document resume ed 334 677 ea 023 158 author relan, … · document resume ed 334 677 ea 023 158...

DOCUMENT RESUME

ED 334 677 EA 023 158

AUTHOR Relan, Anju; Kimpston, RichardTITLE Curriculum Integration: A Critical Analysis of

Practical and Conceptual Issues.PUB DATE Apr 91NOTE 15p.; Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the

American Educational Research Association (Chicago,IL, April 3-7, 1991).

PUB TYPE Information Analyses (070) -- Speeches/ConferencePapers (150)

EDRS PRICE MF01/PC01 Plus Postage.DESCRIPTORS Change Strategies; *Curriculum Design; *Curriculum

Development; Educational Improvement; EducationalInnovation; Educational Strategies; ElementarySecondary Education; Holistic Approach; InstructionalDesign; Instructional Development; IntegratedActivities; *Integrated Curriculum;*Interdisciplinary Approach; *Relevance (Education);School Restructuring

ABSTRACTMany educators suggest that deteriorating academic

quality in schools can be addressed with the help of an approach tocurriculum development called "curriculum integration," whichpresents a holistic view of knowledge to learners. One reason amongmany to move from subject-focused curriculum to curriculumintegration is that the former fails to provide learners with theintellectual skills needed in a competitive society. Other argumentsstem from the ability of curriculum integration to actively involvestudents in their own education. Traditionally, integrated approachesto curriculum design have been associated with "intermingling" ofdisciplines such as thinking, reasoning, and problem-solvingcapabilities. Operational schemes of curriculum integration specifythe degree of integration and depend upon the content, processes, andskills involved in learning. Curriculum integration is not a randomcombination of disciplines and should be approached with asystematic, conscious effort that makes relationships amongdisciplines explicit. (31 references) (EJS)

*************************************************1 ***************,-***

Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be madefrom the original document.

***********************************************************************

Curriculum Integration: A Critical Analysis of Practical and

Conceptual Issues

Anju Re IanUniversity of Minnesota

Richard KimpstonUniversity of Minnesota

BEST COPY AVAILABLE

Paper presented at the Annual Convention of the American_ Educational1 I Chi IL

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATICAOffice of Educational ReSeafth Sod impovement

EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATIONCENTER (ERIC)

Virhis document has been reproduced asreceived from the person Or organizationoriginating it

C Minor changes have been made to imprOvereproduction quality

0 Points Of view Of Opinions stated in MS POCument do not neCesSarily represent officialOERI position Or policy

2

"PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE THISMATERIAL HAS BEEN GRANTED BY

/1;11/24-r1-1

TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCESINFORMATION CENTER (ERIC)."

Acknowledgement

The authors would like to thank Nancy Engen-Wedin (Minnesota

Center for the Arts) and Raymond Higgins (Minnesota State Department of

Education) for providing valuable feedback on earlier drafts of this paper.

Paper presented at the AnnualMeeting of the American EducationalResearch Association. Chicago, 1991.

Curriculum Integration: A Critical Analysis of Practical andConceptual Issues

Anju Re lanUniversity of Minnesota

Richard KimpstonUniversity of Minnesota

In prevailing curriculumdevelopment practices, it is tacitlyassumed that all learning must becompartmentalized into specialized macrounits, or "disciplines", eg., music, drama,mathematics, art- resulting in what isreferred to as a "subject-centered"curriculum. Such an approach was anatural outcome of the necessity forspecialization that followed the advent ofthe industrial revolution (Haas, 1975).Although it has been highly successful infomenting economic growth, materialisticwealth, scientific and military power-discontentment with such isolated forms ofdisseminating knowledge has begun toemerge. Thus, "the entire conventionalstructure of subjects and subdMsions ofknowledge...have reflected a grosslyoutworn, atomistic model of both theuniverse and the man." (Brame Id, 1970,p. 346).

