Undergraduate education in the United States faces a persistent challenge regarding interdisciplinary learning opportunities among students of different degree programs. Despite the literature surrounding interdisciplinary learning in undergraduate education demonstrating a severe lack of adequate opportunities and advocating for deeper implementation, the problem still exists (Skorton & Bears, 2018). Disciplinary polarization contributes to artificial separation between STEM and arts & humanities majors. General education course requirements are meant to combat disciplinary segregation, but they primarily leave students unfulfilled, unmotivated, and unaware of the benefits of interdisciplinary collaboration (Michelfelder, 2015).
Interdisciplinary learning in general education is quite stagnant at many U.S. universities. Genuine interdisciplinary learning requires authentic integrated learning experiences to create solutions that combine disciplines and emphasize collaboration (Kolmos et al., 2023). When students are provided interdisciplinary learning opportunities and spaces, student confidence increases, and they develop transferable skills such as written communication, collaboration, critical thinking, and creative problem-solving in real-world contexts (Gwynne, 2012). A survey among recent graduates and current students at a U.S. university demonstrated the need for more relevant general education courses. Each participant noted a lack of connection and interest in their general education experiences.
This study proposes a general education course that invigorates STEM & arts fields in relevant, innovative, and viable ways. “Engineering Art History” integrates art history and engineering seamlessly to invigorate both STEM and art fields in relevant and innovative ways. The course uses a four-module structure focused on creating connections between disciplines. They include several hands-on assignments, with projects done in tandem with a local museum, and integrate an e-portfolio for reflection and continuity throughout the course.
The course design integrates three complementary learning theories. Lave & Wenger’s (1991) Situated Learning Theory, Experiential Learning (Kolb, 1984), and Bandura’s (1977) Social Learning Theory provide a solid foundation for integrating authentic tasks and fosters collaboration among students. Situated Learning Theory (Lave & Wenger, 1991) positions students within authentic communities of practice through peer collaborative work, professional integration, and instructor modeling. Experiential Learning Theory (Kolb, 1984) provides the framework for hands-on experiences enhanced by digital tools that amplify learning through simulation, visualization, and remote collaboration capabilities. Social Learning Theory (Bandura, 1977) emphasizes learning through observation, imitation, and modeling within social contexts, where students model cross-disciplinary thinking for one another.
With these theoretical foundations, the course can address challenges in interdisciplinary education and create a balanced, real-world-focused approach to both disciplines. Chamo and Broza (2025) identify curriculum development as a critical component in STEM teacher education that bridges disciplines in real-world contexts. Collaborative learning environments have been shown to enhance student engagement and connection to material, creating moments of personal importance for students to participate (Jalop & Paglinawan, 2025). Furthermore, using digital makerspace pedagogies through e-portfolios and hands-on learning environments can assist students in developing creativity and innovation in their interdisciplinary work (Soomro et al., 2023).
A needs assessment included surveys of engineering and art history students and recent graduates. Additionally, a subject matter expert (SME) was interviewed and consulted throughout the process of designing this course. The SME teaches an art history course to engineering students in a study abroad program in Italy each year, making her expertise with teaching an artistic discipline to STEM students pertinent to this course design. Results from the survey showed that 100% of engineering participants were dissatisfied with general education course offerings due to feelings of irrelevance. Furthermore, art history students specifically desired more applicable coursework that could be used in future careers beyond art historical research. There are clear degree requirement constraints that are undeniably important to fulfill, and this course is not meant to replace major coursework. Rather, it is a supplementary course meant to reinvigorate students in the classes they take outside their majors, providing an opportunity to connect their experiences beyond the classroom.
The course follows a four-module progression, scaffolded to build confidence and develop transferable skills in students. Students begin with foundational knowledge of both fields and advance to more complex concepts and applications through projects in each module. Module one addresses fundamentals of art and engineering, establishing shared vocabulary and conceptual frameworks. It allows students to view each other’s disciplines from their own experiences and backgrounds. Module two explores the intersection of materials science and art, allowing students to examine how material properties influence artistic creation, preservation, and meaning-making. Module three is focused on conservation and restoration efforts, showcasing how engineering principles are applied to cultural heritage preservation. Lastly, module four integrates each of the modules’ main concepts to investigate how museum spaces are engineered for both aesthetic and practical reasons. Topics include addressing environmental controls and constraints, structural requirements, and visitor experience design.
Each module incorporates authentic learning experiences by partnering with a local museum and engineering firm. This gives students direct access to case studies, professional collaboration, and hands-on experience with artwork, materials, conservation tools, and other relevant elements. Incorporating e-portfolios throughout the course allows students to enhance their experiential learning by visualizing concepts, projects, and other experiences.
