The field of engineering education needs to adapt to the rapid advancements in technology and the increasing complexity of modern systems. This necessitates a shift towards more interdisciplinary approaches. In this study, we assess the impact of integrating elements from computer science, materials science, and design into traditional mechanical and electrical electronics curricula. We employ a mixed-methods approach that combines quantitative assessment of student performance with qualitative analysis of student experiences. Our goal is to examine the potential benefits and challenges of interdisciplinary learning in this particular domain. The results of our study indicate that interdisciplinary approaches can have a positive impact on students' problem-solving abilities. Furthermore, these approaches can foster creativity and better prepare students for the multifaceted demands of the industry. However, we also identified several challenges that need to be addressed in order to effectively implement interdisciplinary education. These challenges include curriculum design, resource allocation, and faculty expertise. Overall, our research contributes to the ongoing discourse on interdisciplinary education. It provides valuable insights for educators, policymakers, and industry stakeholders who are interested in cultivating a versatile and adaptable workforce. Such a workforce would be capable of addressing the complex technological challenges that arise in today's world. In conclusion, as technology continues to advance at a rapid pace, it is crucial for engineering education to embrace interdisciplinary approaches. By integrating elements from various disciplines, such as computer science, materials science, and design, we can enhance students' problem-solving abilities and prepare them for the demands of the industry. However, it is important to address the challenges associated with interdisciplinary education in order to ensure its effective implementation and maximize its benefits.

Interdisciplinary education, engineering education, computer science

Aktan, B., Bohus, C. A., Crowl, L. A., & Shor, M. H. (1996). Distance education applied to control engineering laboratories. IEEE Transactions on Education, 39(3), 320-326. https://doi.org/10.1109/13.538754

Borrego, M., & Newswander, L. K. (2010). Definitions of interdisciplinary research: Toward graduate-level interdisciplinary learning outcomes. The Review of Higher Education, 34(1), 61-84. https://doi.org/10.1353/rhe.2010.0006

Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77-101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa

Dori, Y. J., & Belcher, J. (2005). How does technology-enabled active learning affect undergraduate students' understanding of electromagnetism concepts? The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 14(2), 243-279. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327809jls1402_3

Dym, C. L., Agogino, A. M., Eris, O., Frey, D. D., & Leifer, L. J. (2005). Engineering design thinking, teaching, and learning. Journal of Engineering Education, 94(1), 103-120. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2168-9830.2005.tb00832.x

Fogarty, R. (1998). The intelligence-friendly classroom: It just makes sense. Phi Delta Kappan, 79(9), 655-657.

Froyd, J. E., & Ohland, M. W. (2005). Integrated curricula. Journal of Engineering Education, 94(1), 147-164. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2168-9830.2005.tb00835.x

Ivanitskaya, L., Clark, D., Montgomery, G., & Primeau, R. (2002). Interdisciplinary learning: Process and outcomes. Innovative Higher Education, 27(2), 95-111. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1021105309984

Jacobson, M. J., & Spiro, R. J. (1995). Hypertext learning environments, cognitive flexibility, and the transfer of complex knowledge: An empirical investigation. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 12(4), 301-333. https://doi.org/10.2190/33DP-JBM8-V7Q9-AM5P

Keppel, G., & Wickens, T. D. (2004). Design and analysis: A researcher's handbook (4th ed.). Pearson.

Klein, J. T. (2010). A taxonomy of interdisciplinarity. In R. Frodeman, J. T. Klein, & C. Mitcham (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of interdisciplinarity (pp. 15-30). Oxford University Press.

Kuhl, S. A., Lim, J. A., Kiviniemi, A. M., Hurley, D. G., & Eicher-Catt, D. (2017). Integration of computer science into mechanical and electrical engineering curricula at a large research university. Proceedings of the 124th ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, Columbus, OH.

Lattuca, L. R., Knight, D. B., & Bergom, I. M. (2013). Developing a measure of interdisciplinary competence. International Journal of Engineering Education, 29(3), 726-739.

Lattuca, L. R., Knight, D. B., Duffy, C. H., Coso, A., Passerella, T., Bozyk, D., & Bassior, M. (2017). Developing interdisciplinary competence among computer science students. Proceedings of the 47th IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE), Indianapolis, IN. https://doi.org/10.1109/FIE.2017.8190721

Lattuca, L. R., Knight, D., Seifert, T., Reason, R. D., & Liu, Q. (2017). Examining the impact of interdisciplinary programs on student learning outcomes. In R. Frodeman, J. T. Klein, & R. C. Dos Santos Pacheco (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of interdisciplinarity (2nd ed., pp. 388-404). Oxford University Press.

Lattuca, L. R., Voigt, L. J., & Fath, K. Q. (2004). Does interdisciplinarity promote learning? Theoretical support and researchable questions. The Review of Higher Education, 28(1), 23-48. https://doi.org/10.1353/rhe.2004.0028

Miodownik, M. A. (2007). The materiality of education. MIT Press.

Newswander, L. K., & Borrego, M. (2009). Engagement in two interdisciplinary graduate programs: Resilience & retention at a crossroads? Re-Visioning the Interdisciplinary Renaissance: Inspirations from Philosophy, Literature, and the Arts, 85(1), 45-57. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X035007045

Onwuegbuzie, A. J., Dickinson, W. B., Leech, N. L., & Zoran, A. G. (2009). A qualitative framework for collecting and analyzing data in focus group research. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 8(3), 1-21. https://doi.org/10.1177/160940690900800301

Piaget, J. (1972). The epistemology of interdisciplinary relationships. In L. Apostel, G. Berger, A. Briggs, & G. Michaud (Eds.), Interdisciplinarity: Problems of teaching and research in universities (pp. 127-139). Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.

Pikas, E., Luhanga, U., Mills, J., & McDermott, K. (2016). Interdisciplinary teaching and learning for mechanical and biological engineering students in tissue engineering education. Journal of Biomechanical Engineering, 138(7), Article 071010. https://doi.org/10.1115/1.4033589

Ramprasad, R., Shi, N., Tang, C., Mosey, N., & Bohner, M. (2003). Materials science and engineering undergraduate curriculum at the University of Connecticut. Journal of Materials Education, 25(1), 1-14.

Repko, A. F., & Szostak, R. (2017). Interdisciplinary research: Process and theory (3rd ed.). SAGE Publications.

Richter, D. M., & Paretti, M. C. (2009). Identifying barriers to and outcomes of interdisciplinarity in the engineering classroom. European Journal of Engineering Education, 34(1), 29-45. https://doi.org/10.1080/03043790802710185

Sawilowsky, S. S. (2009). New effect size rules of thumb. Journal of Modern Applied Statistical Methods, 8(2), 597-599. https://doi.org/10.22237/jmasm/1257035100

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

Spiro, R. J., Coulson, R. L., Feltovich, P. J., & Anderson, D. K. (1994). Cognitive flexibility theory: Advanced knowledge acquisition in ill-structured domains. In R. B. Ruddell, M. R. Ruddell, & H. Singer (Eds.), Theoretical models and processes of reading (5th ed., pp. 602-615). International Reading Association.

28. Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2019). Using multivariate statistics (7th ed.). Pearson.