Historically, public education hasmirrored societal vicissitudes, which isevident in present times. Declining growthrates in the American economy coupledwith q failure to compete internationallyhas iesulted in several criticisms levelledagainst prevailing educational practices.To enumerate a few, schools arecharacterized by fragmented schedules and

1

a lack of relevance to real-life issues.Students are patently unmotivated withacademics, and have failed to embody aholistic view of the world. Thedeteriorating situation has led curriculumreformers to believe that problemsprevalent in schools today are an outcomeof unrealistic, outmoded curriculumstructures which have failed to keep pacewith rapid advances in society. Manyeducators suggest that deterioratingacademic quality in schools today can beaddressed with the help of a different,more relevant and realistic approach tocuriculum development; an approach whichpresents a holistic view of knowledge tolearners (Cummings, 1989; Gaff, 1989).This approach, known frequently as"curriculum integration" is the subject ofthe current paper. We intend to scrutinizethe theoretical foundations of the conceptof curriculum integration and its variousinterpretations, explore the models andschemes which operationalize it, andfinally, present the reader with issues thatare pertinent to the implementation ofintegrated curricula. The review andsynthesis that follows examines thebenefits as well as the constraints of aunified approach to curriculumdevelopment, with the hope that a clearer

4

picture of the concept and the issuessurrounding it emerges.

Why Curriculum Integration?In recent times, interest in and need

for a unified approach to education hasintensified- an outcome of public outcryagainst the failing educational system ingeneral, and the dissatisfactionexperienced by practitioners from theinadequacy of a discipline-based approachin providing solutions to dynamic problemsposed in the society. From a historicalperspective, it is not surprising the,strictures about the inadequacies of aweakening social and economic system aredirected at the existing curriculumideology. Today, the subject-focusedcurriculum is a target of criticism, infailing to provide learners with desirableintellectual skills needed for a competitivesociety. It is believed that the world isincreasingly acquiring a global,interdependent outlook; provincial,parochial attitudes stultify effortstowards economic and academic progress.(Cummings, 1989; Zverev, 1977).Further, society is experiencing change ata rate unprecedented in human history;there is need for curriculum to keep pacewith these changes. A subject-centeredcurriculum is allegedly far from therealities of life, lacking in *relevance°. In

the late sixties, Foshay pointed out theinadequacy of a subject-centeredcurriculum in dealing directly with therelationship between education and life-thus one can be thorough In the study ofphysics, but be completely ignorant aboutthe problem of racial injustice, poverty.

The evoMng society hasimplications for the changing nature ofknowledge. For exampie, Cohen (1988)proposes that with increasing information,new disciplines emerge due to thecombination of old ones, eg., biophysics,biochemistry. She believes that studentsmust know the process of this syntheses.A multitude of recent social and ecological

Curriculum Integration

&sasters have exemplified thatdisciplinary boundaries are temporary andpenetrable (Haas, 1975). In suchinstances, when entities or concepts areviewed from one perspective or discipline,grave repercussions are felt in other fields(for example, the use of DDT as apesticide). Finally, the convenient butartificial compartmentalization ofdisciplines does not adequately representthe world, which is not made up of suchartificial constructs (Cummings, 1909).Thus effort should be expended on fittingspecialized viewpoints into the big picture.

Schools are constantly trying toaccommodate an exponential growth ofknowledge, resulting in a conflict in whatshould be taught, and what should beeliminated (Jacobs, 1989). Compoundedwith this is the assimilation of newersubjects, for example, AIDS (AcquiredImmune Deficiency Syndrome) and drugs,and chemical education, adding newpressures and constraints on timesallocated to sub.ects. Teachers andstudents are frustrated with fragmentedschedules in schools today. Jacobssuggests that an unified approach would notonly resolve these problems, but makecurriculum more relevant and useful to thelearner regardless of the content beingtaught. An integrated curriculum helpsstudents understand a complex,interrelated world (Gaff, 1989). Tyler(1949) supports curriculum Integration asa "must* to help students gain a unifiedview of their learning. Associated withthis is the belief that problems in today'sworld can be solved only by whole men,not those who are anything more than atechnolooIst, artist or pure scientist,which a *rational* study of disciplinesseems to promote (Foshay, 1970).

An integrated approach is viablefrom a psychological perspective. Gestaltpsychologists believe that entities areconsidered as w'. es rather than individualparts- thus knowledge should be presented

as a whole for easy assimilation.Advocates of the schema .theory believe inthe activation of links and nodes in memoryfor effective encoding and retention(Anderson, 1980). From this viewpoint,the greater this spread of activation, theeasier it is to anchor new concepts tothose existing in memory. A curriculumthat is more relevant to the learner willalso permit deeper levels of processing.

