Curriculum integration (CI) has been utilised by democratic educators because it maximises flexibility for curriculum design and, as research shows, it actively engages students in their learning (especially young adolescents). In theory, CI seems like a promising approach but when implemented it has a patchy record: sometimes it is wonderful, other times it is awful. What are your thoughts?
Thanks Xavier. You are certainly right about the general lack of understanding in educational circles but perhaps this is because the single-subject approach is the dominant paradigm in K-12 schooling. Would you like to expand on your final sentence?
Integrating the curriculum is indeed a powerful method and has been shown to increase student achievement - when done well. Effectively integrating the curriculum is not easy. Teachers must have deep understanding of the content being taught as well as understanding of methods for integrating the content. Both are necessary. When done poorly, students learn very little or, worse, learn wrong information. When done well, though, students achieve at a higher rate than students who learned by a traditional single-subject approach.
Thanks Elizabeth. I'm aware of your work on curriculum integration in the USA.
Elizabeth, you have described the situation well for me. I have never been a fan of total integration because the problems you cite were all too apparent, I thought it was a natural consequence of what seemed an artificial process but realize after reading your post that it is person dependant. In the end though, I guess it doesn't matter since in 30 years I have not seen more than 1 hand's worth of teachers with the attributes you describe.I teach science to grades 8-12 and have been through the period in Queensland where integration was proposed. It was intelligently done but still failed except in a few places. At the time my approach was to contextualise the science curriculum into 'tasks' so that there was Some sense of integration but more natural. It has worked successfully for me for 15 years.
There are many models of curriculum integration, but the key is always how well teachers are trained and prepared to integrate. I have had the good fortune of working with and observing many teachers (elementary mainly) who integrate very effectively. I have also seen far too many poor examples as well. Unfortunately, many school districts require teachers to integrate without truly understanding what it entails. Integration seems simple (which is why they require it), although it requires expertise to do it well.
Dear Colleagues,
In reflecting upon this issue and my own schooling (K-8), teachers had a broad understanding of all subjects because they were required to teach them. I feel this model supported integration and continuity in learning. Teachers had the knowledge and ability to offer connections between and among the various subjects they were teaching. This also supported students making meaningful connections rather than enduring disconnected subject matter. The advent of education design changes, e.g. primary, middle, and junior high, and compartmentalizing subjects taught (teacher -subject specialization), further fractured teaching, learning, and environmental stability. I'm curious to know if current teacher preparation programs address curriculum integration strategies, provide research supporting the benefits when executed well, and cultivate the mind-set and skills sets toward implementation - authentically and effectively?
Dear Elizabeth, I read your posts and your paper with enthusiasm. However, I am confused about the way you define curriculum integration. Is it a method or a model? Is it teacher-dependent? It seems to me that you define CI as the integration of math-reading with social studies. Did I get it wrong? CI is a very complex theory. It seems to mean different things to different people, but everybody talks or writes about CI without explaining its particular meaning.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Education
- Teacher Education