Is Integrated Curriculum Defined And Is It Making A Difference?

Edna Meisel
Calvin F. Meyer
Marshall University Graduate College

   This paper examines the teaching practices and perceptions of levels of integration used by middle school teachers, specifically grade 7, to integrate curriculum.

Why Integrate Content Areas?

   A look at Howard Gardner’s Theory of Multiple Intelligences offers a compelling answer to the question “Why integrate content areas at all?” Gardner devised a list of several intelligences that differ from the traditional view that included only verbal and computational intelligence (Brualdi, 1996). These seven intelligences are: (1) Logical-Mathematical, (2) Linguistic, (3) Spatial, (4) Musical, (5) Bodily-Kinesthetic, (6) Personal from an interpersonal perspective, (7) Personal from an intrapersonal perspective, (8) Naturalistic, and (9) Existentialistic. It is also important to note that Gardner defines intelligence as biological as well as cultural in origin; meaning that along with neurobiological sources, societies also play a large role in the development of intelligences (Brualdi).

   Gardner’s theory states that all these intelligences must be included and utilized by students in classroom lessons in order to learn and become productive citizens in their society (Brualdi, 1996). Teachers who integrate several content areas to present a topic offer opportunities for students to engage several of these intelligences. This in turn would help students develop a deeper understanding of the material. For example, while presenting a lesson on recycling, a teacher can have students conduct community surveys and analyze the data statistically, have students create their own recycling logo through visual art techniques, read a story concerning environmental issues, and play or write songs that promote respect for the earth. Lesson such as these that relate to the students’ immediate society and require students to be active participants while using several modes of intelligence are more apt to ensure meaningful learning by the student.

   Caine and Caine (1990) assert that an understanding of the “vastness, complexity, and potential of the human brain” requires a major revamping of the ways we teach subject disciplines, assess students, and organize school curricula. These authors present 12 Principles for Brain-Based Learning that they believe should be applied to education:

1. The brain is a parallel processor.
2. Learning engages the entire physiology
3. The search for meaning is innate.
4. The search for meaning occurs through patterning.
5. Emotions are critical to patterning.
6. Every brain simultaneously perceives and creates parts and wholes.
7. Learning involves both focused attention and peripheral perception.
8. Learning always involves conscious and unconscious processes.
9. We have two types of memory: A special memory system and a set of systems for rote.
10. The brain understands and remembers best when facts and skills are embedded in spatial memory.
11. Learning is enhanced by challenge and inhibited by threat.
12. Each brain is unique.

   Caine and Caine (1990) assert that a move towards a student-centered approach that uses meaningful activities based upon the integration of several disciplines would utilize these principles as the foundation for learning. These integration specialists recommend three interactive elements be present throughout students’ lessons in order to apply these principles: relaxed alertness, immersion, and active processing. For meaningful learning to occur, there must be a shift away from learning by memorization of facts from disjointed subjects (Caine & Caine). When integration is used, students are able to make connections, find reasons for inquiry, and discover opportunities to use their emotions, intuitions, and physical bodies to engage in learning.

   Qualitative studies have shown that nonacademic classroom concerns are improving with the use of integration (Dykman, 1997). Because the use of this technique often requires relating course activities to real life, students enjoy courses more, absenteeism and discipline problems decline, and students perceive school as a fun place to be.

   It is apparent that different forms of integration are being used throughout our educational systems. Through an examination of 31 studies, Hurley (2001) found five types of integration that have been used to teach integrated curricula: (1) Sequenced: Two subjects are planned and taught sequentially, with one preceding the other; (2) Parallel:  Two subjects are planned and taught simultaneously through parallel concepts; (3) Partial: Two subjects are taught partially together and partially as separate disciplines in the same classes; (4) Enhanced: Either one subject or the other is the major discipline of instruction, with the other discipline apparent throughout the instruction; and (5) Total: Two subjects are taught together in intended equality. From this research it is evident that patterns and commonalities are emerging in the way educators are beginning to define and put into practice the integration of content areas.

   Why Connect Curriculum?

   The National Science Education Standards were written to guide teachers and their students to the goal of science literacy throughout our educational systems. The National Research Council (1997), who authored these standards, assert that one way to realize this goal is for emphasis to be placed on “connecting science to other school disciplines such as mathematics and social studies” (p. 224). Likewise, the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics claim that “the need to understand and be able to use mathematics in everyday life and in the workplace has never been greater and will continue to increase” (Principles and Standards for School Mathematics, p. 4).

