Exploring GEN AI and Knowledge within an Interdisciplinary Framework

Bio - Diana Shore

I come from an interdisciplinary background having studied Psychology (The Open University and Computer Supported Network Learning (Sheffield University) within my two degrees. It was therefore eye opening to study it as entity and to consider how it impacted on our thinking and ways of interpreting the world. The “Wicked Problems” both amused and intrigued me and I started to think of my own practice as a series of wicked problems, thus I deconstructed my own identity and the functioning of the institution around me.

I have always been curious, with my career spanning from lecturing in Psychology and Education to becoming a senior instructional designer in the world’s biggest University (The Open University), and publishing house (Pearson Education). It has been a brave new world of new and emerging technologies that I have entertained myself with, always people at the heart of the learning experience. I have never felt so clearly that we are on the cusp of something, perhaps a tragedy or perhaps indeed a brave new world, and how we engage as actors will determine through baby steps our final destiny. This case represents one of my baby steps at understanding the affordances of interdisciplinary education and considering the potential impacts of AI on our own teaching and learning practices. I am extremely grateful for having been given the opportunity to study this module and for the excellence in teaching and peer engagement that I have experienced along the way.

Summary

This case reflects on a year-long exploration into the disruptive influence of Generative AI (Gen AI) on higher education pedagogy, particularly within WMG’s interdisciplinary teaching environment. Prompted by institutional concerns about AI’s potential to undermine assessment integrity, I developed and facilitated staff development workshops involving over 170 colleagues. These sessions sought to understand AI’s implications for both gnoseology (the processes of knowing) and epistemology (the nature of knowledge).

The workshops framed Gen AI as a “wicked problem,” one requiring transdisciplinary dialogue and experimentation. Participants engaged directly with AI platforms, experiencing both fascination at the tools’ apparent fluency and disquiet at their superficial reasoning. Two key disruptions emerged. First, gnoseological disruption: by outsourcing cognitive processing to AI, learners risk weakened neural development, raising questions about whether authentic learning and higher-order reasoning are being undermined. Second, epistemological disruption: AI’s ability to generate seemingly credible but shallow outputs challenges traditional notions of knowledge, learning progression, and assessment validity.

The sessions revealed strong peer-to-peer learning, as tutors shared strategies and critically interrogated AI’s affordances and limitations. Socratic dialogue activities, intended to scaffold reflection, proved less effective than anticipated, overshadowed by the more transformative experience of witnessing AI “perform” supposedly AI-resistant tasks. Nonetheless, the workshops highlighted the importance of convening interdisciplinary spaces where colleagues can collectively grapple with AI’s challenges.

The reflection concludes that Gen AI is both an opportunity and a threat. While it can cross disciplinary boundaries, it risks hollowing out cognitive development and eroding authentic assessment. Future work will focus on designing minimal-intervention, dialogue-rich sessions, reframing activities around catalytic demonstrations of AI. I suggest interdisciplinary collaboration as vital for reclaiming disrupted knowledge practices, ensuring education develops not just efficiency in prompt engineering but resilience in reasoning, reflection, and critical thought.