Mapping the Domain of Subject Area Integration: Elementary Educators’ Descriptions and Practices

Gustave E Nollmeyer, Lynn Kelting-Gibson, C. John Graves

Abstract


A review of relevant literature reveals that integration is a difficult practice to define, yet elementary teachers are quick to speak positively of it and many claim to integrate in their practice. If there is a lack of consensus about what integration means, what then are these teachers doing when they say that they integrate? This study investigated five cases in an effort to establish how elementary teachers describe the domain of subject area integration. Qualitative data was collected through interviews with the participants and observations of the integrated lessons they taught. The data revealed a healthy mix of commonalities within and differences between the teachers’ descriptions and practices. These similarities and differences revealed a model of integration that goes beyond the linear continuums common in the literature. Instead we propose a model of the domain that consists of four variables. These variables can be used to describe with great detail an individual practice of integration and allow educators and administrators an opportunity to consider and plan for growth in the application of subject area integration.

Keywords


Integration, Interdisciplinary curriculum, Elementary Education, Curriculum and Instruction

Full Text:

PDF

References


Adler, M., & Flihan, S. (1997). The interdisciplinary continuum: reconciling theory, research and practice. Retrieved from ERIC database. (ED414602).

American Library Association. (1989). American library association presidential committee on information literacy final report. Washington, DC: Author.

Applebee, A.N., Adler, M., & Flihan, S. (2007). Interdisciplinary curricula in middle and high school classrooms: Case studies of approaches to curriculum and instruction. American Educational Research Journal, 44(4), 1002-1039. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.3102/0002831207308219

Beane, J. A. (1992). Creating an integrative curriculum: Making the connections. NASSP bulletin, 76(547), 46-54.

Beane, J. A. (1995). Curriculum integration and the disciplines of knowledge. Phi Delta Kappan, 76(8), 616-622.

Brown, D. F. (2011). Curriculum integration: Meaningful learning based on students' questions. Middle Grades Research Journal, 6(4), 193-206.

Brozo, W. G., Moorman, G., Meyer, C., & Stewart, T. (2013). Content area reading and disciplinary literacy: A case for the radical center. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 56(5), 353-357. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/JAAL.153

Bunting, C. (1987). Educational purpose and the new curricula: A view from the theoretical perspective. NASSP Bulletin, 71(501), 119-125. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/019263658707150128

Case, R. (1991). The anatomy of curricular integration. Canadian Journal of Education, 16(2), 215-224.

Collier, S., & Nolan, K. (1996). Elementary teachers' perceptions on integration. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Mid-South Educational Research Association, Tuscaloosa, Alabama.

DeCorse, C. B. (1996). Current conversations teachers and the integrated curriculum: An intergenerational view. Action in Teacher Education, 18(1), 85-92.

Dickson, B. L. (1995). Reading in the content-areas. Reading Improvement, 32(3), 191-192.

Dowden, T. (2007). Relevant, challenging, integrative and exploratory curriculum design: Perspectives from theory and practice for middle level schooling in Australia. The Australian Educational Researcher, 34(2), 51-71.

Fogarty, R. (1991). Ten ways to integrate curriculum. Educational Leadership, 49(2), 61.

Fogarty, R. (2009). How to integrate the curricula (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Fraley, A. E. (1977). Core curriculum: An epic in the history of educational reform. Doctoral Dissertation. Teachers College. Columbia University.

Gehrke, N. J. (1998). A look at curriculum integration from the bridge. Curriculum Journal, 9(2), 247-260. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0958517970090209

Gewertz, C. (2012). Common standards drive new reading approaches. Education Week, 32(12), 2.

Greene, L. C. (1991). Science-centered curriculum in elementary school. Educational Leadership, 49(2), 42-46.

Greenleaf, C. L., Litman, C., Hanson, T. L., Rosen, R., Boscardin, C. K., Herman, J., . . . Jones, B. (2011). Integrating literacy and science in biology: Teaching and learning impacts of reading apprenticeship professional development American Educational Research Journal, 48(3), 647-717.

Harp, B. (1989). When the principal asks: "How are we using what we know about literacy processes in the content areas?". The Reading Teacher, 42(9), 726-727. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/20200286

Harrell, P.E. (2010). Teaching an integrated science curriculum: Linking teacher knowledge and teaching assignments. Issues in Teacher Education, 19(1), 145.

Hartzler, D. S. (2000). A meta-analysis of studies conducted on integrated curriculum programs and their effects on student achievement. Indiana University. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses.

Humphrey, G. (1924). The psychology of the Gestalt. Journal of Educational Psychology, 15(7), 401.

