# data[].attributes.body
I so much agree with you, Natasa! But the question "how" just doesnt seem to have an answer...I teach "soft sciences", but most of my colleagues who are also friends are lecturers in the "hard" sciences ( mainly civil engineering)...and from what I've read , related to their discussions, in civil engineering there is this main ( in my opinion) problem: in some countries, like France, students of civil engineering study many architecture modules, and architects are deemed to be "higher" in the hierarchy. In Bulgaria it is completely the opposite- there is a strict line between the discipline of architecture and civil engineering, the engineer being considered  to be "higher" in the hierarchy ( I mean the main decision maker in the industry), yet civil engineering in both France and Bulgaria ( i mean in government HEIs) is more comprehensive and includes more modules/ subjects than it does in Germany, due to the German policies of more "strict specialization"... In India too, the modules of civil engineering are based on completely different concepts. In so many "hard disciplines" it is the industry that dictates the norms, and actually very few people could "allow themselves" to "find their own meaning" in a world of norms and high competition. A project I was working on recently was related to 10th century Arabic scholar Al Farabi and his " catalogue of sciences" where he is trying to "organize sciences" in such a way, so that they are interdisciplinary and he is trying to find "a common ground" for all of them. This is in response to his precedors of the 8th and 9th century who too have organized sciences , but with clear differentiation and absolute claims that they have to be separated and could never be neither learnt nor taught properly in an indisciplinary mode. Then European Renaissance comes- again, being an  encyclopediac is fashionable and possible.  What is more , those epochs have proven that interdisciplinary learning leads to great results. Now that we are still linked to the Enlightenment and still industry dictates - again each discipline is so limited in its "territory". I dislike it profoundly. But I think that the main reason for this current state is that almost all "ideologues" of the interdisciplinary approach are academics of "soft sciences" who in some sense fail to grab the attention to academics in "hard sciences" and also, the disregard that many academics of "hard sciences" have for "soft sciences" and their failure to acknowledge that in order to promote education, creating ideology, promulgating laws and policies are important.

# data[].attributes.body
Oops, sorry! From the app on the phone my name shows, but from the laptop- no...I'll figure it out...

# data[].attributes.body
Hello Denise! Great Padlet! The video is great!

Well, I would say I disagree to a great extent with many of the findings of the readings, but for me they were very useful in terms of methodology and conceptual frameworks…I cannot exactly state why I disagree on so many points, but I think it has to do with my disagreement with what Alain de Botton would call “the fatal influence of Romanticism”- that in order to be successful, we must do only that which we like and learning has to explicitly occur through our perspective and phenomenological experience. I think these analysis are often made by academics in “soft sciences”, or at least, they focus on one side of learning- the explicit, measurable sides (ignoring to an extent the unconscious processes). I think law, engineering, medicine, astrophysics, chemistry etc, as disciplines studied in HEIs that intend for their graduates to join the industry ( not as sciences per se) have very different dimensions in terms of the process of “acquiring knowledge”.
Billie

# data[].attributes.body
I seem to have deleted your picture :-( SO SORRY!!

# data[].attributes.headline
Extra material - Video with Author speaking

# data[].attributes.subject
Extra material - Video with Author speaking

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Approaches to teaching with Liisa Postareff & Saara Repo University pedagogy

# data[].attributes.headline
How important do you think the 'context' in relation to teaching approaches is? 

# data[].attributes.subject
How important do you think the 'context' in relation to teaching approaches is? 

# data[].attributes.headline
Were there any other  limitations of the study not mentioned? 

# data[].attributes.subject
Were there any other  limitations of the study not mentioned? 

# data[].attributes.headline
From reading the Article do you agree with the findings that 'Hard' sciences are more 'content' focused?

# data[].attributes.subject
From reading the Article do you agree with the findings that 'Hard' sciences are more 'content' focused?

# data[].attributes.headline
Do you agree with the findings that University teachers teaching approaches can be either content- focused or learning focused

# data[].attributes.subject
Do you agree with the findings that University teachers teaching approaches can be either content- focused or learning focused

# data[].attributes.headline
Consonance and dissonance in descriptions of teaching of university teachers Liisa Postareff, Nina Katajavuori, Sari Lindblom‐Ylänne & Keith TrigwellT

# data[].attributes.subject
Consonance and dissonance in descriptions of teaching of university teachers Liisa Postareff, Nina Katajavuori, Sari Lindblom‐Ylänne & Keith TrigwellT