Today we're going to be looking at the formation of an integrated curriculum. After that, I believe I will once again grace you with another rant on why I don't like how I've learned about integrated curriculum. But before that, let's talk about this "integrated curriculum" I've mentioned three times now. Basically, the idea is to combine one area of learning, say science, with another, perhaps English. The goal of this is to foster not only a greater understanding in the subject matter, but also a greater interest through continuity.
The design of this new-fangled integrated approach is extremely similar to the backwards design process we discussed last post, with a few minor differences. The main difference occurs in the initial planning phase thought, when you are supposed to intensively examine curriculum documents in order to cluster similar concepts. To "integrate" one subject with another, the idea is too cluster concepts similar to each subject. For our science & English example, this could mean getting the students to write a paper on a scientific topic, which would then be assessed based on their research (science) and their writing style (English). Essential questions that drive each subject's units should transcend the boundaries of individual subjects in order to create an enduring interest and understanding in each subject field.
My text then proceeded to give a detailed example of this based on a prospective 4th Grade unit, but not before stating that this process is much easier for primary school teachers who are in control of all their subjects. Unfortunately, I don't plan on being a primary school teacher, so these rather detailed example is nowhere near as helpful as it could be. For secondary school teachers, collaboration is going to be essential if your goal is an integrated curriculum. Any tips on how this can be accomplished? Not really, the most I can glean is "that this is quite difficult with 7+ people." Anything is difficult to accomplish with 7+ people and its nigh impossible considering that our school systems are neither planning for nor equip to deal with an integrated curriculum on such a scale. I hate to say it but teachers simply don't have the time or resources for such an epic undertaking that is not even board approved.
Is integrated curriculum is good idea? Of course it is, I would be absolutely fantastic if every subject had ties to every other. Is it feasible (aside from small pockets of very dedicated individuals) in secondary schools today? I would say no.
Regardless, I'd like to move on to one other topic. This chapter of my text dealing with integrated curriculum has featured the second disclaimer that "although presented in a linear fashion, in reality, the planning process is hardly that". In fact, it continued to say that in all likelihood I will be extremely frustrated and that the work is tedious. Now I won't rehash my previous misgivings with these disclaimers and say "it shouldn't be taught linearly if it won't be experienced linearly" but seriously, if this is so difficult, why are there no suggestions to make it easier? An FAQ maybe? Even a list of where new teachers have the most trouble that I could focus on? Instead I get a disclaimer that's basically telling me, "everything after this point, y'know, all the wonderfully organized information? Yeah, it'll be a nightmare to compile, it will be difficult to collaborate, and the entire process outlined for you is subject to change for no reason whatsoever and every experience will be different. Good luck!"
There, I'm done this post's rant. I probably should have called my blog Rantings in Education instead of Adventures in Education. Oh well, I suppose were taking an adventure of cynicism. This week, I'll leave you with a piece titled Siesta by Post-Romanticist, Arthur Berzinsh. Berzinsh channels a simple time; a time when men were men, women were objects, and supernatural beings had nothing better to do than blow fart bubbles.
