STEM Professionals for a Challenging World: Student Perspectives and Needs in Interdisciplinary Learning Kadir Özkana, Tudor Devizab, Kamelija Mateskac, Jelena Penavad, Alessio Finoe a Board of European Students of Technology, Brussels, Belgium, 0009-0002-5524-1568 b Board of European Students of Technology, Brussels, Belgium, 0009-0002-1486-9973 c Board of European Students of Technology, Brussels, Belgium, 0009-0007-5056-812X d Board of European Students of Technology, Brussels, Belgium, 0009-0004-2467-3442 e Board of European Students of Technology, Brussels, Belgium, 0009-0001-9814-8606 Conference Key Areas: Interdisciplinary STEM Education, Curriculum Development Keywords: Industry Needs, Soft skills, Project-Based Learning, STEAM, Student Co-creation Abstract Single-discipline STEM education often fails to equip graduates with the interdisciplinary competencies demanded by modern industries. This study examines this gap from the student perspective using a mixed-methods approach, analysing survey data from 412 European STEM students and qualitative insights from three educational symposia. Findings reveal a significant disparity: while students recognise the value of interdisciplinary frameworks, they report severe deficits in practical exposure and industry readiness. Primary barriers include structural rigidity, misaligned assessment metrics, and entrenched institutional resistance. To bridge this divide, the paper proposes active andragogical strategies, specifically the Flipped Classroom and a student-co-created "Fusion Model", alongside systemic institutional support and mandatory andragogical training for educators to cultivate adaptable, industry-ready professionals. 1 Introduction
1.1 Background & Literature Review
Interdisciplinary learning is defined as an educational approach in which students integrate knowledge, methods, and perspectives from two or more disciplines to address problems that exceed the scope of any single field (Mansilla & Duraising, 2007). In STEM higher education, this translates to curricula that deliberately connect engineering, science, and non-STEM domains to build adaptive, transferable competencies (Tytler et al., 2021). Today’s rapid technical and societal shifts mean a single-discipline education no longer suffices: Global industries now demand versatile experts capable of solving complex problems across traditional boundaries. These pressures urge institutions to integrate interdisciplinary STEM learning, yet critical gaps remain regarding technological adaptability and interdisciplinary collaboration (Berg-Postweiler & Leicht-Scholten, 2025). In response, universities are adopting Project-Based Learning (PBL) and STEAM
frameworks, integrating arts into STEM, which together enhance creative problem-solving, knowledge synthesis, and student autonomy through real-world collaborative learning (González-Zamar & Abad-Segura, 2021; Habbal et al., 2024; Pérez Torres et al., 2023). In addition to these concepts, Inquiry-Based Learning (IBL) positions students as active investigators who construct knowledge through questioning and exploration (Pedaste et al., 2015), while Blended Learning combines face-to-face and digital instruction to increase flexibility and learner autonomy (Garrison & Kanuka, 2004). Despite growing demand for interdisciplinary education, educational stakeholders face significant structural and cultural challenges, including an academic culture that prioritises research output over andragogical innovation (Shadle et al., 2017). Consequently, the evolution of interdisciplinary education in Europe stands at a crossroads, balancing deep-rooted academic traditions with the pressing need for a unified, modernised higher education framework. Even with increasing institutional interest, student perspectives and learning processes within interdisciplinary education remain underexplored in the foundational literature (Spelt et al., 2009). However, recent studies suggest that while students recognise the career relevance and value of interdisciplinary training (Abbonizio & Ho, 2020), they frequently encounter a lack of practical exposure and opportunities within traditional, single-discipline higher education curricula (Turner et al., 2022; Ursić et al., 2022).
1.2 Research Aim & Objectives
This study aims to analyse students' perceptions of the need for, barriers to, and ideal design of interdisciplinary STEM learning within their own institutional contexts. To achieve this, the study pursues four objectives: 1. To establish the need for interdisciplinary STEM learning by examining the gap between graduates' competencies and industry demands; 2. To evaluate students' conceptual awareness of, and practical exposure to, interdisciplinary learning; 3. To assess institutional readiness by identifying implementation barriers and surfacing exemplary practices across European universities; 4. To develop student-informed andragogical models and implementation recommendations. 2 Methodology Between April and October 2025, our mixed-methods study combined survey data with live student discussions. Through the Educational Involvement Programme (EIP) of the Board of European Students of Technology (BEST), this research amplifies student voices by gathering, summarising, and disseminating STEM education data to stakeholders. Following Tytler’s Temporal Model (Tytler et al., 2021): collaborative sessions during BEST Symposia on Education (BSE) form the micro level; the EIP serves as the meso level; and together, they build students' macro-level readiness for future industry challenges. 2.1 Quantitative data The first phase quantified STEM students’ experiences and perceptions of interdisciplinary learning using an online survey. The survey consisted of 29 questions assessing students' understanding of interdisciplinarity, the extent of its inclusion in their faculties, and the degree to which they actively participate in it.
