Recent assessments of 10th-grade students indicate a notable gap between content mastery and the ability to conduct complex research and project-based tasks. Despite adequate knowledge in core subjects, students demonstrated deficiencies in critical source analysis, hypothesis formulation, information synthesis, and evidence-based reasoning, as revealed by the Research Skills Questionnaire (RSQ) and the Metacognitive Awareness Inventory (MAI). These findings underscore a broader pedagogical challenge: students are acquiring declarative knowledge without developing the higher-order skills necessary to apply it in interdisciplinary and real-world contexts. The present study investigates the potential of an authorial, text-based program to enhance these competencies through structured, interdisciplinary learning experiences. The central research question guiding the inquiry is: How does participation in an authorial, text-based interdisciplinary program influence students’ critical analysis, hypothesis generation, information synthesis, and evidence-based reasoning?

The theoretical framework integrates contemporary research on cognition, learning, and interdisciplinary education. Hattie (2009) emphasizes the impact of diverse learning materials, structured feedback, and visible learning strategies on cognitive development and achievement, suggesting that content mastery alone is insufficient for higher-order skills. Perkins (2009) and Davidson (2011) argue that interdisciplinary tasks and engagement with multiple sources cultivate complex cognitive structures, problem-solving capacities, and reasoned argumentation, aligning with the program’s goals of promoting both knowledge acquisition and analytical skill. Bransford, Brown, and Cocking (2000) reinforce the importance of integrating knowledge across contexts, supporting problem- and project-based approaches that require students to synthesize and apply information actively. Conversely, Kirschner, Sweller, and Clark (2006) caution that minimally guided discovery learning often fails without structured scaffolding, highlighting the necessity of carefully designed teacher-led interventions in fostering research skills. Boix Mansilla (2017) and Repko & Szostak (2021) further demonstrate that interdisciplinary approaches enhance the ability to transfer knowledge across domains, while Wineburg (2018) and Mann (2012) underscore the role of disciplinary literacy and historical thinking in cultivating evaluative and analytical competencies.

Empirical studies on pedagogical strategies provide additional justification for the program’s design. Hernández and Gómez (2019), Hmelo-Silver (2004), Barron et al. (1998), and Gijbels et al. (2005) show that project- and problem-based learning promotes critical thinking, metacognition, and collaborative inquiry. Schraw and Dennison (1994) emphasize that metacognitive awareness is essential for self-regulated learning, while Kuhn (2005) and Bruner (1961) highlight discovery and reflective thinking as foundational to cognitive development. OECD reports (2018, 2020) further stress the international imperative for cultivating interdisciplinary competence, critical thinking, and problem-solving skills, situating this program within a broader global educational context that demands preparation for complex, multifaceted challenges.

Drawing on this theoretical and empirical foundation, the authorial program Working with Texts: Methods and Learning Strategies was implemented to strengthen high school students’ research and project competencies. The program integrates literature, history, and science through text-centered, problem-based projects that require hypothesis formulation, critical evaluation of sources, and synthesis of information across disciplinary boundaries. Students engage in self-assessment, peer feedback, and iterative project development to foster metacognition and self-regulated learning. Comparative analysis of relevant literature indicates that structured interdisciplinary approaches, when combined with active synthesis and guided inquiry, effectively bridge the gap between knowledge acquisition and higher-order cognitive skills.

Ultimately, this study contributes to understanding how carefully designed, authorial, text-based programs can cultivate critical thinking, research literacy, and evidence-based reasoning in secondary education. By combining rigorous scaffolding, interdisciplinary integration, and reflective practices, the program addresses both local curricular needs and global educational priorities, offering a replicable model for enhancing 21st-century research and project competencies in high school students.

The research methodology was designed as a comprehensive, analytically structured approach to developing Grade 10 students’ research and project skills through the author-designed program. Its goal was to progressively increase cognitive and metacognitive demands by integrating literature, history, art, physics, chemistry, and biology. In the first stage, Karipbek Kuyukov’s painting Explosion served as a visual stimulus to generate open-ended research questions linking historical, ecological, and psychological contexts. Students formulated hypotheses such as: “How do the physical processes of an atomic explosion affect biological systems and the environment?” These tasks were selected based on Davidson (2011), emphasizing multiple perspectives, and Wineburg (2018), demonstrating that critical source analysis is a learned, systematic skill. During the second stage, students collected and critically analyzed sources across disciplines, following the algorithm: identify facts → verify credibility → perform interdisciplinary comparison → formulate intermediate conclusions. For example, in examining atomic explosion physics, students constructed causal models linking scientific data with historical destruction and literary accounts of trauma. Comparative tasks included countries and sites of atomic explosions: Japan (Hiroshima, Nagasaki), the USA (Alamogordo, Bikini Atoll), the USSR (Semipalatinsk Test Site), and France (Mururoa Atoll). Students analyzed ecological, demographic, cultural, public health, and psychological consequences, noted similarities and differences, drew conclusions on long-term effects, and proposed alternative solutions. These assignments fostered analytical thinking, information synthesis, and identification of cause-and-effect relationships, aligning with Perkins (2009) on interdisciplinary integration as a mechanism for cognitive transfer.The third stage focused on constructing evidence-based hypotheses and synthesizing conclusions. Students integrated literature, historical, and scientific sources to build models of atomic explosion consequences across ecological, biological, historical, and psychological dimensions. Tasks included: “Compare historical and artistic sources on atomic explosions in different countries and identify patterns,” “Develop a hypothesis on radiation’s impact on ecosystems and populations supported by data from at least three disciplines,” and “Analyze social perceptions of atomic testing in Japan, the USSR, the USA, and France.” These activities tracked students’ abilities to construct causal chains, evaluate sources, and integrate interdisciplinary information.In the fourth stage, students engaged in metacognitive reflection and peer assessment, reviewing their own work and that of peers, identifying areas where argumentation was insufficient or where source integration strengthened hypotheses. Comparing ecological consequences in Japan and Bikini Atoll refined conclusions on radiation’s impact, while studying Semipalatinsk and Mururoa Test Sites expanded understanding of long-term social and psychological effects. This process documented development of planning, monitoring, and adjustment skills.

