisciplinary collaboration with minimal instructor intervention. Their ability to work independently, despite initial uncertainty, highlights the effectiveness of immersive, student-led learning approaches in the context of interdisciplinarity group work. However, while intrinsic motivation plays a significant role, structural support mechanisms are needed to ensure productive collaboration, especially when groups are very heterogenous (Kolmos et al., 2024). While the 2023 cohort (narrow interdisciplinarity) consisted primarily of engineering students, the 2024 cohort (broad interdisciplinarity) included more heterogeneous disciplines. Despite theoretical assumptions that broad interdisciplinarity presents greater challenges, no significant differences in collaboration difficulties were observed. However, structured facilitation is crucial in ensuring effective teamwork, particularly in a short-term interdisciplinary intervention as the “Multi Hazards” course, which only spans one semester. Moreover, it should be noted that, currently, most students still do not get credits for “Leonardo” courses as co-curricular activities. This indicates high intrinsic motivation