Items were developed by a dedicated team within the Educational Involvement Department (EduID) through structured brainstorming informed by existing literature on interdisciplinary education, and reviewed for content validity by both the Data Analysis Department (DAD) and the EduID of BEST. The survey was distributed through Local BEST Groups (LBGs), internal and external BEST events and social media to reach students across Europe and gathered 412 responses from 28 countries and 81 universities, fulfilling the criteria for necessary size calculated using Cochran’s formula, assuming a 95% confidence level and a ±5% margin of error (Cochran, 1977). 2.2 Qualitative data The second phase consisted of three BEST Symposia on Education (BSE), held in Madrid (Universidad Carlos III de Madrid), Erlangen (Friedrich-Alexander University Erlangen-Nürnberg) and Cluj-Napoca (Technical University of Cluj-Napoca). BSEs are external events prepared and facilitated by EduID and hosted by several LBGs for the purpose of gathering qualitative data and evaluating the students' understanding of the research topic. During the sessions, participating students were invited to share their perspectives on the ideal model for university curricula, including teaching methods and interdisciplinary STEM education projects. The sessions were facilitated by trained BEST volunteers who used multiple data collection formats to incite students to share their opinions and prompt reflection on the role of interdisciplinarity in STEM education. These formats included small group discussions, visual mapping tool exercises, SWOT/TOWS analyses, and moderated panel discussions. The use of multiple interactive formats provided qualitative insights from 53 participants representing 17 countries and 32 universities, documented in event reports. In several BSE sessions, professors and industry experts were invited to participate as co-facilitators, contributing their perspectives and engaging in discussions with participants. 2.3 Data Analysis EduID and DAD teams analysed survey data using Python and Microsoft Excel, and qualitative BSE reports through inductive thematic analysis. As part of the broader EIP framework, the data collection was designed for organisational dissemination beyond this paper; findings reported here represent those most directly relevant to the stated objectives. 2.4 Ethical considerations The data used in the study included GDPR-compliant survey responses processed by DAD and qualitative reports from three BSE events, recorded by Content Teams under the EduID. The analysis of pre-processed departmental data was conducted in strict accordance with the organisation’s internal data privacy protocols and ethical standards. 3 Results 3.1. Skill Gaps and Industry Demands Universities are under-delivering on the soft skills modern industries expect from graduates, a deficit that consistently surfaced through both survey data and industry-panel exercises conducted during the BSEs. Quantitative Evidence: When students were asked about the top skills gained through interdisciplinary learning, the highest-ranked were Problem-Solving Skills (84%), Critical Thinking (80,1%), Adaptability (77.7%), and Collaboration (77.4%).
Qualitative Evidence: Students reported a considerable lack of confidence in their day-one readiness for the industry (2.5 out of 5), crediting their job-ready skills primarily to student organisations (75%) and internships (69%), rather than formal university classes (13%). Industry panellists confirmed this systemic gap, highlighting communication, adaptability, and practical thinking as critically missing power skills. This disconnect was further illustrated during a Skill Alignment Venn diagram exercise, where both students and industry representatives identified Flexibility as the ultimate, indispensable overlapping skill required for future STEM careers. 3.2. Evaluating Student Perspectives and Conceptual Awareness of Interdisciplinary Learning Students demonstrate strong awareness of why interdisciplinary learning matters, yet a clear gap exists between their familiarity with applied methodologies like PBL and their understanding of broader frameworks such as STEAM, suggesting curricula teach the mechanics of collaboration without conveying its strategic vision. Quantitative Evidence: Students strongly recognised the value of interdisciplinary learning, with survey responses clustering at the highest end of the agreement scale when asked about its importance for career success and real-world applications. However, familiarity with PBL peaked in the 71–100% comprehension tier, while understanding of the broader STEAM framework was highly polarised, with sizeable concentrations in the lowest 14–28% tier, indicating many students lack awareness of true interdisciplinary integration beyond basic project mechanics. As shown in Figure. 1, practical exposure remains critically low; only 26.06% have experienced interdisciplinary projects, and none felt "very prepared" to communicate STEM knowledge to non-STEM audiences.
Figure. 1. The gap between student experience in interdisciplinary initiatives and their cross-disciplinary communication readiness.
