RSu03/Features/154-182 164 Kappa Delta Pi Record • Summer 2003 A Guide to Curricular Integration by Robert C. Morris Robert C. Morris is Professor of Cur- riculum Studies, State University of West Georgia in Carrollton. He is Counselor for the Omicron Omega Chapter of Kappa Delta Pi. His cur- rent research interests relate to lead- ership activities for curricular and instructional change. school’s curriculum can ap- pear unrelated, fragmented, or somewhat disjointed if not done with an end in mind. This frag- mentation or disjointedness of- t e n a f f e c t s s t u d e n t s and their views of the experiences being given them in school (Beane 1991). Various curriculum-integration techniques, however, can be used to help make the big picture more understandable to students; and these have the added benefit of allowing teachers to focus better on teaching and student learning. learning as well as real life. Of course, sometimes integration is not the best approach to teach- ing. Integration just for the sake of integration even can interfere with learning if constructed ac- tivities are not meaningful. To integrate a curriculum is to combine subjects to meet objec- tives across the curriculum, not just objectives pertaining to one s u b j e c t . Fo r e x a m p l e, w h i l e studying Indians in social studies, reading could be integrated by in- cluding both fiction and nonfic- A Lessons can become more meaningful to students and save teachers valuable time when subjects are integrated properly, not superficially. What Does Integrating Curriculum Mean? Jacqueline Anglin’s (1999, 3) insight that “integrating curricu- lum correctly requires more than combining two subjects, or turn teaching” was right on track. The notion of integrating a curricu- l u m i s m o re t h a n c o n n e c t i n g pieces so that students can see the bigger design. In effective curriculum-integration models, knowledge is meaningfully re- lated and connects in such a way that it is relevant to other areas of A Guide to Curricular Integration by Robert C. Morris Kappa Delta Pi Record • Summer 2003 165 tion stories about Indians. View- i n g a n d re c re a t i n g In d i a n a r t could meet art objectives. Chart- ing the locations of various tribes and calculating mileage between different tribes or distances tribes traveled could meet geography and math objectives. An interdisciplinary or inte- grated curriculum allows students to make connections among vari- ous subjects, while also helping to solve the teacher’s dilemma of hav- ing so much to accomplish in a limited time. An integrated cur- riculum, by nature, ties an indi- vidual subject to the circle of edu- cational experiences and learning, thus reducing the need for teach- ers formally to make every lesson a connection to life. The saved time allows teachers more opportuni- ties to accomplish tasks on their ever-growing “required” lists. Models of Integration The current trend to imple- ment an integrated curriculum is not a new idea. Vars (1991) traced the evolving concept of the core curr iculum back to Herber t Spencer’s writings in the 1800s. By the late 1930s and early ’40s, the term “core curriculum” had be- come part of the literature in vari- ous state and national curriculum- reform efforts, most significantly the progressive education move- ment. In 1942, the concept of core and integrated curriculum was be- ing tested in the famous Eight-Year Study of the Progressive Education Association. By the late 1980s, more than 80 normative or com- parative studies had been con- ducted on the effectiveness of in- tegration (National Association for Core Curr iculum 1984). These studies found that programs using integration or an interdisciplinary curriculum almost always pro- duced equivalent or even better scores on standardized achieve- ment tests than those where stu- dents were taught through the traditional discipline-or iented format. Today, these are some of the more popular curricular models that have evolved and currently are being used: • The connected integration model does not integrate various subjects, but focuses on integrating skills or concepts within a subject. For example, a science teacher can relate a geology unit to an as- tronomy unit by emphasizing that each has an evolutionary nature (Fogarty 1991). • The nested integration model focuses on natural combi- nations. For instance, a lesson on the circulatory system can inte- grate the concept of systems as well as demonstrate “cause and effect” on specific understandings of the circulatory system (Fogarty 1991). • In the sequenced model, units are taught separately, but are designed to provide a broad frame- work for related concepts. For ex- ample, while reading A Taste of Blackberries (Smith 1992), a paral- lel lesson on bees could be taught in science. • The shared model looks for overlapping concepts and involves coordinated planning between two teachers of different subjects. A lit- erature teacher and a histor y teacher, for example, may team up to teach an historical perspective of the concepts of segregation and desegregation by reading Roll of Thunder, Hear My Cry (Taylor 2001). • The webbed model generally uses a theme to connect all subject areas. If the theme were Christmas, for instance, literature classes might read A Christmas Carol (Dickens 2001). In math, students could calculate the costs of their Chr istmas lists. Social studies classes might research Christmas in other countries. In language arts, students could write about their favorite Christmas. In science, les- sons could