CURRICULUM INTEGRATION: DEFINITIONS AND PERSPECTIVES

“Curriculum integration” is a conundrum for some, hence the need to clarify the common terminology and approaches to enable curriculum planners develop solid and lasting designs that are accepted by many concerned. “Integration” is a term that denotes bringing things together. According to Case (1991:215), integration is the uniting of discrete elements into a whole; and in education curricula can be divided into subdomains, one being curriculum integration.

Case (p.216) discusses the forms of integration and refers to the elements which should be united. He describes the forms of integration as follows:

Integration of content which means connecting the understandings promoted within and among different subject areas or disciplines.

Integration of school and self, referring to the integration of what students study in school with students’ concerns, desires, needs, queries, aspirations, dilemmas and so on.

Holistic integration which refers to the integration of all further school-related experiences not expressly identified in the other forms of curricular integration.

Included in this form of integration are formal and informal instructional practices, routines, methods, rules and school-based influences on students’

learning.

From the mid-20^th century there have been calls for integrated curricula in medical education and some medical schools have embraced integration albeit with varying degrees of acceptance and approaches. Often authorities and teachers in medical education hold polarised views with some in favour of and others against integration, leading to its slow- or non-acceptance in some schools. According to Case (p.215):

The very act of learning typically involves integration – new beliefs are filtered through and connected to the individual’s prior beliefs. Despite its ubiquity, educational debate about integration has been contentious, but not contentious about its merits.

There are many ways in which integration happens and it is imperative for educators to be conversant with the different approaches so that those relevant to their existing problems and situations are applied. Shoemaker (1991:793) observed that:

Although integrative education was gaining national popularity, there were many different views of what it entailed and an equal number of terms to describe the various ways it might be approached.

Shoemaker (p.793) further defined the following approaches:

 Infusion approaches integrate a particular subject (such as writing or thinking skills) across the curriculum.

 Topics-within-disciplines approaches integrate multiple strands of the same discipline within the instructional setting. Examples include integrated language arts and integrated mathematics programs.

 Interdisciplinary approaches maintain traditional subject boundaries while aligning content and concepts from one discipline with those of another.

 Thematic approaches subordinate subject matter to a theme, allowing the boundaries between disciplines to blur. Topics can be narrowly or broadly focused.

 Holistic approaches represent two perspectives: addressing for example the needs of the whole child (the integration of cognitive, physical, affective, moral, and spiritual dimensions) and offering a curriculum that provides the context in which new knowledge makes sense.

 The mind/brain function approach uses instructional strategies and classroom organisation that engage students in using the four mind/brain functions.

 Integrative brainwork approaches use such information processing strategies as concept attainment, inductive thinking, advance organisers, concept mapping, and clinical interviews.

 Combined approaches incorporate aspects of several of the approaches mentioned above.

Jacobs (1989) supports an “interdisciplinary curriculum” which is seen as an approach that consciously applies methodology and language from more than one discipline to examine a central theme, issue, problem, topic, or experience. Along the same lines, Drake (2007:25) uses the terms “interdisciplinary” and “integrated”

to generically describe a curriculum that connects the various disciplines in some way. This type of curriculum provides an opportunity for a more relevant, less fragmented, and stimulating experience for students.

Curriculum integration can be a holistic approach, a way of thinking that transcends simple changes or realignments in lesson plans across various subjects in disciplines. This approach enables students to integrate learning experiences and draw up their own meanings so as to understand themselves and their world. This is in line with Shoemaker’s and Case’s holistic approaches given above.

On the debate on curriculum integration, Beane (1995:616) argues that: “…the central focus of curriculum integration is the search for self- and social meaning.”

Beane (p.616) downplays multi-disciplinary and inter-disciplinary approaches to integration as he sees these as pretenders of curriculum integration because:

…in theory and practice, curriculum integration transcends subject-area and disciplinary identifications: the goal is integrative activities that use knowledge without regard for subject or discipline lines.

In a study by Booth and Ingerman (2002) on students’ perceptions of Physics in the first year of study, they found that one course was seen as being useful in other courses, eliminating boundaries between the disciplines. In this sense, integration of learning is associated with a better learning experience because subjects contribute to each other and help with the understanding of other subjects. Booth and Ingerman’s finding echoes Shoemaker’s thematic approach.

There are other conceptions of curriculum structure and organisation that share similar tenets with Shoemaker’s approaches. Some of these approaches can be applied to introduce and enforce integration. Harden et al. (1984:284) suggest the use of the SPICES model of curriculum strategy: “Student-centred; Problem-based learning; Integrated teaching; Community-based education; Electives; and Systematic”. Some components of this strategy enable medical schools to move from traditional curricula to innovative ones that embrace modern concepts and approaches to education like problem-based learning, student-centred learning, community-based curriculum and integrated teaching. From the SPICES strategies, the points that are pertinent to this study are outlined below:

Problem-based learning: The opposite of this strategy which is characteristic of the traditional approach is information gathering.

