Designing and Evaluating a Multidisciplinary General Studies Module Platform

Thesis Abstract

The rapid expansion of multidisciplinary education necessitates an integrated General Studies (GS) module platform that coherently exposes students to cross-cutting competencies while aligning with diverse disciplinary requirements. This study addresses the fragmentation of general studies offerings across faculties and the resulting variability in student engagement, learning outcomes, and perceived relevance to professional practice. The aim is to design, implement, and evaluate a scalable multidimensional GS module platform that synthesizes humanities, social sciences, natural sciences, and citizenship education through modular, project-based learning, adaptive assessment, and collaborative pedagogy. Specific objectives are to (1) identify core competencies and disciplinary integration points valued by students and faculty, (2) develop a platform architecture comprising modular curricula, learning analytics dashboards, and a competency-based assessment framework, (3) pilot the platform with three faculties at a large metropolitan university and recruit 1,200 undergraduate and postgraduate students, (4) evaluate learning gains, engagement, and platform usability using mixed methods, and (5) generate evidence-based design guidelines for scalable deployment. The study employs a mixed-methods design grounded in the constructivist-interpretivist paradigm. A convergent parallel design will be used, combining quantitative surveys and platform analytics with qualitative interviews and focus groups. The research population comprises all registered students and teaching staff across the university’s faculties implementing the GS platform. A stratified random sample of 1,200 students (balanced across undergraduate and postgraduate cohorts; gender and faculty strata) will participate in the pilot, alongside purposive sampling of 40 lecturers and 12 curriculum developers for qualitative data. Data collection instruments include (i) standardized Likert-scale surveys measuring perceived relevance, self-efficacy in interdisciplinary problem-solving, and course satisfaction; (ii) platform analytics capturing module completion rates, time-on-task, cross-disciplinary collaboration metrics, and assessment scores; (iii) semi-structured interviews with students and lecturers; and (iv) focus group discussions with curriculum developers. Validity and reliability will be ensured through pilot testing of instruments (Cronbach’s alpha > .80 for scales), triangulation across data sources, and member checking for qualitative data. Analytical procedures will involve descriptive statistics and inferential analyses, including multiple regression to identify predictors of overall learning gains (self-reported and assessment-based), and multilevel modeling to account for nested data (students within courses). ANOVA will test differences in outcomes across faculties and student levels. Thematic analysis, guided by Braun and Clarke, will synthesize qualitative data into core themes related to platform usability, interdisciplinary integration, and perceived impact on critical thinking and citizenship competencies. A conceptual model will be tested by structural equation modeling to examine relationships among platform usability, interdisciplinary engagement, and learning outcomes. Ethical considerations include informed consent, data anonymization, and adherence to university research ethics guidelines. Key expected findings include (1) higher learning gains in interdisciplinary reasoning and civic literacy among students enrolled in integrated GS modules; (2) positive associations between platform usability, collaborative project activities, and student engagement; (3) substantive improvements in assessment performance when reflective journals and peer assessment are incorporated; and (4) faculty perceptions of enhanced cross-disciplinary alignment with program goals, albeit with initial implementation challenges such as workload, scheduling, and standardization needs. The study anticipates differential effects by discipline, with greater gains in humanities-social science integration and meaningful, yet variable, gains in STEM contexts due to disciplinary norms. Contribution to knowledge comprises (i) a rigorously tested design and evaluation framework for a multidisciplinary GS platform applicable to diverse higher education settings; (ii) empirical evidence on how modular, competency-based GS design influences learning outcomes, employability skills, and civic competencies; (iii) a validated methodological blueprint combining learning analytics with qualitative inquiry to assess integrated curricula; and (iv) practical design guidelines, scalability considerations, and policy recommendations for institutionalizing robust General Studies offerings. The study concludes that a thoughtfully designed multidimensional GS platform can enhance interdisciplinary learning, student engagement, and perceived relevance of general education to professional and civic life, provided that institutional support, clear competency mappings, and ongoing faculty development are in place. Recommendations include adopting standardized yet adaptable module templates, investing in faculty training for interdisciplinary pedagogy, implementing continuous evaluation cycles with feedback loops, and expanding the platform to include cross-institutional collaborations to foster broader general studies diffusion and benchmarking.