INTERDISCIPLINARY is here to stay!

Interdisciplinary Approach to Curriculum and Instruction

A Hebrew Proverb says, “Do not confine your children to your own learning for they were born in another time!”, and indeed the demands of the 21^st century education include skills that must prepare the learners to tasks or work not yet defined in the present times. One of the approaches that have gathered renewed attention in the past 15-20 years is the integrated approach, referred to as interdisciplinary approach, in some literature. Franzie Loepp (1999), clarified the notion of integration as an approach that “incorporates the idea of unity between forms of knowledge and the respective disciplines” (Pring, 1973, p. 135). In science education, integration may refer to integration within the sciences rather than integration among a wide range of disciplines so that the learner experiences a number of interconnections among disciplines. Furthermore, he distinguished interdisciplinary from an integrated curriculum elucidating that interdisciplinary studies is a “repackaging and, perhaps, enhancement of discipline-based knowledge” (Kain, 1993). In Jacobs’ (1989) definition, interdisciplinary means conscientiously applying methodology and language from more than one discipline to a theme, topic, or problem. Loepp described three models of integration - (1) interdisciplinary model which is more of a team-teaching approach appropriate for younger lower levels, problem-based model, and theme-based education. Loepp also explained the advantages and disadvantages of the three models. His article can be accessed from: http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ610852.pdf

 

According to Verónica Boix-Mansilla (2010) “quality interdisciplinary education invites students to integrate concepts, theories, methods and tools from two or more disciplines to deepen their understanding of a complex topic” (p1). As a skill-building or enhancing method, interdisciplinary instruction put into practice students’ multiple capabilities (aesthetic, social, analytical) and prepares them to solve problems, create products or ask questions in ways that go beyond single disciplinary perspectives. Boix-Mansilla published a guidebook specifically for interdisciplinary teaching and learning in the middle school [perhaps corresponding to Grades 6-10 in our educational system) that include multiple examples of practices from different countries, sample units of instruction, assignments, samples of student interdisciplinary work and personal projects. The guidebook even included reading listwhich teachers can use for personal development or for school-based professional updating. The guidebook can be accessed from:

http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=veronica+boix+mansilla+MYP&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8

 

So how do we know that learning and understanding have transpired in the teaching-learning process?  Boix-Mansilla defined interdisciplinary learning as the process by which students come to understand bodies of knowledge and modes of thinking from two or more disciplines or subject groups and integrate them to create a new understanding. Students demonstrate interdisciplinary understanding of a particular topic when they can bring together concepts, methods, or forms of communication from two or more disciplines or established areas of expertise to explain a phenomenon, solve a problem, create a product, or raise a new question in ways that would have been unlikely through a single disciplinary means. She further enumerates three key qualities of interdisciplinary understanding that follow from this definition. Interdisciplinary learning is: (1) purposeful, (2) grounded in the disciplines, and  (3) integrative.

 

In the final report on international workshop held in 2000 where science and technology curriculum in Asia and Europe were compared, Moshe Ilan stated that Science and Technology should be integrated while emphasizing the uniqueness of each subject. In this view, however, he concluded that in order to teach an integrated subject well, team teaching is essential. Ilan further justified the integration of science and mathematics because they are interrelated, and affect one another in a variety of unexpected ways. A broad-based approach is needed if our goal is improving the teaching of mathematics, science and technology. Needless to say, an interdisciplinary approach is highly recommend for teaching science and technology because it will expose the pupils to scientific and technological content, and will present the social contexts, while stressing their interconnections (Ilan, 2001). The full report can be downloaded from:

http://www.ibe.unesco.org/curriculum/Asia%20Networkpdf/ndrepph.pdf

 

The global interest and the effectiveness of the interdisciplinary approach is evidenced by the plethora of terms associated with integration and an ever increasing multitude of print and non-print (on-line) resources on interdisciplinary studies. The quantity, according to Julie Thompson Klein (2006) is not surprising, since interdisciplinary discussions have expanded as new fields and approaches emerged across all domains of research and education. In fact, Klein released a comprehensive resources review on interdisciplinary studies. The review classified the literature into three categories:

(1)   “Core Resources on Interdisciplinary Studies” – resources that answers what interdisciplinarity is, what to find sample program and course models, where to find descriptions of educational practice and what other works that can be found in a basic library.