Table 1
Overview of Four-Module Course Structure
Module | Focus Area | Key Activities | Learning Theories |
1: Foundations (Weeks 1-3) | Fundamentals of art history and engineering; shared vocabulary and conceptual frameworks | Disciplinary mapping; e-portfolio introduction; peer discussion | Situated Learning; Social Learning |
2: Materials Science & Art (Weeks 4-7) | How material properties influence artistic creation, preservation, and meaning-making | Collaborative peer teaching project; materials analysis of artwork; museum visit | Experiential Learning; Social Learning |
3: Conservation and Restoration (Weeks 8-10) | Engineering principles applied to cultural heritage preservation | Interdisciplinary case study; professional collaboration with engineering firm | Situated Learning; Experiential Learning |
4: Engineering Art Displays and Designing Spaces (Weeks 11-16) | How museum spaces are engineered for aesthetic and practical purposes (environmental controls, structural requirements, visitor experience | Museum exhibition proposal; e-portfolio capstone; real-world presentation | All three theories |
As previously stated, e-portfolios are a critical component of the course design and a primary assessment method to document student progress, attitudinal change, and collaboration with others. Research supports e-portfolios as valuable collaboration tools that can connect to real-world contexts (Meletiadou, 2021). Students control their learning progression through personal documentation, reflecting on interdisciplinary connections and their skill development. This approach further aligns with Lave & Wenger’s (1991) Situated Learning Theory by creating evidence artifacts that show legitimate peripheral participation within their communities of practice, both with peers, instructors, and professional collaboration with the museum and firm.
Additionally, e-portfolios help students organize their module projects in one place, allowing for deeper contextualization of material through visualization. In module one, students begin mapping disciplinary connections in the e-portfolios, whereas in module two, students are asked to complete a collaborative peer teaching project on materials science analysis in an artwork. Therefore, the portfolios shift from personal reflections to living, collaborative documents that extend knowledge to each student. In module three, students engage in a case study project where they must collaborate to define the intersections of both disciplines. Finally, in module four, students complete a large-scale design exhibition proposal project for spaces deemed as “problem areas” within a local museum. The objective of this project is to build upon previous projects and present viable solutions within a real-world setting at the museum. It evidences student collaboration, interdisciplinary innovation, and transferable skill development.
The pilot teaching was conducted with the Materials Science module based on the five participants’ previous experiences. Pilot teaching results demonstrated strong student preference for an interdisciplinary approach, with 100% of participants stating in a post-survey that they preferred this course type over traditional general education options. Participants with art backgrounds reported an increased appreciation for technical analysis and material science, whereas engineering participants felt it was more interesting to see how materials influence artistic choices. 83.3% of participants rated activities and in-class discussions as effective, with feedback primarily concerning disciplinary balance. It should be noted that this concern has since been addressed, though another pilot teaching has yet to take place. All students expressed interest in taking this course if it were offered at their institution.
Table 2
Summary of Pilot Implementation Results (Module 2: Materials Science & Art, n =5)
Survey Question | Results |
How difficult was this lesson? | 100% answered ‘about right’ |
How was the length of the lesson? | 83.3% rated as ‘about right’; 16.7% rated ‘too short’ |
How were the activities? | 83.3% rated as ‘about right’; 16.7% stated interactivity was unfamiliar |
How were the discussion questions? | 83.3% rated as ‘about right’; 16.7% reflected on timing of questions |
How were the examples? | 100% stated ‘very clear’ |
Would you recommend and enroll in this course if offered? | 100% stated ‘yes’ |
The pilot results revealed important implications for interdisciplinary course design. Authentic real-world applications are critical to success. The pilot teaching, though small, is important to furthering this research. After receiving feedback from participants, the e-portfolio assessments were integrated throughout the course. Their integration replaces some constructed response tests during module one. Student feedback specifically requested a more hands-on and reflective approach, therefore advocating for a more collaborative, visual structure.
There are many limitations within these findings. Primarily, the pilot implementation involved a small sample size of five participants, necessitating larger-scale testing. Additionally, the single-module focus of the pilot teaching limits conclusions on the full course experience. Next, it is important to implement the full course with a larger sample. Institutional and budget constraints are the largest factors contributing to a delayed full-course pilot implementation. Finally, the e-portfolio assessment method remains in the design phase, requiring empirical validation; however, research shows its potential. Future research will address these limitations and provide more findings to present to institutional stakeholders to advocate for widespread acceptance of the course design. Future studies could include new partnerships such as chemistry and conservation, and anatomy and drawing.
This study demonstrates that a carefully designed interdisciplinary course can effectively address shortcomings in traditional general education requirements. The “Engineering Art History” course has the ability to improve student engagement and develop important transferable skills through the integration of situated, experiential, and social learning theories. This course can serve as a scalable model for integrating humanities and STEM in higher education, combating disciplinary polarization, and enriching student learning experiences. Success requires institutional commitment, but the potential benefits for students and their education justify these investments.
EdTech Archives