Integrating higher order skillsacross the curriculum has been gainingpopularity. Ackerman and Perkins (1989)state that with such integration, theacquisition of vital learning skills would beenhanced; and content will be morerelevant to students, making themindependent, proactive learners. Transferof skills would be encouraged and processand content goals would be unified.

Other arguments for an integratedapproach stem from its ability to activelyinvolve students in their own education.Because of tile process-oriented approachin many forms of curriculum integration, it

is assumed that students are activelyinvolved as decision-makers and problem-solvers. Cooperative learning is fosteredand different ability and interest levels areeasier to accomodate (North Carolina StateDept. of Public Instruction, 1986).

Thus, hypothetically, a unifiedapproach to curriculum offers severaladvantages relevant to the needs ofcontemporary society. At this juncture,however, the concept of an "integratedcurriculum" is yet unclear, and weexplicate that in the next section.

Concepts and Levels of IntegratedCurriculum

What is meant by curriculumintegration? Is it the fusion of two ormore subjects? Is it studying one contentarea from the viewpoint of another? Is itcontent-based at all? Published work ondifferent forms and methods of integratingcurricula reveals diverse interpretationsof the term, and is characterized by an

3


abundance of alternate terminology (eg.,multidiscplinary studies,interdisciplinarity, fused curriculum,correlated curriculum, transdisciplinarystudies, unified studies, etc.). Theplethora of terms centered around a singleconcept indicates the significance ofcertain fundamental questions in aiding anunderstanding of the exact nature ofbenefits, conceptualization andimplementation of an integrated program.

Traditionally, integratedapproaches to curriculum design have beenassociated with some form of"Intermingling" of disciplines which goesbeyond the compartmentalized, specializedteaching of each discipline. This form ofintegration is referred to variously as"multidisciplinary", "interdisciplinary",and "transdisciplinary". The focus in theseapproaches is on different ways ofcombining disciplines, so that "integration"of a desirable form is achieved.

In recent times curriculumintegration has assumed an inclusiveinterpretation, which extends beyond acombination of disciplines. Thus included inthis interpretation are the Integration ofacross-the-domain skills such as thinking,reasoning and problem-solving capabilities(for example, Bereiter, 1986; Ackerman& Perkins, 1989), the teaching of learningstrategies, and the addition of topics andsubjects in the curriculum, which have notbeen structurally recognized es uniquedisciplines, for example, AIDS, drug,nutrition, and career education (the "non-disciplinary fields"). Thus unplannedforms of integration, occurring mostsimply at the level of combining twodisciplines, as well as fully integratedprograms can be considered examples of*curriculum integration".

One of the more popular forms ofintegrating curricula are operationalizedwith the help of problem-orientedapproaches, in which no conscious attemptis made to study specialized disciplines.Short and Jennings (1876) advocate a

"multidisciplinary" approach which is"holistic, and makes collective use of thedisciplines". (p. 592). In a similar vein,Kersh, Nielson & Subotnik (1987) statethat integrative curricula unify subjectmatter from a wide variety of disciplinesaround a series of generalizations. Cohen(1978) considers interdiscipilinarity as"an attitude as well as a set of methods brposing problems that transcend subjectmatter boundaries and in fact be createdby them." (p. 125). Jacobs (1989)defines an "Interdisciplinary" curriculumas a knowledge view and curriculumapproach that consciously appliesmethodology and language from more thanone theme to examine a central theme,issue, problem, topic, or experience. Thusthe "multidisciplinary" approachtranscends all boundaries of traditionaldisciplines and is highly interactive,actively combining social and intellectualdomains. Jacobs (1989) refers to this asa "transdisciplinary" approach, which isbeyond the scope of disciplines.

Other forms of curriculumIntegration can be seen as reflecting anestablishment of ties among differentdisciplines. Thus Tyler (1949) considersintegration as the horizontal relationship ofcurriculum experiences. Henchey (in Short& Jennings, 1976), looks upon the"multidisciplinary" approach as a processbased upon the analysis of "relationships"and establishment of lies". According toJacobs (1989), a "multidisciplinary"approach is the juxtaposition of severaldisciplines focused on one problem, with nodirect attempt to integrate. In thisdefinition, linkages between subjects arestressed.

Integrated approaches may occur atrelatively "shallow" levels. For example,"crossdisciplinary" approaches view onediscipline from the perspective of another.A "pluridisciplinary" approach is thejuxtaposition of disciplines assumed to bemore or less related (Jacobs, 1989).Fine IlY, integration takes place without

4


conscious attempts at providing linkages.Thus lessons are sequenced to correspondto lesaons in the same area in otherdisciplines, but no connections are madeacross fields, only sequencing is such thatstudents will find necessary linkages.