(2)   “Deepening the Search in Broad Areas” – suggested resources for networking with specialized professional groups and networks, how and where to  facilitate connections in other communities

(3)   “Deepening the Search in Field-Specific Areas” – resources that proved the heightened visibility of interdisciplinarity; for instance a search of ERIC using the descriptor “interdisciplinary” may suggest articles in such varied contexts as learning

(4)   “Feeling the Pulse of the New” - highlights notable new articles, books, and reports plus a key Web site that have appeared in a span of five years, 2006 being the latest date.

The fourth also includes references on assessment and evaluation which Klein deemed one of the least understood aspects of interdisciplinarity. These various resources, indeed, strengthens Klein’s claim that “Interdisciplinary work practices is [an] area where new works are advancing understanding. Klein’s article is available at :

http://www.units.miamioh.edu/aisorg/pubs/reprints/ResourceReview.pdf

 

For those who would like to explore interdisciplinary instruction, particularly those teaching in the basic education, various authors suggest different models. The term integrated studies or interdisciplinary approach to curriculum and instruction is interpreted in several ways and is applied to practice in varying degrees.  In other words, the content of each subject is subordinate to some idea that reduces its isolation from the others (Mansfield, 1989; Bernstein, 1975). Different proponents of the integrative approach offer different models, types, and styles of how to plan an integrative unit and how to implement it. They also gave a variety of terms that connote for a unit plan. Those who propose incorporating a theme call it Integrated Thematic Unit or Study (Martinello and Cook, 2000; Roberts and Kellough, 2000;  Sonal, et al., 2000), Thematic Unit or Study (Allen and Piersma, 1995; Kucer, Silva and Larocco,1995;  Martinello and Cook, 2000); Thematic Unit Plan (Mallery, 2001; Wood, 2001) or Thematic Teaching Unit (Freeland, 1998). Other authors emphasize the organization of content and use terminologies such as Integrated Teaching Unit (Mansfield, 1989; Barab and Landa 1997; Erickson, 2001); Integrated Study which is used interchangeably with Interdisciplinary Learning and Thematic Unit (Post, Ellis, Humphreys and Buggery, 1997), Integration Activities (Brophy and Alleman, 1991), Interdisciplinary Unit (Maute, 1989; Williams and Reynolds, 1993), Interdisciplinary Learning or Instruction  or Study (Lounsbury 1992; Mallery, 2000; Wood, 2001).  McNeil (2006) used the term Organizing Center to denote a unit of integrated instruction.

Regardless of the term used for integrative teaching units, a central idea, topic or theme serves as the binding element for all the concepts, skills, activities, and subjects that are included in the unit. This unifying element is further discussed in the succeeding paragraph. Integrated units connect disciplines via the central hub, which is designed to provide legitimacy to the content being learned (Barab and Landa, 1997).  Beane (1996), referring to the organizing center of an integrated unit, suggested that they should be “organized around problems and issues that are of personal and social significance in the real world, usually identified through collaborative planning by teachers and students”. Schubert (1994) stated that, “integration can be achieved best when an organizing center lies at the heart of human concerns and interests.” Organizing centers, whether they are problems, issues, or projects, need to be meaningful to students, establish an overall macro-context, and their completion must require students to employ principles, practices, and resources associated with a variety of disciplines. Although anchors can be invented or natural, it is important that they fulfill four requirements: (1) capture the imagination (2) be perceived as important by learners and teachers (3) accommodate a variety of learning approaches (4) ecologize the disciplinary content they integrate [place abstract content within authentic context] (Barab and Landa, 1997).

Units are vehicle for organizing and implementing meaningful integration of subject matter (Sunal, et al., 2000). Regardless of the term used, the succeeding discussion will refer an integrative unit plan as a unit of study that looks at one subject matter, topic or theme through many disciplines, making the boundaries between the content of various subjects weak or blurred.