Qualitative Evidence: When asked how important it is to integrate STEM with non-STEM areas, 70% rated it "Very important" and 30% "Somewhat important," with none viewing it as unimportant. Furthermore, 70% stated that combining disciplines makes learning "more relevant to real-world problems," and the majority felt it was "very likely" they would need to work on interdisciplinary projects in their future careers. 3.3. Implementation Barriers and Institutional Practices Structural and cultural barriers remain the primary obstacles to the implementation of interdisciplinary learning across European universities. The institutional practices referenced below were identified by BSE participants describing how their home
universities currently approach or fail to approach interdisciplinary learning (notably the "Galactic Forum"). 3.3.1. Current Approaches: Institutional Resistance and Exemplary Models Balancing industry demands for interdisciplinarity with traditional academic research creates implementation challenges across universities. Quantitative Evidence: As detailed in Figure. 2, the survey identified key structural obstacles: inflexible curricula, lack of external collaboration, insufficient funding and limited faculty expertise. Alarmingly, the majority of students were entirely unaware of any faculty strategies addressing these issues.
Figure. 2. Student-identified institutional barriers hindering interdisciplinary learning
Qualitative Evidence: The "Galactic Forum" highlighted stark regional disparities: Western European universities (e.g., Belgium) leverage government-backed incubator hubs and others (e.g., North Macedonia) use mandatory interdisciplinary internships, whereas Southern European students (e.g., Italy, Greece, Spain) cited rigid, highly theoretical academic cultures and severe funding constraints. However, while students primarily blamed funding, academic experts at the "Challenges and Opportunities" session countered that the central obstacle is the mindset of teachers rather than money, making the need to overcome faculty resistance to new methodologies critical for facilitating interdisciplinary environments. 3.3.2. Current Curriculum: Siloes and Misaligned Assessments Siloed curricula and misaligned evaluation metrics actively discourage interdisciplinary exploration. Qualitative Evidence: Three sessions converged on this point. The "It's not all about science" session showed that non-STEM courses (e.g., business, art) are poorly integrated; a SWOT analysis noted they are often easier to pass and not taken seriously, preventing meaningful connections with core STEM subjects. The "Beyond the Grade" session revealed a disconnect between grading and learning, with students agreeing (78%) that STEM assessments fail to measure creativity or interdisciplinarity and instead promote short-term memorisation over practical application. Finally, the "When Disciplines Collide" session demonstrated that siloed curricula leave students unprepared for real-world collaboration, causing immediate clashes in priorities and terminology when working with other fields.
3.3.3. Psychological Aspect: Fear of Failure and Cognitive Load Systemic rigidity and assessment pressures create severe psychological barriers to hybrid learning. Qualitative Evidence: In the "Beyond the Grade" session, students noted that mistakes in STEM are stigmatised rather than treated as learning opportunities (72% consensus), an anxiety that deters intellectual risk-taking and out-of-major exploration undertaken to protect GPAs. This pressure also stifles creative thinking: during the "Da Vinci's Way" session, students described feeling too logical and bound by STEM thinking, experiencing creative paralysis without rigid instructions. Conversely, the "Project Endurance" session mapped the motivators that help students overcome these barriers, finding that while fear of failure acts as a negative driver (16%), engagement is driven more strongly by career/CV benefits (28%), intrinsic curiosity and personal growth (20%), and strong peer influence. 3.4. Proposed Andragogical Models Drawing on student consensus across all three BSE sessions, two andragogical frameworks emerged as the most feasible responses to the barriers identified above, grounded in established educational theory. 3.4.1. Flipped Classroom The flipped classroom shifts focus from passive information transfer to active, student-centred engagement. Students consume foundational theory independently before class, reserving classroom hours exclusively for interactive workshops, problem-solving, and collaboration (Lage et al., 2000). This closely aligns with the Experiential Learning Cycle (Kolb, 1984). By moving theoretical acquisition (Abstract Conceptualisation) outside the classroom, students dedicate in-person time to Active Experimentation and Concrete Experience. According to student feedback collected in BSEs, this real-time peer-to-peer reflection develops the critical "power skills" that traditional lectures fail to foster. However, effective implementation requires careful design, as poorly structured pre-class materials and unclear in-class activities overwhelm students and undermine outcomes, underscoring the need for dedicated andragogical training for faculty adopting this model (Lo & Hew, 2017). 3.4.2. The Fusion Model Recognising that no single andragogy model suffices, students in the BSE sessions co-created a "Fusion Model" that strategically blends PBL, IBL, and Blended Learning into a single, cohesive curriculum (Condliffe, 2017; Garrison & Kanuka, 2004; Pedaste et al., 2015). The core feature of the Fusion Model is its integration of theoretical foundations with practical, industry-sponsored challenges, as illustrated in Figure. 3. In this framework, students begin by identifying a research proposal or problem (IBL), develop the necessary theoretical skills through blended delivery, and then culminate the course by applying these methodologies to solve a real-world case study provided by corporate stakeholders (PBL).