From the above interpretations wecan conclude that curriculum integrationcan be considered along a continuum,where different levels on the continuumspecify the degree or depth ofintegration. It is also dependent on thecontent, processes and skills involved inlearning. Although there is some overlapin these frameworks, differences incomprehensiveness and organization setthem apart as individual approaches. Forexample, Jacobs' (1989) schemerecommends six types of integrativestrategies, depending on the depth ofintegration. Kimpston (1989), examinesstrategies for an interdisciplinaryapproach to curriculum as lying on acontinuum. One one extreme is thestructuring of the plan around eachseparate discipline, which is not anintegrated approach, but has well-knownadvantages. A second possibility is tofocus two or more disciplines on a singlearea of content (the organizing center).This approach maintains the integrity ofeach discipline so that each provides aunique contribution and perspective toselected content. Third, it is possible tofind common elements, concepts andprocesses in two or more disciplines (eg.,related natural and social sciences), andteach only these to develop anunderstanding of the perspective commonto all the disciplines which have been"fused". Here the unique perspective ofeach fused discipline is lost in the process,but the power of the broader perspectiveis gained. This is the "fused" approach.Finally, the fourth approach termed the"eclectic" strategy, does not respect theboundaries of specific disciplines, orrestrict itself to knowledge drawn fromestablished disciplines. This is similar to

7

the problem-oriented approach discussedearlier.

Another comprehensive scheme ofcurriculum integration is proposed by theNorth Carolina State Department of Publicinstruction (1986). "Integrated learning"refers to the interrelatedness of thesubject and skill areas within and acrossgrades of a school program. Severalqualitatively different integrationstrategies have been proposed. Thusintegration can occur in the form ofcontent within a subject or skill area (forinstance, the integration of history andgeography within social studies), as skillswithin subjects (for example, writingacross the curriculum, thinking skills,communication skills, library/media andcomputer skills, guidance skills etc.),subject with subject (where two subjectsare blended together and presented as aunique elective, eg., history and the arts,humanities, technology and history), skillswith skills (for example, thinking skillsand guidance skills). Finally, anycombination of skills and subjects isintegrated with other skills and subjects,which typically develops around a theme,problem, question or issue.

Included in the concept ofcurriculum integration are processes andskills, and those fields which do notcurrently possess the status of unique,recognized disciplines, for example,thinking and problem-solving skills, global,multicultural studies, the study of hunger,patterns in the world etc. This type ofintegration is characterized by issuespertaining to the structure of disciplines tosome extent, and by others which areindigenous to the process, skill or fieldbeing integrated. The integration ofthinking skills are used here to illustratethe point.

Ackerman & Perkins (1989), havepresented a detailed plan for integratingthinking and learning skills across thecurriculum. It consists of a "futuristicalternative concept", in which curriculum

5


throughout the grades has two levels: thecurriculum, and the metacurriculum. Thecurriculum consists of subtantive contentand concepts, whereas themetacurricuium consists of learning skillsand strategies which help students acquirecontent being taught in class, and developthe capacity to think and learnindependently. It is integrated with thecurriculum, so that skills of learning arescheduled and explicitly taught within thecontext of the content being taught. It isalso integrated across subjects. Accordingto these authors, thinking skills should beintegrated across the curriculum on a dayto day basis, and can be implicitly orexplicitly taught, loosely or closelycoupled with the content area, before andduring the teaching of content areas. Skillsand conient can be doubly integrated: bothwithin a subject and across the curriculum.As to what should be the focus ofattention: skills or content, skills can be onone end of the continuum and content on theother, with numerous pints between thespectrm. For example, onearrangement, there is explicit contentfocus in content subjects, but skills focusin reading, remedial skills and study skillsclasses. Another approach is to viewskills and content as objects of alternatinginstructional attention. Finally, skills maybe completely integrated within content.Supportive of integrating skills across thecurriculum, Bereiter (1984) recommendsmaking thinking skills an already acceptedinstructional objective, or permeate theinstructional program thoroughly withthese activities.

