Section
E – Transformations
Part
1 - Curriculum Integration
As part of my
transformation, a Form 4 lesson was integrated with a concept from the
Geography curriculum. The objectives of
the lesson included the computation of gradient, identification of elevations,
and determining the slope of a line joining two locations on contour map. To facilitate this integration lesson,
assistance was granted via a Social Sciences teacher at my institution. In the planning phase, she guided me
regarding mathematical concepts that were contained in Social Studies and
Geography. As such, there were many
avenues through which the lesson could be constructed. However, the decision was made to incorporate
the slope concept at the Form 4 level, as this had coincided with topics that
were being covered in class.
Curriculum integration aims
to unify knowledge across respective academic disciplines (Pring, 1973), from
which Kysilka (1998) identifies four models.
The intradisciplinary model alludes to skills being developed within the
same discipline, as in a Mathematics lesson that links group theory with combinatorics. In the interdisciplinary scheme, a topic may
be chosen that links two or more separate disciplines, as in trigonometric bearings
which merges Geography and Math. The
multidisciplinary model is utilized when a topic is treated separately by each
discipline. This may occur in the independent
treatment of electricity say, where a Math teacher may calculate utility bills
in consumer arithmetic, while a Physics teacher may demonstrate Ohm’s law. The transdisciplinary approach is based on specific
needs rather than on a pre-determined curriculum. This type of collaboration was exhibited during
the Covid-19 pandemic, when experts from multiple disciplines; health,
education, economics and so forth, were forced to tackle a common issue.
Based on the paradigm
of my collaboration, the lesson may be best described using the
interdisciplinary model. Jones (2009)
advocates that there are many advantages of the interdisciplinary approach,
including enhancements in student understanding, learning habits, academic
prowess, creativity, communication and critical thinking skills. Possible pitfalls include integration
confusion and time spent on lesson preparation.
Taylor (2008) intimates that there may be pedagogical benefits caused by
this model due to the possibilities of differentiated instruction. Youngblood (2008) states that core
interdisciplinary techniques result in heightened discovery and innovation.
Miller et al. (1993)
intimated five specificities of integration, based on discipline, content,
process, theme and methodology. In
content specific integration, curriculum objectives from each discipline are
synthesized into a coherent lesson. This
is epitomized by the aforementioned lesson which incorporates related elements
of the CSEC Geography and Mathematics syllabuses. Specific objectives were chosen from the Map
Reading section of the Geography syllabus, and included the following; using a
scale to measure distance, reading contours and calculating gradients using
ratios. These objectives were unified
with the calculation of gradient, which is included in the Relations and
Functions section of the Mathematics curriculum.
The lesson was
beneficial to students as it touched on all domains of learning; cognitive,
psychomotor and affective. For instance,
students were engaged in psychomotor learning when required to draw lines and
measure lengths using a ruler on the contour map. Converting length to distance required
cognitive processing, as students were required to calculate based on
appropriate proportions. The affective
domain was also touched as students seemed to appreciate the applicability of
gradients in real life. Due to the
nature of this lesson, the majority of students stood to benefit as it catered
to a multitude of learning styles.
Visual learners may have remembered the map, physical learners may have
been stimulated by drawing and measuring, while social learners may have
appreciated collaborating during the map task.
Thus, this session may have been a welcome change for students who might
have grown accustomed to traditional curriculum delivery.
In my opinion,
curriculum integration seems to be a formidable way of reinforcing content,
since it practically applies material that has been covered on the Mathematics
curriculum. As an educator, there have
been many instances where students have questioned me on the need for learning various
Mathematical concepts. With the use of
integrated lessons, the utility of these concepts will become self-evident to
the learner. This may have the positive
effect of engaging and motivating students to learn, since they will have a
greater appreciation for the necessity of mathematics. That is, students may see that there is
intrinsic value in mastering mathematical concepts, based on their
applicability to other subjects.
Integration may also improve students’ creativity and invoke their
higher level cognitive skills as they make cross-curricula connections. This may strengthen their understanding and
make them more inquisitive, as their interest in subject matter may be piqued.
During the integration process,
discussions with my colleague revolved around matters of curriculum. This interaction was beneficial, as I was introduced
to different teaching styles, methodologies and curricula. It has also inspired me to explore avenues
for integrated approaches across other subject areas. This may involve collaborations with
languages, physical education, music, information technology, technical drawing
and the social sciences. If
interdisciplinary integration is facilitated at all levels, this may engender
camaraderie among staff members, as they share common ideas and goals. It will also increase the intellectual
capacity of the teachers involved, as they learn material from new
disciplines. Teaching time may be
reduced, as content from another discipline may have already been intimated. Therefore in some instances, the integrated
lesson may simply be needed to consolidate knowledge.
Finally, curriculum
integration creates problems which are synonymous to mathematical models. Thus, CSEC students who are required to
perform the School Based Assessment stand to benefit by being exposed to
interdisciplinary content at an early level.
At the CAPE level there are also modelling questions, for which practice
at lower curriculum levels may prove worthwhile. Thus, although there are some pitfalls that
are inherent in integration, the benefits far outweigh the costs of implementation. I therefore see myself utilizing integration
models in my future pedagogical practice.
References
Davison,
D., Millar, K., & Metheny, D. (1995).
What does integration of science and mathematics really mean? School Sci Maths, 95, 320-327.
Jones,
C. (2009). Interdisciplinary Approach –
Advantages, Disadvantages, and the future benefits of Interdisciplinary
studies. ESSAI, 7 (26).
Kysilka,
M. L. (1998). Understanding integrated
curriculum. The Curriculum Journal, 9,
197-209.
Pring,
R. (1973). Curriculum integration. In R.S. Peters (Ed.), The philosophy of
education (pp. 123-149). London: Oxford University Press.
Taylor,
J. (2008). From the stage to the
classroom: The performing arts and social studies. The History Teacher, 41 (2).
Youngblood,
D. (2007). Interdisciplinary studies and
the bridging disciplines: A matter of process.
Journal of Research Practice, (3).