The implementation of the author-designed interdisciplinary text integration program led to measurable growth in Grade 10 students’ research and project skills over the academic year. Reflexive analysis of classroom observations, RSQ and MAI questionnaires, and student artifacts revealed several key outcomes. Students improved their ability to formulate problem-oriented research questions and justify hypotheses with evidence, integrating historical, ecological, biological, and psychological perspectives. Comparative tasks on atomic explosions in Japan, the USA, the USSR, and France fostered analytical thinking, synthesis of information, and identification of cause-and-effect relationships. Students examined ecological, demographic, and social consequences, noted patterns and differences, and formulated reasoned conclusions, reflecting growth in cross-disciplinary reasoning. Metacognitive skills—including planning, monitoring, and reflection—also improved. Peer assessment and self-reflection helped students identify gaps in argumentation, evaluate sources critically, and refine reasoning, promoting collaborative learning and deeper engagement with research processes. Interdisciplinary group projects strengthened these competencies by requiring teams to integrate historical, literary, scientific, and artistic sources into coherent presentations. Visualizations and multimedia reports demonstrated stronger argumentation, better evidence integration, and clearer cause-and-effect connections. The methodology combined structured assignments, guided analysis, and iterative reflection. Tasks progressed from observation and question formulation to source evaluation, causal reasoning, and synthesis of interdisciplinary evidence. Assignments were designed to gradually develop cognitive and metacognitive skills, following research emphasizing structured inquiry, multiple perspectives, and reflective practice (Davidson, 2011; Wineburg, 2018; Bransford et al., 2000; Perkins, 2009). This approach encouraged systematic analysis, integrative thinking, and sustained development of research competencies. Despite progress, some students struggled to synthesize complex data consistently and plan extended research projects, highlighting the need for continued scaffolding and reflective guidance. Overall, the findings indicate that a structured interdisciplinary approach effectively develops research competence, integrative thinking, and higher-order reasoning skills. This methodology fosters research and project skills in upper secondary education through knowledge, reflection.

Hattie, J. (2009). Visible Learning: A Synthesis of Over 800 Meta‑Analyses Relating to Achievement. Routledge. Perkins, D. N. (2009). Making Learning Whole: How Seven Principles of Teaching Can Transform Education. Jossey‑Bass. Davidson, B. (2011). Now You See It: How the Brain Science of Attention Will Transform the Way We Live, Work, and Learn. Viking. Kirschner, P. A., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. (2006). Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: An analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem‑based, experiential, and inquiry‑based teaching. Educational Psychologist, 41(2), 75–86. Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (2000). How People Learn: Brain, Mind, Experience, and School. National Academies Press. Boix Mansilla, V. (2017). Interdisciplinary learning: From theory to practice. Interdisciplinary Education Journal, 12(1), 23–45. Repko, A. F., & Szostak, R. (2021). Interdisciplinary Research: Process and Theory (3rd ed.). SAGE. Wineburg, S. (2018). Historical Thinking and Other Unnatural Acts: Charting the Future of Teaching the Past. Temple University Press. OECD. (2018). The Future of Education and Skills: Education 2030. OECD Publishing. OECD. (2020). Innovating Education and Educating for Innovation: The Power of Digital Technologies and Skills. OECD Publishing. Hernández, R., & Gómez, L. (2019). Project‑based learning and critical thinking development in secondary education. Journal of Educational Research, 112(3), 305–321. Hmelo‑Silver, C. E. (2004). Problem‑based learning: What and how do students learn? Educational Psychology Review, 16(3), 235–266. Schraw, G., & Dennison, R. S. (1994). Assessing metacognitive awareness. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 19(4), 460–475. Mann, M. J. (2012). Inquiry learning and the development of disciplinary literacy. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 44(5), 655–678. Gijbels, D., Verpoest, L., Dochy, F., & Van den Bossche, P. (2005). The relation between student‑centred teaching practices and outcomes: Social science perspectives. Studies in Higher Education, 30(5), 559–575. Kuhn, D. (2005). Education for thinking. Harvard University Press. Bruner, J. S. (1961). The act of discovery. Harvard Educational Review, 31(1), 21–32. Barron, B., Schwartz, D. L., Vye, N. J., Moore, A., Petrosino, A., Zech, L., & Bransford, J. D. (1998). Doing with understanding: Lessons from research on problem‑ and project‑based learning. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 7(3–4), 271–311. Perkins, D. N., Jay, E., & Tishman, S. (1993). Beyond abilities: A dispositional theory of thinking. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 39(1), 1–21. Fischer, F., Kollar, I., Mandl, H., & Haake, J. M. (2007). Scripting computer-supported collaborative learning: Cognitive, computational, and educational perspectives. Springer. Krajcik, J., & Blumenfeld, P. (2006). Project-based learning. Cambridge University Press.