The inclusive nature of"integration" from these schemes is easilydiscernible. Also apparent is theconsiderable overlap in the strategies ofintegration represented in the schemes.For a comprehensive understanding of thenature of integration, both aspucts ofintegration, depth and quality must beaccounted for. What are the implicationsof these interpretations of these schemes?

8

The following sections present a critique ofthe analysis presented so far, and in doingso, illuminate the considerations involvedin transferring the theoretical farameworkinto applied environments.

Curriculum Integration: A CritiqueIt clear thus far that references to

curriculum integration are made in generalterms, without revealing precisely whyand how such approaches should work.Since practically no long-term evaluationsor studies systematically investigating theeffects of any kind of integration exist,one is left to derive conclusions from thesuccess stories recounted in isolatedexamples of spontaneous integretionadopted by willing teachers. While suchaccounts amply demonstrate theenthusiasm generated among students, andare useful in indicating the feasibility ofintegrating different disciplines, missingfrom these accounts is an analysis of theunderlying factors which caused aparticular amalgamation of disciplines tosucceed. It would be a worthwhile attemptto study this rich collection of anecdotalaccounts to draw conclusions about theplausibility of fitting integrative practicesin the overall scheme of curriculum designand implementation.

Thus, in spite of its speculatedadvantages, several basic questions aboutcurriculum integration remain equivocal:Which factors are causal to the success ofintegration, and under which conditions?What is the role of the structure ofdisciplines in enhancing integration? Giventhe structure of disciplines, when is itfeasible to integrate disciplines? Aresome disciplines better than others forintegration? To what depth mustdisciplines be integrated? What is theperspective one must impart to learnersregarding the nature of integration? Whatare the benefits of planned integrationversus spontaneous integrative practicesfollowed informally by teachers? Whatare the effective means of implementing

6


such an approach? is adopting a problem-oriented approach which does not respectthe boundaries of any discipline feasibleand desirable?

The questions generated above haveimplications for conceptualizing the notionof integration and implementing some formof it in applied settings. However, giventhe intrinsically appealing argumentspresented in favor of curriculumintegration, it is easy to follow thebandwagon approach, which manypractitioners are likely to do (Gibbons,1979). We now examine integration fromthe perspective of the structure ofdisciplines and the constraints in adoptingan integrated approach to curriculum.Finally, we offer suggestions on theprocess involved in implementing anintegrated approach.

The structure of disciplinesWhen integrating disciplines, it is

natural that several questions should ariseabout the integriti of disciplines: Howsacrosanct are the boundaries of adiscipline with respect to integration?How feasible is it to integrate separatestructures, biases, conflicts and languageof disciplines? Viewpoints on the subjectare varied.

The sanctity of disciplines is valuedby several writers. That individualdisciplines have their own modes ofinquiry, jargon, biases and language hasbeen elegantly and extensively documentedby Schwab (1964). A,.cording to Hughes(1978)," the disciplines of knowledge,as we know them, are not arbitrarydivisions. They are divisions which arepermitted by the reality of the exixtentialsituation...They have been tried andtested, and their value as vehicles forteaching 6annot be ignored." (p. 166).Gozzer (1982) believes there can be noconcept of the "international" without thatof "national"; thus there can be nolearning without a disciplinary framework.Heikkenin and Armstrong (1978) share

Gozzer's belief, stating that the process ofinterdisciplinary learning is anincreasingly complex sequence ofrelationships, which consists of learningabout individual disciplines, learning tocoordinate one discipline with another, andsuperordinating disciplines by integration.These authors affirm that unless studentshave a foundation of individual concepts, itis impossible for them to see relationships,or use inquiry, analysis and synthesis toexplore a particular perspective. In

Foshay's words (1970), "We mustrecognize that the integrity of the fields ofinquiry- the disciplines- must bepreserved, If they are to be learned. Butthis immediately makes it impossible intheory to combine disciplines intomultidisciplines for instruction. Thesubjects must be taught separately, eachin its own way, according to its ownlogic". (p. 125).

Integration is also based on certainassumptions which may be questionable.For example, Kindler (1987) questions theinclusion of art into the generalcurriculum. Integration assumes thatthere is similarity across the arts.However, sometimes focusing on one kindof art without interference from othersallows more profound involvement in thatart form. Arts are expressive in nature,but the expression takes very differentforms in each art area, eg., the concept ofrhythm in music and visual arts is verydifferent, the meaning is different in eachart medium. Kindler feels that long termintegration should present numerousproblems- the focus may become narrow inone or both the media. Further, eachdiscipline has its own logical sequence,thus coordination may be difficult in both.Kindler is also concerned with transfer ofartistic skills- creativity in one mediumdoes not guarantee it in another, there maynot be any transfer.

