Activity Seven: Crossing Boundaries

Activity Seven:

Crossing Boundaries

We are always looking at new ways of improving teaching and learning. Interdisciplinary innovation is not really new. I can remember ‘thematic’ approaches to learning, where all subject areas were squeezed in under a theme. At times some subject areas just didn’t fit and consequently had to be left out. Integrated learning was captivated under the umbrella of a specific theme. I can recall ‘Olympic Games’ as one such interdisciplinary; cross curricular theme.

Historically there has been no shortage of theorists and educators advocating for interdisciplinary learning; Tyler, (1949) saw integration as the horizontal connection necessary for a coherent curriculum, and similarly, Bloom,(1958) advocated an inquiry-oriented, integrated curriculum that “opened up possibilities,” of understanding and relevance in learning.

I have used Bloom’s Taxonomy in my practice over the years in an effort to encourage a broad range of skills across curriculum areas to bring about higher levels of understanding.  I teach Religious Education and I find integrating values and concepts of justice and equality easily transferable across the curriculum.

I understand most interdisciplinary models generally seek to combine disciplines in order for the enhancement of each, such as (Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics) STEM, and (Integrated Studies – English, Social Studies and Art) INS which we do in our school. They seek to provide students with a better understanding of how these disciplines connect with each other and the world around them. McBride and Silverman, (1991) reason that the shared forms of inquiry and reasoning in mathematics and science will enhance the understanding of both if taught together.

STEM and INS are gaining momentum in the junior level at our school in regard to student engagement. Students work collaboratively on projects and problem based learning across these curriculum areas, drawing on personal experiences and exploring new solutions and outcomes as a result of interdisciplinary connections. They appear to be taking greater responsibility for their learning, showing more interest and broadening their learning as a result of not limiting their learning to a specific subject area. This has allowed students to steer away from fragmented subject-specific learning that does not seem to allow the same growth as what I have witnessed from interdisciplinary learning.  

Beane (1991, 1992, 1995) as cited in Mathison, Freeman, (1998), has advocated strongly for an integrative approach, particularly at the middle school level. “The theory behind this approach is that authentic and significant learning occurs as new experiences are integrated into our scheme of meanings in such a way that those meanings are expanded and extended.” (Beane, 1992,p.49).

From my observation of students’ learning; there has been continued growth in their approach to decipher information and increased critical thinking. This has been great. It seems, in my view, this has been the manifestation of a more connected cross-curricular approach. Long may it last.

References:

Beane, J.A. (1992). Creating an integrative curriculum: Making the connections. NASSO Bulletin, 76(545-548), 46-54

Bloom, B.S. (1958). Ideas, and methods of inquiry. In N.B. Henry (Ed.), The integration of educational experiences (pp. 84-104). The 57^th Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education. Part III. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

McBride, J.W.& Silverman, F.L. (1991). Integrating elementary/middle school science and mathematics. School Science and Mathematics, 91(7), 285-292.

Mathison, S. Freeman, M. (1998). The Logic of Interdisciplinary Studies. Report Series 2.33. National Research Center on English Learning and Achievement, Albany, NY.

Tyler, R.W. (1949). Basic principles of curriculum and instruction. Chicago: University of Chicago.