   In the 1980’s, Howard Goldberg, University of Illinois in Chicago, devised a curriculum that significantly integrated science and mathematics (Bowen, 1998). Goldberg’s reasoning was based on his view that science is experimental and mathematics is the language of science. With these principles in mind, teachers must purposefully plan lessons that not only teach the concepts of science and mathematics, but must also present opportunities for students to make connections across these disciplines and in their everyday experiences and thus this applies across the curriculum.

   What is the Problem of Integration?

   Susan Drake, an associate professor of education at Brock University in St. Catharine’s, Ontario, states that one of the problems that can slow the implementation of an integrated curriculum is the fact that educators are not communicating with each other about what’s worth knowing (Dykman, 1997). In one research study, Judson and Sawada (2000) found that very often teachers of mathematics cover many topics in mathematics with a “just-in-case” attitude. This means that mathematic concepts are not taught with present connections but with the idea in mind that students will need the information later. These researchers also found that lack of training, inadequate equipment, teacher beliefs and unwillingness to alter teaching styles, and a teacher’s institutionalized routines hinder the integration of mathematics with other content areas. The same can be said of the Social Science area. 

   As the need for the use of integrated curricula is being emphasized, an additional concern arises for a common definition of integrated curriculum. This common definition would serve as a general basis for those who wish to use or research the many issues of integrated curriculum (Dykman, 1997; Frykholm & Meyer, 2002; Hurley, 2001; Huntley, 1998; Jacobs, 1989, Lonning & DeFranco, 1997). Several models of integrated curriculum are emerging that utilize the idea of a continuum to tackle the complexities encountered when considering integration for curriculum planning (Pang & Good, 2000).  In some continuum models, levels range from traditional, discipline-based options of content delivery to complex, network approaches to curriculum planning where boundaries between disciplines are not discernable (Jacobs, 1989).

   Curriculum continuum models do not necessarily describe the worst and best ways to deliver curricular material (Kellough, 1996). The levels of these models are meant to show a continuum of the sophistication and complexity involved in deciding the appropriate way to teach the varied concepts of different disciplines (Kellough).  Integrated curriculum continuum models allow for variety in content delivery pedagogy as they provide a guide to planning and organizing instructional programs as the needs, experiences, and interests of students are considered (Kellough).

References

Bowen, S. (1998, Summer). Teaching integrated math and science. Forum on Education.

Brualdi, A. C. (1996). Multiple intelligences: Gardner’s Theory. Washington, DC: Clearinghouse on Assessment and Evaluation. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED410226)

Caine, R. N., & Caine, G. (1990). Understanding a brain-based approach to learning and teaching. Educational Leadership, 48(2), 66-70.

Dykman, A. (1997). Interview with Susan Drake [Electronic version]. Techniques: Making Education & Career Connections, 72(8), 24-25.

Frykholm, J. A., & Meyer, M. R. (2002). Integrated instruction [Electronic version]. Mathematics Teaching in the Middle School, 7(9), 502-508.

Huntley, M. A. (1998). Design and implementation of a framework for defining integrated mathematics and science education. School Science & Mathematics, 98(6), 320-327.

Hurley, M. M. (2001). Reviewing integrated science and mathematics: The search for evidence and definitions from new perspectives [Electronic version]. School Science & Mathematics, 101(5), 259-270.

Jacobs, H. H. (1989a). The growing need for interdisciplinary curriculum content. In H. H. Jacobs (Ed.), Interdisciplinary curriculum: Design and implementation (pp.1-12). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Jacobs, H. H. (1989b). Design options for an integrated curriculum. In H. H. Jacobs (Ed.), Interdisciplinary curriculum: Design and implementation (pp. 13-24). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Judson, E., & Sawada, D. (2000). Examining the effects of a reformed junior high school science class on students’ math achievement [Electronic version]. School Science & Mathematics, 100(8), 419-425.

Kellough, R. D. (1996). Integrating mathematics and science: For intermediate and middle school students. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc.

Lonning, R. A., & DeFranco, T. C. (1994). Development and implementation of an integrated mathematics/science preservice elementary methods course. [Electronic version]. School Science & Mathematics, 94(1), 18-25.

McBride, J. W., & Silverman, F. L. (1991). Integrating elementary/middle school science and mathematics. School Science and Mathematics, 91(7), 285-292.

National Research Council. (1997). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Pang, J., & Good, R. (2000). A review of the integration of science and mathematics: Implications for further research [Electronic version]. School Science & Mathematics, 100(2), 73-82.