Integration of knowledge is subject-specific, that is, it depends on the natureof disciplines being integrated (Gibbons

7


1979). Using an analytical approach tointegrating physics and math, the authordemonstrates that knowledge hascoherence or synthesis within certainbroad fields of experience. A different setof hypotheses is arrived at usingintegration of content from history andsociology, implying that one cannot makegeneralizations about Integration, it isunique to all domains. According toGibbons, integration of knowledge fromdifferent domains is not only possible but anormal feature of the pursuit of knowledge.However, teachers and students pursuingintegrated studies must find out the natureof the domain of enquiry and theinstrumental domain, as well as the natureof concepts and propositions in the twodomains.

Ackerman (1989) looks at thequestion of Integration from a more appliedemphasis, enumerating the intellectual andpractical criteria which should beconsidered in curriculum integration.Speaking for the integration of higherorder thinking skills, the author believesthat integration must actually enhance thelearning of disciplines- studonts shouldgrasp the subjects better than if they weretaught separately; students must derivebenefit beyond the disciplines; and finally,students may acquire flexible thinkingprocesses in different situations,understand their limitations better, whichwill assist in the development personalattributes.

There are grounds for conflict inthe two outcomes being considered:keeping the integrity, the indigenous logicand structure of a discipline, versus"integrating" disciplines so that theboundaries among subjects no longer exist.Brameld (1970) theorizes that thestructure of the curriculum may besymbolized in the form of a moving"wheel", in which the rim is the unifyingtheme of mankind- its predicaments andaspirations, the hub is the central questionof any given period of learning, and spokes

1 (i

are the supporting areas of concentratedattention that bear most directly upon eachrespective qiestion. In this framework,within a probiem-oriented approach,individuals are allowed to develop theirareas of interest and concentration.Presenting a similar viewpoint, Jacobs(1989) reiterates that ono can accomplishboth- teach via an interdisciplinaryapproach and retain the unique flavor ofeach discipline. However, such schemesare conjectures at this points, howeffectively they can be accomplished canbe ascertained only after systematicresearch and evaluation.

What conclusion then, is one lettwith regarding the structures ofdisciplines and their effects onintegration? The answer lies in the natureof integration one is trying to accomplish.Some schemes or strategies of integrationdescribed earlier illuminate the issue. Forexample, Kimpston's strategies ofintegrating curricula considers differenttypes of integration- those in which it isnut necessary to lose the thread of inquiryfound in each discipline, as well as aproblem-oriented approach, in which noreference is made to the disciplines. Aninsightful approach for the practitioner ofintegration would be to study theseschemes, analyze the structure of therosciplines being pooled, and select astrategy which would best enhance what isbeing synthesized. Failure to do so canresult In what Jacobs terms the "potpourriproblem", which leads to a lack of "stayingpower of interdisciplinary approaches inschools; such units possess no generalstructure, resulting in a sampling of eachof the subjects which are combined.

Curriculum integration: Somepractical considerations

In making decisions aboutintegrating curricula, the practical criteriamust not be underestimated. Of utmostimportance are the attitudes and academicpreparation of teachers, reactions of

8


students, parents and community,equipment needs and new expertise (eg.,Salt, 1969).

Perhaps the most important amongthese is the academic and psychologicalpreparation of teachers: Are teachersequipped to implement integratedapproaches? In elementary grades,teachers often practice integrationspontaneously. However, beyondelementary grades, as teachers' knowledgeabout disciplines becomes morespecialized, instruction increasinglyacquires a more subject-centeredapproach. It is not clear how well teacherswho have been a part of subject-centerededucation, and have never experimentedwith unified approaches would react tointegrated courses. As Cadenhead (1970)states, connections between disciplines canbe made at several educational levels,however, the degree to which it is appliedwill be determined by the teachersknowledge, attitude and expertise invarious subjects and the application of theprinciple. Using transdisciplinaryapproachas requires a major shift inteaching strategies. For example, Romey(1975) acknowledges that, "A basic changein level of consciousness is required toaccomplish [transdisciplinary studies]. Myrole as a facilitator of learning changesdramatically when I, too, enter the area ofthe unknown, the new problem, rather thanresting comfortably back in the zone offamiliar methods and concepts." (p. 33).Heikkenin and Armstrong (1976) presentevidence that only teachers functioning ata highly developed conceptualunderstanding of science can dealadequately with the idea of a unifiedapproach to science.