 

Interdisciplinary methods are characterized by six instructional aspects – relevance, timeliness, resource accumulation (including technology), relatedness, planning and cooperative investigations (Post, et al., 1997). In preparing for interdisciplinary instruction, the lesson or unit should: (1) complement or support some aspects of instruction in the subject area; (2) complement or support content and / or learning skills in at least ne subject field; and, (3) constructed in manner which encourage students to integrate and use the new knowledge and skills from several areas of competence (Robinson, 1994; Furner, 1995). Davies (1992) cited ten prerequisites for making interdisciplinary units work. These are (1) relevant topics, (2) clear goals and objectives, (3) variety of topics, projects and groupings, (4) choice in topics, projects and grouping, (5) adequate time, (6) processes and/or products, (7) field trips, (8) group cooperation, (9) sharing, and (10) community involvement.

 In incorporating science in integrated units, Sunal, et al. (2000) gave three criteria for the construction of units with valid and important science content. The first is significance. The content taught should not be trivial to the scientific discipline nor to the student’s need for scientific literacy. The second criterion is coherence. There should be consistency with the nature of scientific inquiry, reflecting scientific values, giving students direct experience with the kinds of thought and action that are typical of work in the scientific disciplines. Memorization is not the focus since science is a discipline characterized by intellectual discovery. The third criterion is relevance. The content impacts the individual’s thinking and personal actions, social interactions, societal, and career decisions. There is an emphasis on portraying science as human, as impacting human decisions, and as impacting the quality of life.

Rakow and Vazquez (1998) suggested three strategies for integrative instruction: literature-based, theme-based and project-based. The literature-based integration is especially useful in integrating content from science in reading and language arts. This strategy has high motivational value and enables a strong skill cross-over between reading and science, with an emphasis in both process skills such as observing, communicating, predicting outcomes, forming generalizations, and evaluating.  In thematic – based integration, a central theme or concept becomes the focus for instruction. Theme-based units can vary in length from a few hours to a week or more and might involve one classroom to the entire school. Thematic instruction is a great way to help students see how disciplines are related. Project-based integration may be the most authentic form of cross-curricular integration because it involves students in real-world learning experiences. In this kind of integration, students investigate real issues in real contexts. The most valuable projects are those that arise from the students’ interest.

 

Wood (2001) expound extensively in his book, two types of integrated units – thematic unit and the research-oriented thematic unit. The latter is an alternative type for higher levels. Sunal, et al. (2000) suggested six types of units appropriate for developing integrative units that incorporate science.  The concept-focused unit is designed around teaching one or a few major concepts while the process skills-focused emphasizes one or a few major process skills, such as observation or classifying, with less emphasis on concent. Issue-focused unit is developed around the investigation of an issue through research and data collection. A project-focused unit tasks the students to solve a problem or explore altenatives. A case study-focused is a unit designed around doing something on a local level based on a topic investigated.

 

An example of a comprehensive curriculum guide for planning for interdisciplinary thematic unit is that of the Abraham Lincoln High School. Released in 2010, it provides guidelines that are aimed to assist and give direction to the teaching teams ensuring that standards, essential understanding, and assessment are all aligned and coherent through the thematic units. The curriculum guide or tool kit can be accessed from:

http://apcentral.collegeboard.com/apc/public/repository/AP-Interdisciplinary-Teaching-and-Learning-Toolkit.pdf

In 2009, Clinton Golding from the University of Melbourne, Australia, published a guide that explains the nature / characteristics of an interdisciplinary subject, particularly operationalized in higher education, and what are the supposed objectives of such course. Also included in the guide are materials and strategies to support the successful design, organisation, teaching, and evaluation of interdisciplinary subjects. This guide book can be downloaded from:

http://www.cshe.unimelb.edu.au/resources_teach/curriculum_design/docs/Interdisc_Guide.pdf

 

As a summary, a list of benefits of interdisciplinary teaching and learning, as well as, conclusions gathered from a case study are featured on the article “Toolkit for Interdisciplinary Teaching, Learning, and Assessment”. It also lists sample units on integrated units focusing on Environmental Science and Arts. Educators can also find useful the five links to suggested resources. This two-page article can be found at:
http://apcentral.collegeboard.com/apc/public/repository/AP-Interdisciplinary-Teaching-and-Learning-Toolkit.pdf

 

When DepEd implemented the RBEC in 2002,  our basic education department implemented a quarterly Interdisciplinary Thematic Unit (ITU) adapted from the model of Roberts and Kellough (2000). Our ITU are team-teaching units whose themes are also based on particular co-curricular celebrations such as Environmental Week, Academic Celeration, Linggo ng Wika, etc. It was an ideal opportunity for teachers to explore more innovative teaching strategies, personally update their subject matter and most of all, we get very positive response from the students. However, due to the mandate to use the UbD and other curriculum changes in view of the K-12, ITU has been not as welcome as in the initial years of implementation.