focus on weather or fly- ing machines. • The threaded model “threads” thinking, social, or study skills to connect learning across the curriculum. For example, sequenc- ing is a skill taught primarily in reading, but can be threaded into the other subjects. In social stud- ies, students could put in order the voyages of Christopher Columbus and the events leading up to them. In math, patter ns of numbers could be explored. In science, the steps of succession of a dying or dead forest could be explored. And in health, students could study the steps in digesting food. • The integrated model blends the four major disciplines by find- ing concepts or skills that overlap. The most popular example of this model is the whole-language ap- proach that is now being imple- mented in many elementar y schools. This method blends the skills of reading, writing, speaking, and listening using literature as a theme. • The immersed model advo- cates that integration take place within the learner with little or no outside help. For example, a stu- dent who has a love for horses reads about horses, writes about them, draws pictures of them, and longs to learn more about them and possibly become a horse trainer or veterinarian. • The networked model allows for exploration, experimentation, and participation. A student’s fas- 166 Kappa Delta Pi Record • Summer 2003 cination with the solar system and space travel, for instance, directs his or her reading choices or television viewing. Teachers or family mem- bers cognizant of this child’s interest encourage him or her by allowing the student to go to space camp. Robin Fogarty (1991, 61–64) made a wonderful analogy of these models by comparing them to vi- sual devices: The connected model of the integrated curriculum is the view through an opera glass, providing a close-up of the details, subtleties, and inter- connections within each sub- ject area. . . . The nested model views the curriculum through three-dimensional glasses, targeting multiple dimen- sions of a lesson. . . . The se- quenced model views the cur- riculum through eyeglasses: the lenses are separate but connected by a common frame. . . . The shared model views the curriculum through binoculars, bringing two dis- tinct disciplines together into a single focused image. . . . The webbed model views the cur- riculum through a telescope, capturing an entire constella- tion of disciplines at once. . . . The threaded model views the curriculum through a big magnifying glass: the ‘ big ideas’ are enlarged through- out all content with a metacurricular approach. . . . The integrated model views the curriculum through a ka- leidoscope: interdisciplinary topics are rearranged around overlapping concepts and emergent patterns and de- signs. . . . The immersed model views the curriculum through a microscope. It filters all con- tent through the lens of inter- est and expertise. . . . The net- worked model views the curriculum through a prism, creating multiple dimensions and directions of focus. Planning for Curriculum Integration Integrating the curriculum of a school takes planning. Jacobs (1991) developed a four-phase plan that can be accomplished in three years: • Phase I (six months to one y e a r ) i s re s e a rc h . In t e r n a l re - search is conducted to plot the u n i t s o f s t u d y t a u g h t o n a monthly basis—to find out when s t u d e n t s a re s t u d y i n g c e r t a i n subject matter, to reduce repeti- tion of material from year to year and to identify units of study that lend themselves to an interdisci- plinary approach. Staff members conduct external research by at- tending conferences, making on- site visits, or arranging in-service activities. • Phase II (two to four months) is development of a proposal. Po- tential areas for interdisciplinary units are assessed, and an existing unit of study is upgraded to include integration of various subjects. On completion of the proposal and its review at higher levels, classroom implementation of a pilot program may follow. • Phase III (two to six weeks) is implementation of the pilot program. This phase includes as- sessment by the teaching staff in- volved in the pilot. The program is monitored and evaluated, and feedback is given. • Phase IV (third year of plan) is adoption of the program based on the feedback and evaluation from the pilot phase. Adding the program to the existing curricu- lum is often constrained by time; replacing the curriculum with the new one is much more common. Fo r e x a m p l e, E n g l i s h , s o c i a l studies, and art are replaced by humanities. Planning for curriculum inte- gration on a daily basis for indi- vidual classrooms is equally impor- tant as planning integration at the system level. To assist teachers in curriculum integration, Palmer (1991, 58) suggested the use of a “planning wheel”—a device that “allows for teachers to focus on a specific subject area while identi- fying appropriate connections with other content.” Palmer’s steps for implementing the planning wheel follow: • Step 1: Identify common goals, objectives, themes, and skills among the different subjects. • Step 2: Develop a sample planning wheel to illustrate the kinds of connections to be made. The focus of the unit, such as nutrition (in a health class), is listed in the middle of the wheel. On the outside of the wheel are other sub- jects, and under each are listed ac- tivities related to the focus—for example, under math, calculating calories for dietary planning; under language arts, writing about foods from other cultures; under