Bollen (1977) argues that teachersare speciaiists, and may be enthusiasticfor their own subjects, not othrs'.Second, teaching certain subjects, eg.,sciences requires a number of equipmentand safety considerations, thus it wouldneed considerable inservice training to

1 i

make teachers experts in fulfilling thesafety requirements. The importance ofteachers in the learning process isstressed by Hughes (1978), who believesthat it is the quality of teachers whicnmakes a difference in learning, not thecurriculum per se.

Second, curriculum integration, likeany aspect of curriculum, is a socialprocess, invoMng parents, students,teachers, the community andadministrators. The suc,cess of integratedprograms would depend on theparticipation, conscnsus and understandingby all of what is to be accomplished. Thedecision to adopt sn integrated approachwould result in a different set of physicaland intellectual needs, and require arestructuring of personnel; all suchchanges must be accounted for beforelaunching an integrated program.

ConclusionCurriculum integration must not be

considered as a random combination ofdisciplines, as the term may imply. Norshould it be practiced without asystematic, methodical analysis of goals,the underlying philosophy, the structure ofdisciplines being considered forintegration, practical constraints andschemes ot implementation. In this paper,we have attempted to highlight thoseissues involved in curriculum integrationwhich are often overlooked in the design ofsuch curricula. Examples can be seen inhow hastily subjects pertaining tocontemporary social issues are"Integrated" into school curricula, withoutadequate foresight into their effects onalready overburdened teachers, and theiroverall impact on students intellectuallyand socially. As Haas (1975) states, "Inthis century American education has hadnumerous flirtations with schemes ofintegrating knowledge- core curriculum,fusion, broad fields..Due primarily to thepower of tradition, weak formulations ofrationales, and little concero for a

9


philosophy of knowledge, these schemeshave led struggling and short existences."(P. 9).

We advocate a systematic,conscious effort towards integration,which is not Gnly practiced by individualteachers themselves, but is supported bythe school and district administration, aswell as students and parents. We believethat in the existing curriculumdevelopment practices, acceptance forintegrated dissemination of knowledgemust penetrate more than one level ofadministration to have an impact- inmaking a difference in the learners'holistic conception of knowledge. In thisless radical approach towards curriculumreform, we believe that a subject-basedcurriculum ought not to be eliminatedaltogether, however, relationships amongdisciplines must be ma& explicit.Disciplines which share unifyingstructures, eg., sciences, should bedisseminated with an integrated emphasis(Adenyi, 1987; Chapman, 1976;Showalter, 1975).

Models of integrated curriculadelineated recently by Jacobs, andAckerman and Perkins (1989) indicate atrend in which ambiguity about the natureof integration is beginning to lessen- thesemodels outline clear conceptions anddesigns for curriculum integration. Inspite of existing models, discretion isrequired before decisions regardingintegration are made. Of ulSmateimportance are the clarity of goals forimplementation- what will be accomplishedthrough a certain type of integration?Unlesss there is consensus by ell who willbe affected by the project, at some levelthe attempt at integration may losemomentum and focus.

A more radical approach would beto adopt an entirely holistic approach tolearning, in which students feel free tostudy unifying themes, pmblems andconcepts, without being confined to anydiscipline. Such a philosopy, which is

1 2

advocated by many theorists, wouldrequIre a major restructuring of the schoolsystem at all levels. A major concernhere is related to expectations ofteachers- subconsciously, it would benatural to expecl teachers to be subjectspecialists as well as effective facilitators


of integrated learning. This ought to beavoided, with clear expectations delineatedfor teachers (Hamilton, 1973). Consensusamong everyone involved in therestructuring at a philosophical andpsychologicnI level would be a major issue.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Ackerman, D. (1989). Intellectual and practical criteria for successful curriculum integration.

In Jacobs, H. (Ed,). i i I : D: .e. it .:81:e tin, ASCD:Alexandria, Vancouver.