I'll let you write your own synthesis...

References:

 

Audet, R. and Jordan, K. (eds.). (2005). Integrating Inquiry Across the Curriculum.
California, USA: Corwin Press

 Best, J. and Kahn, J. (2003).  Research in Education.(9^th ed.) Upper Saddle,

New Jersey: Pearson Education, Inc.

Bill, M. (1996). Interdisciplinary Explorations. New Jersey: Prentice Hall, Inc.

Clarke, J.H. and Agne, R.M. (1997). Interdisciplinary High School Teaching:

Strategies for Integrated Learning: Strategies for Integrated Learning.
USA: Allyn and Bacon.

Drake, S. (1998). Creating Integrated Curriculum: Proven Ways to Increase Student
 Learning. USA: Corwin Press,Inc.

Martinello, M.L. and Cook, G.E. (1994). Interdisciplinary Inquiry in Teaching                       
 and Learning. (2^nd ed). USA: MacMillan Publishing Company.

Marzano,R., Norferd,J., Paynter,D., Pickering, D., and Gaddy, B. (2005). A Handbook for
Classroom Instruction that Works. New Jersey: Pearson Education

 Maurer,R.E. (1994). Designing Interdisciplinary Curriculum in Middle, Junior and

Senior High Schools. New York: Allyn and Bacon

Post, T.R., Ellis, A.K., Humphreys, A.H., and Buggey,L.J. (1997). Interdisciplinary
Approaches to Curriculum Themes for Teaching. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc.

Roberts, P.L. and Kellough, R.D. (2000). A Guide for Developing Interdisciplinary
Thematic Units. 2^nd ed. New Jersey: Prentice Hall, Inc.

 Sunal, C., Powell, D., McClelland, S., Rule, A., Rovegno, I., Smith, C., and Sunal, D. (2000).        Integrating Academic Units in the Elementary School  Curriculum. USA: Harcourt Inc.

 

Electronic Sources:

Loepp, F. L. (1999). Models of Curriculum Integration.
 Retrieved from http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/ejournals/JOTS/Summer-Fall-1999/Loepp.html

 Moshe Ilan (2001) Designing an Interdisciplinary curriculum in science and technology.

 In Muriel Poisson (Ed.), Science Education for Contemporary Society Problems, Issues and Dilemmas Final report of the International Workshop on the Reform in the Teaching of Science and Technology at Primary and Secondary Level in Asia : Comparative References to Europe.  Geneva, Switzerland: International Bureau of Education. Retrieved from  http://www.ibe.unesco.org/curriculum/Asia%20Networkpdf/ndrepph.pdf

Boix-Mansilla, V. (2010). Middle Years Programme (MYP) Guide to Interdisciplinary Teaching

and Learning. Wales, Great Britain:  International Baccalaureate Organization
Retrieved from http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=     veronica+boix+mansilla+MYP&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8

 

Golding, Clinton. Integrating the disciplines:Successful interdisciplinary
http://www.cshe.unimelb.edu.au/resources_teach/curriculum_design/docs/Interdisc_Guide.pdf

 

“Toolkit” for Interdisciplinary Teaching, Learning and Assessment. (n.d.)
Retrieved from http://apcentral.collegeboard.com/apc/public/repository/AP-        Interdisciplinary-Teaching-and-Learning-Toolkit.pdf

 

Klein, J.T. (2006). Resources for Interdisciplinary Studies. Change. March/April 2006, pp 52-58.
Retrieved from http://www.units.miamioh.edu/aisorg/pubs/reprints/ResourceReview.pdf