Figure. 3. The Fusion Model: a three-stage interdisciplinary learning sequence situated within a Community of Practice.
During the "Wingardium STEMiosa" final project session, students designed specific, actionable applications of this model to meet active industry demands, summarised in Table 1. Table 1. Students’ Design on Fusion Model
The success of the Fusion Model relies heavily on establishing a Community of Practice (CoP) (Han et al., 2021). Because 75% of students credit their job-ready skills to student organisations rather than formal classes, the Fusion Model seeks to replicate this highly functional community dynamic within the curriculum. By bringing together students, professors, and industry experts to co-learn and co-create, the model provides the authentic, situated learning contexts that students crave. Furthermore, establishing professional CoPs offers a vital support system for educators, encouraging cross-disciplinary collaboration and building the andrological confidence required to overcome traditional institutional resistance. 4 Discussion and Conclusions This study explores the current state and the necessity of interdisciplinary STEM education in European higher education, highlighting that while students recognise the value of interdisciplinarity, most remain underprepared for complex professional environments due to the isolated nature of traditional curricula. A clear message emerged from the data: STEM education must expand beyond technical proficiency, directly confirming the critical gaps in technological adaptability and interdisciplinary collaboration identified in the literature (Berg-Postweiler & Leicht-Scholten, 2025). Developing competencies such as problem solving, critical thinking and collaboration is essential for addressing real-world challenges. The results identify career and CV benefits as the main motivators, followed by intrinsic curiosity. Students recognise the importance of interdisciplinarity and will invest in it, despite fearing the unknown, if offered engaging, practical curricula, beyond only didactic theory as documented in the previous studies (Turner et al.,
2022; Ursić et al., 2022). When given the opportunity to create their own interdisciplinary STEM curricula, students emphasised a holistic approach involving practical challenges and exposure to a professional environment. This approach would provide them with the aforementioned skills and a strong foundation for their future careers. Therefore, we propose the following educational models: ● The flipped classroom model, which was found to improve communication skills and deeper understanding. This aligns with recent global trends in higher education, where reversing the traditional lecture format fosters student-centred environments and enhances engagement (González-Zamar & Abad-Segura, 2021); ● Fusion Model as an ideal structure that balances theoretical knowledge with practical skills, as opposed to a single educational model. By integrating project-based elements directly with core theory, the Fusion Model reflects contemporary frameworks for comprehensive curricular restructuring in engineering education (Habbal et al., 2024). However, even when designing their “ideal” curriculum model, students were faced with certain challenges for implementation. The biggest constraint was the lack of preparation and interest from teachers, as well as the lack of funds in universities. This outcome directly validates the point made by Shadle et al. (2017) regarding institutional resistance, confirming that undergraduate STEM reform cannot succeed without actively addressing departmental culture, faculty readiness, and resource allocation. To combat this, we propose ● introducing formal andragogical training for university professors, as proposed by the students during the sessions at the BSE in Madrid; ● a bigger focus on educators’ well-being by providing psychological support, in order to improve educators’ performance and motivation. The results of the research lead to the conclusion that while there are clear benefits of interdisciplinary STEM education, its successful integration requires continuous refinement of both andragogical models and institutional support systems. 4.1 Limitations While this study provides an expansive regional overview across 28 countries, its quantitative dataset remains geographically concentrated within European higher education institutions, meaning the institutional barriers identified may not perfectly reflect global STEM landscapes. Additionally, because the survey and focus group data rely primarily on student self-reporting, they capture perceived competencies and institutional readiness rather than direct, objective performance metrics. 4.2 Conclusions By integrating theoretical knowledge with practical application through student-centred models, higher education prepares STEM students to master the problem-solving skills needed for professional success. This approach transforms academic environments into dynamic spaces that cultivate the expertise required to thrive within an increasingly complex and interconnected global landscape. 5 Acknowledgements We thank BEST’s EduID, DAD, the respondents, BSE participants, content teams, and LBG Madrid Carlos III, LBG Erlangen and LBG Cluj-Napoca for their essential roles.