Ackerman, D. and Perkins, D. N. (1989). Integrating thinking and learning skills across the

curriculum. In Jacobs, H. (Ed.). ThfiLlatextilsrainaLL.u.alculmma_Dfiltilliadimplementation, ASCD: Alexandria, Vancouver.

Adenyi, E. O. (1987), Curriculum development and the concept of "Integration" in science- Someinplications for general education. Science Education, Z1 523-533.

Anderson, J. R. (1980). rdzonityrihdidujiaajissigigilli1 . San Francisco, CA:

Freeman.

Bereiter, C. (1984). How to keep thinking skills from going the way of all frills. Educatio nal

Leadership, 42,(1), 75-77.

Bollen, F. A. (1977). Does "science for all" have to be "unified science"? Education Iry Science,

25-26.

Brameld, T. (1970). A cross-cutting approach to the curriculum: the moving wheel. Etii Delta

itappan, 0., 346-348.

Burns, R. & Brooks G. D. i1 970). The need for curriculum reform. EdudafidnaLierdindidgx,

j.Q,(4), 8-12.

Cadenhead, K. (1970). Needed: A plan that capitalizes on relationships among disciplines.

Elementacc..lactlifift, 41(7),988-92.

Chapman, B. (1976). The integration of science or the disintegration of science education?

adool Sciapce Review, 511, 134-146.

10I 3


Cohen, M. (1978). Whatever happened to Interdisciplinary Education? Ethcational Leadership,U(2), 122-26.

Cummings, R. J. (1989). The interdisciplinary cha!lenge: Connection and balance. NationalExura.,_Ebjjcappa_ehilaurnal, Spring, 2-3.

Foshay, A. W. (1970). How fare the disciplines? Phi Delta Kagpana_it, 349-52.

Gaff, J. G. (1989). The resurgence of interdisciplinary studies. National Forum: Phi Kappa PhiJournal, Spring, 4-5.

Gibbons, J. A. (1979). Curriculum Integration. curriculum Inayiry, a, 321-332.

Goner, G. (1982). Interdisolplinarity: A concept still unclear. alio= 12, 281-292.

Haas, J. D. (1975). For lack of a loom: Problems in integrating knowledge. School Science andMathematics, ZA(1), 4-14.

Hamilton, D. (1973). The integration of knowledge: Practice and Problems. Journal ofCurrioulum Studies, 1(2), 146-55.

Heikkinen, M. W. & Armstrong, T. (1978). Unified science and teacher's conceptual level.mtScience and Mathematics, 7.1, 513-516.

Hughes, A. S. (1978). Separate subject and integrated approaches to social education. hull=Antzicial Studies Teacher, ia(3),163-67.

Jacobs, H. (1989). The growing need for interdisciplinary discipline content. In Jacobs, H.(Ed.). The Interdisciplinary Curriculum. Desion and implementation, ASCD: Alexandria,Vancouver.

Kersh, M. E., Nielson, M. E. & Subotnik, R. F. (1987). Techniques and sources for developingintegrtive curriculum for the gifted. higmthaLtor_tha_Ed catiiLI:uUhLSiiftedo,11(1), 56-68.

Kindler, A. M. (1987). A review of rationales for integrated arts programs. Studies in ArtEducation, 21(1), 52-60.

Kimpston, R. D. (1989). Multidisciplinary approaches to curriculum: Some basic strategies.Unpublished manuscript, University of Minnesota.

North Carolina State Department of Public Instruction, Raleigh. Instructional Services (1987).Integrated learning- what, why and how? ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED

290759.

Romey, W. D. (1975). Transdisciplinary, Problem-Centered Studies: Who is the integrator?adigsg3clance and Mathematics, Th,(1), 30-38.

1 11 4


Salt, J. (1969). Problems of Integrated Education (1969). Trends in Ectugatign, a., 23-37.

Schwab, J. (1964).and Co.

I: iat-1 le :le el I :I Rand Mcnally

Short, E. C. & Jennings, T. T. Jr. (1976). Multidisciplinary: An alternative approach tocurriculum thought, Educational Leadership, 33.(8), 690-94.

Showalter, V. (1975). Rationale for an unbounded science curriculum. school Science andMathematics, rip), 15-21.

Zverev, I. D. (1977). Pedagogical research problems of the general curriculum. Soviet

Ethisigigil, a(8), 80-96.

1 2

document resume ed 334 677 ea 023 158 author relan, … · document resume ed 334 677 ea 023 158...

Documents