music, singing songs about food; under physical education, determining correct amounts of exercise to burn calories. • St e p 3 : P l a n n e r s o f c u r- riculum use the wheel as an aid to organizing and planning new curricula. • Step 4: In-service activities are held to train teachers on how to implement the proposed inte- grated curriculum. Kappa Delta Pi Record • Summer 2003 167 Will Integrating Make a Difference? Integration may not work, es- pecially when curriculum integra- tion is implemented merely for the sake of integration. In fact, integra- tion can be counterproductive when activities originally intended to combine subject matter and ob- jectives in a meaningful way lack educational value, or meet objec- tives in one subject while failing to satisfy objective requirements in the other subjects (Brophy and Alleman 1991). Activities such as alphabetizing state capitals or counting states in a geographical region are not valuable lessons in the area of social studies. These activities would be done just for the sake of integration and are more or less busywork (Alleman and Brophy 1993). Not only are some activities meaningless, but they also may be time-consuming or costly—for ex- ample, carving pumpkins to look like U.S. presidents. Too often, teachers integrate superficially with activities devoid of curricular value. One teacher attempted to integrate math and social studies by having students fill a matrix with the actual numbers of the consti- tutional amendments, thinking this represented a math objective because the students were “using” numbers (Alleman and Brophy 1993). A Design for Success To make integration mean- ingful and successful in a class- room, activities must be assessed by their educational value and meet curricular objectives in two o r m o re s u b j e c t a re a s . W h e n implemented properly, not su- perficially, integration can be a more meaningful approach to learning for students, as well as a time-saver for teachers. Brophy (Alleman and Brophy 1993) suggested testing each pro- posed activity with the following questions before integrating it across the curriculum: • Does the activity have a sig- nificant educational goal as its pri- mary focus? • Would this activity be desir- a b l e e ve n i f i t d i d n o t f e a t u re across-subjects integration? • Would an outsider clearly recognize the activity as relating to the subject? • Does the activity allow stu- dents to develop meaningfully or apply authentically important content? • Does it involve authentic application of the skill from other disciplines? • If the activity is structured properly, will students be able to understand and explain its educa- tional purposes? • If students engage in the ac- tivity with those purposes in mind, will they be likely to accomplish the purposes as a result? Some of the most famous and successful examples of curriculum integration come from Wigginton’s Foxfire Experience (1985). In at- tempting to reach a group of stu- dents who were basically failing in school, Wigginton searched for a way to teach that would motivate stu- dents and give them a meaningful educational experience. He coordi- nated students to develop the Foxfire publication, letting them write, edit, and even negotiate book contracts. He obviously achieved the motiva- tion he desired, but time constraints and particular curricular require- ments were constant hindrances. Wigginton (1991, 49) wrote: Keeping the curriculum re- quirements in mind, I initiated a unit in formal letter writing. If I could just figure out ways of this sort to make the curricu- lum work for the magazine in- stead of against it, I could kill two birds with one stone. I could fulfill the state require- ments and at the same time give those requirements an added dimension of reality for the students that would make their internalization and mas- tery far more likely. . . . Classes had come together as one. Teaching was beginning to make sense. If integrated teaching can help a school’s curriculum “make sense” to the teacher, then consider how much more sense it can make for the student if it lives up to the ideals that form a basis for meaningful educa- tional experiences. References Alleman, J., and J. Brophy. 1993. Is curriculum integration a boon or a threat to social studies? Elementary education. Social Education 57(6): 287–91. Anglin, J. M. 1999. Develop your own philosophy. New Teacher Advocate 7(1): 3. Beane, J. 1991. The middle school: The natural home of integrated curriculum. Educational Leadership 49(2): 9–13. Brophy, J., and J. Alleman. 1991. A caveat: Curriculum integration isn’t always a good idea. Educational Leadership 49(2): 66. Dickens, C. 2001. A Christmas carol. Foster City, Calif.: Hungry Minds. Fogarty, R. 1991. Ten ways to integrate curriculum. Educational Leadership 49(2): 61–65. Jacobs, H. H. 1991. Planning for curriculum integration. Educational Leadership 49(2): 27–28. National Association for Core Curriculum. 1984. Bibliography of research on the effectiveness of block—Time, core, and interdisciplinary team teaching programs. Kent, Ohio: NACC. Palmer, J. M. 1991. Planning wheels turn curriculum around. Educational Leadership 49(2): 57–60. Smith, D. B. 1992. A taste of blackberries. New York: HarperTrophy. Taylor, M. D. 2001. Roll of thunder, hear my cry. New York: Phyllis Fogelman Books. Vars, G. F. 1991. Integrated curriculum in historical perspective. Educational Leadership 49(2): 14–15. Wigginton, E. 1985. Sometimes a shining moment: The Foxfire experience. Garden City, N.Y.: Anchor Press/Doubleday.