References Abbonizio, J. K., & Ho, S. S. (2020). Students’ perceptions of interdisciplinary coursework: An Australian case study of the master of environment and sustainability. Sustainability, 12(21), 8898. https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/21/8898 Berg-Postweiler, J., & Leicht-Scholten, C. (2025). Building Interdisciplinary Bridges in Higher Education: Social Innovation in STEM Education for Grand Challenges. SEFI Journal of Engineering Education Advancement, 2(2), 32–53. https://sefi-jeea.org/index.php/sefijeea/article/view/40 Cochran, W. G. (1977). Sampling techniques. john wiley & sons. Condliffe, B. (2017). Project-Based Learning: A Literature Review. Working Paper. MDRC. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED578933 Garrison, D. R., & Kanuka, H. (2004). Blended learning: Uncovering its transformative potential in higher education. The Internet and Higher Education, 7(2), 95–105. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1096751604000156 González-Zamar, M.-D., & Abad-Segura, E. (2021). Digital design in artistic education: An overview of research in the university setting. Education Sciences, 11(4), 144. https://www.mdpi.com/2227-7102/11/4/144 Habbal, F., Kolmos, A., Hadgraft, R. G., Holgaard, J. E., & Reda, K. (2024). Problem and Project-Based Learning at Aalborg. In F. Habbal, A. Kolmos, R. G. Hadgraft, J. E. Holgaard, & K. Reda, Reshaping Engineering Education (pp. 199–222). Springer Nature Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-99-5873-3_10
Han, J., Kelley, T. R., Mentzer, N., & Knowles, J. G. (2021). Community of practice in integrated STEM education: A systematic literature review. Journal of STEM Teacher Education, 56(2), 5. https://ir.library.illinoisstate.edu/jste/vol56/iss2/5/ Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experimental learning: Experience as the source of learning and development. Prentice-Hall. Lage, M. J., Platt, G. J., & Treglia, M. (2000). Inverting the Classroom: A Gateway to Creating an Inclusive Learning Environment. The Journal of Economic Education, 31(1), 30–43. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220480009596759 Lo, C. K., & Hew, K. F. (2017). A critical review of flipped classroom challenges in K-12 education: Possible solutions and recommendations for future research. Research and Practice in Technology Enhanced Learning, 12(1), 4. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41039-016-0044-2 Mansilla, V. B., & Duraising, E. D. (2007). Targeted Assessment of Students’ Interdisciplinary Work: An Empirically Grounded Framework Proposed. The Journal of Higher Education, 78(2), 215–237. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221546.2007.11780874 Pedaste, M., Mäeots, M., Siiman, L. A., De Jong, T., Van Riesen, S. A., Kamp, E. T., Manoli, C. C., Zacharia, Z. C., & Tsourlidaki, E. (2015). Phases of inquiry-based learning: Definitions and the inquiry cycle. Educational Research Review, 14, 47–61. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1747938X15000068 Pérez Torres, M., Couso Lagarón, D., & Marquez Bargalló, C. (2023). Evaluation of STEAM project-based learning (STEAM PBL) instructional designs from the STEM practices perspective. Education Sciences, 14(1), 53. https://www.mdpi.com/2227-7102/14/1/53
Shadle, S. E., Marker, A., & Earl, B. (2017). Faculty drivers and barriers: Laying the groundwork for undergraduate STEM education reform in academic departments. International Journal of STEM Education, 4(1), 8. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-017-0062-7 Spelt, E. J. H., Biemans, H. J. A., Tobi, H., Luning, P. A., & Mulder, M. (2009). Teaching and Learning in Interdisciplinary Higher Education: A Systematic Review. Educational Psychology Review, 21(4), 365–378. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-009-9113-z Turner, R., Cotton, D., Morrison, D., & Kneale, P. (2022). Embedding Interdisciplinarity into the first year Undergraduate Curriculum: Drivers and Barriers to a Cross-Institutional Enhancement Project. Teaching in Higher Education. https://marjon.repository.guildhe.ac.uk/id/eprint/17689/ Tytler, R., Prain, V., & Hobbs, L. (2021). Rethinking Disciplinary Links in Interdisciplinary STEM Learning: A Temporal Model. Research in Science Education, 51(S1), 269–287. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-019-09872-2 Ursić, L., Baldacchino, G., Bašić, Ž., Sainz, A. B., Buljan, I., Hampel, M., Kružić, I., Majić, M., Marušić, A., & Thetiot, F. (2022). Factors influencing interdisciplinary research and industry-academia collaborations at six european universities: A qualitative study. Sustainability, 14(15), 9306. https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/15/9306