An Empirical Framework for Interdisciplinary Science Project Implementation in Indonesian Vocational Schools
This study develops an empirically grounded four-level framework based on a multisite analysis of 20 Indonesian vocational schools to diagnose current interdisciplinary science project implementation, revealing that while organizational structures are strong, deeper conceptual integration remains limited and requires systemic support to advance.
Original paper licensed under CC BY 4.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). This is an AI-generated explanation of the paper below. It is not written or endorsed by the authors. For technical accuracy, refer to the original paper. Read full disclaimer
In the modern world, the line between a technical skill and a broader understanding of how the world works is blurring. Vocational schools, once focused strictly on training students for specific jobs like mechanics or chefs, are now expected to teach young people how to solve complex problems that mix science, social issues, and practical work. The challenge lies in how to teach this. One popular method is project-based learning, where students tackle real-world problems by working on long-term projects. The idea is that by building something or solving a problem, students naturally connect what they learn in science class with what they need to know for their future careers. However, simply assigning a project does not guarantee that students are truly learning to think across different subjects. Often, a project might look like a science experiment one day and a business plan the next, but the two parts remain separate, like two people standing in the same room without ever speaking to one another. The real goal is for these different pieces of knowledge to blend together so that a student understands not just how to fix a machine, but why it matters to the environment, the economy, and the community.
A team of researchers in Indonesia set out to see how this blending actually happens in vocational schools. They looked at twenty different schools in the city of Semarang, ranging from public institutions to private colleges, covering a wide variety of trades from automotive repair and software development to culinary arts and hospitality. Instead of just asking teachers what they thought, the researchers gathered a wide range of evidence. They collected written project plans, student worksheets, grading rubrics, and notes from the field, alongside surveys from the teachers themselves. By looking at all this material together, they could see the difference between a school that simply runs a project and one that truly integrates different fields of knowledge.
The researchers found that while almost every school was trying to do these projects, the quality varied wildly. They identified four distinct levels of how these projects were being run. At the lowest level, projects were treated mostly as administrative tasks. Teachers assigned them to check a box on a curriculum list, and the work was often fragmented, with science and social studies happening in separate silos. At the next level, schools had moved to a "multidisciplinary" approach. Here, different subjects were present in the same project, but they were just placed side by side. A student might build a solar-powered device and then write a report on its cost, but the science of how the solar panel worked and the economics of selling it were not deeply connected.
The most common level found in the study was what the researchers called "vocational-contextual interdisciplinary." In these schools, the specific trade of the students served as a bridge. For example, a student in a culinary program might make soap, and in doing so, they would naturally connect the chemistry of the ingredients with the economics of selling the product and the environmental impact of the packaging. The project was anchored in their future job, which helped tie the different ideas together. The highest level, found in only a few schools, was "systemic-integrative." Here, the project design, the way knowledge was mixed, the way students were graded, and the support from the school administration all worked together perfectly. In these cases, the school environment itself supported the deep mixing of ideas, with teachers from different subjects planning together and the school providing the time and space needed for complex work.
When the researchers scored the schools on a scale of one to four, the average score was just under three. This suggests that most schools are in the middle of a transition, moving away from simple, separate subjects toward a more connected way of learning. However, the study also highlighted a specific weak spot. While the structure of the projects was often well-organized, the actual blending of concepts was the hardest part. Many schools struggled to get students to truly synthesize their knowledge. A student might be able to list scientific facts and social facts, but they had trouble explaining how those facts influenced each other to solve a problem.
Another major finding was about how students were assessed. In many schools, the grading focused heavily on the final product. If a student built a working model or wrote a neat report, they received a good grade. The researchers found that this focus on the finished object often missed the most important part: the thinking process. When a rubric only rewards a clean product, students are not encouraged to show how they connected the science to the social issue or the vocational skill. The study showed that for interdisciplinary learning to work, the way students are graded must change to value the reasoning and the connections they make, not just the thing they made.
The researchers concluded that for these projects to succeed, schools need more than just enthusiastic teachers. They need a system that supports deep integration. This means teachers from different subjects must collaborate to design projects that are rooted in real vocational problems. It means schools must provide the time and resources for this work to happen without rushing. And it means that the way students are evaluated must shift from checking if a task is done to checking if they can explain how different parts of their knowledge fit together. The study offers a clear map for schools to follow, showing them where they currently stand and what they need to build to help students become not just skilled workers, but thoughtful problem-solvers who can navigate a complex world.
Drowning in papers in your field?
Get daily digests of the most novel papers matching your research keywords — with technical summaries, in your language.