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

Jacobs, H. H. (1989). Interdisciplinary curriculum: Design and implementation. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.

Jacobs, H. H. (1991). Planning for curriculum integration. Educational Leadership, 49(2), 27-28.

Kain, D. L. (1993). Cabbages--and kings: Research directions in integrated/interdisciplinary curriculum. Journal of Educational Thought, 27(3), 312-331.

Kain, D. L. (1996). Recipes or dialogue? A middle school team conceptualizes curricular integration. Journal of Curriculum and Supervision, 11(2), 163-187.

Langer, J. A. (1986). Learning through writing: Study skills in the content areas. Journal of Reading, 29(5), 400-406.

Leung, W. L. A. (2006). Teaching integrated curriculum: Teachers' challenges. Pacific Asian Education, 18(1), 88-102.

Lincoln, Y. S. (1990). The making of a constructivist: A rememberance of transformations past. In E. G. Guba (Ed.), The paradigm dialog. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Lonning, R. A., & DeFranco, T. C. (1997). Integration of science and mathematics: A theoretical model. School Science and Mathematics, 97(4), 212.

Lonning, R. A., DeFranco, T. C., & Weinland, T. P. (1998). Development of theme-based, interdisciplinary, integrated curriculum: A theoretical model. School Science and Mathematics, 98(6), 312-319.

MacMath, S., Roberts, J., Wallace, J., & Chi, X. (2010). Curriculum integration and at-risk students: A canadian case study examining student learning and motivation. British Journal of Special Education, 37(2), 87-94.

Mathison, S., & Freeman, M. (1997). The logic of interdisciplinary studies. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago.

Maxwell, J. A. (2005). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

McBee, R. H. (2000). Why teachers integrate. Educational Forum, 64(3), 254-260. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00131720008984762

McKenna, M. C., & Robinson, R. D. (1990). Content literacy: A definition and implications. Journal of Reading, 34(3), 184-186.

Musoleno, R. R., & White, G. P. (2010). Influences of high-stakes testing on middle school mission and practice. RMLE Online: Research in Middle Level Education, 34(3), 1-10.

National Governors Association Center for Best Practices, Council of Chief State School Officers. (2010). Common Core State Standards. Washington, DC: Author.

NGSS Lead States. (2013). Next generation science standards: For states, by states. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

Nissani, M. (1995). Fruits, salads, and smoothies: A working definition of interdisciplinarity. Journal of educational thought, 29(2), 121-128.

Offer, J., & Mireles, S. V. (2009). Mix it up: Teachers' beliefs on mixing mathematics and science. School Science and Mathematics, 109(3), 146-152.

Patton, M. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Romance, N. R., & Vitale, M. R. (2001). Implementing an in-depth expanded science model in elementary schools: Multi-year findings, research issues, and policy implications. International Journal of Science Education, 23(4), 373-404.

Shadish, W. R. (1995). Philosophy of science and the quantitative-qualitative debates: Thirteen common errors. Evaluation and Program Planning, 18(1), 63-75. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0149-7189(94)00050-8

Shoemaker, B. J. E. (1991). Education 2000 integrated curriculum. The Phi Delta Kappan, 72(10), 793-797.

Shriner, M., Schlee, B. M., & Libler, R. (2010). Teachers' perceptions, attitudes and beliefs regarding curriculum integration. Australian Educational Researcher, 37(1), 51-62.

Stinson, K., Harkness, S. S., Meyer, H., & Stallworth, J. (2009). Mathematics and science integration: Models and characterizations. School Science and Mathematics, 109(3), 153-161.

Taylor, D. (1989). Toward a unified theory of literacy learning and instructional practices. The Phi Delta Kappan, 71(3), 184-193.

Toren, Z., Maiselman, D., & Inbar, S. (2008). Curriculum integration: Art, literature and technology in pre-service kindergarten teacher training. Early Childhood Education Journal, 35(4), 51-62. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10643-007-0197-0

Vars, G. F. (1991). Integrated curriculum in historical perspective. Educational Leadership, 49(2), 14-15.

Vars, G. F. (1997). Effects of integrative curriculum and instruction. In J. L. Irving (Ed.), What Current Research Says to the Middle Level Practitioner. Westerville, OH: National Middle School Association.

Wang, H. H., Moore, T. J., Roehrig, G. H., & Park, M. S. (2011). STEM integration: Teacher perceptions and practice. Journal of Pre-College Engineering Educational Research, 1(2).

Weilbacher, G. (2001). Is curriculum integration an endangered species? Middle School Journal, 33(2), 18-27.

Yin, R. K. (2003). Case study research: Design and methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.


Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


e-ISSN: 1694-2116

p-ISSN: 1694-2493