Integrated teaching: Integration is the organisation of teaching matter to inter-relate or unify subjects frequently taught in separate courses. The traditional curriculum focuses on discipline-based teaching which leaves it to the students to put together the knowledge gained in each discipline into an overall picture of medicine.

Community-based education vs the traditional hospital-based education:

Community-based education provides students with motivating experiences as they deal with ‘real’ patients in the community. This approach promotes inte-gration with theory and presents high chances for interdisciplinary education.

Jerome Bruner, the 20^th century psychologist, proposed the concept of the “spiral curriculum” advocating that a curriculum as it develops should revisit the basic ideas repeatedly, building upon them until the student has grasped the full formal apparatus that goes with them (Bruner, 1971a; 1971b). According to Bruner (1996) the object of instruction is not coverage but depth. Harden and Stamper (1999:141)

describe the spiral curriculum where there is “an iterative revisiting of topics, subjects or themes throughout the course”. The features of a spiral curriculum are:

 topics are revisited;

 there are increasing levels of difficulty;

 new learning is related to previous learning; and

 the competence of students increases.

The spiral curriculum promotes vertical integration through revisiting of topics in all the stages. Integration is specified as one of the values of a spiral curriculum.

In congruence with the views of a holistic integration, Dressel (1965) suggests that curriculum models should be based on a clear understanding of the educational problems in existence so that the student applies major ideas in addressing a wide range of problems. The student’s experience should have continuity, sequence and integration.

Integration is a process which may take several years to accomplish. This idea is supported by Harden (2000) who described the “integration ladder” which demonstrates varying degrees of integration. The integration ladder, which was conceived by Fogarty (2009), is a continuum between almost negligible integration to full integration. Some of the levels discussed below by Harden (2000:551-555) exemplify those by other curriculum integration authorities like Drake, Fogarty and Shoemaker:

Step 1 – Isolation (fragmentation, anarchy) describes a situation where departments or subject specialists organise their teaching without consideration of other subjects or disciplines. This isolation is typical of the traditional medical curriculum with blocks of time allocated to the individual disciplines.

Step 2 – Awareness. As with isolation, the teaching is subject-based. However, some mechanisms are in place whereby the teacher in one subject is made aware of what is covered in other subjects in the curriculum. At this level, there is no explicit attempt to help the student to take an integrated view of the subject.

Step 3 – Harmonization (connection, consultation). Teachers responsible for different courses or different parts of the same course consult each other and communicate about their courses. There is a deliberate attempt to relate disciplines within the curricula rather than assuming students will understand

Step 4 – Nesting (infusion). This is an integrated approach where the teacher targets, within a subject-based course, skills relating to other subjects. The teaching, however, remains subject-based and the course is the responsibility of and in the control of the subject or discipline.

Step 5 – Temporal co-ordination (parallel teaching, concurrent teaching).

Each subject remains responsible for its own teaching programme. The timing of the teaching of topics within a subject, however, is done in consultation with other disciplines. The implementation of temporally co-ordinated teaching introduces some of the advantages of integrated teaching and is a good starting point for a more integrated curriculum.

Step 6 – Sharing (joint teaching). Two disciplines may agree to plan and jointly implement a teaching programme. The shared planning and teaching takes place in two disciplines in which overlapping concepts or ideas emerge as organising elements.

Step 7 – Correlation (concomitant programme, democratic programme). In this step, the emphasis remains on disciplines or subjects with subject-based courses taking up most of the curriculum time. An integrated teaching session or course is introduced in addition to the subject-based teaching. This session brings together areas of interest common to each of the subjects.

Step 8 – Complementary programme (mixed programmes). This approach has both subject-based and integrated teaching, with the latter representing a major feature of the curriculum. The focus for the teaching may be a theme or topic to which the disciplines can contribute.

Step 9 – Multi-disciplinary (webbed, contributory). This approach brings together a number of subject areas in a single course with themes, problems, topics or issues as the focus for the students’ learning. In this step on the integration ladder, the subjects and disciplines give up a large measure of their own autonomy.

Step 10 – Inter-disciplinary (monolithic). This step implies a higher level of integration with the content of all or most subjects combined into a new course with a new menu.

Step 11 – Trans-disciplinary (fusion, immersion, authentic). In trans-disciplinary integration, the curriculum transcends the individual disciplines. The focus is the field of knowledge as exemplified in the real world.

Discussions on curriculum integration illuminate the lack of clarity on meaning, purpose and functionality of integration. Although it seems that the merits of integration of learning are not questionable there has been contentious debate on how to implement it. Educationalists have proposed several approaches and suggestions on how to integrate curricula that promote integration of learning. It is acknowledged that integrating curricula is a process that can take a long time to

accomplish. Therefore, it is important for educators to be conversant with the different approaches so as to make informed choices.