Fogarty (1991) presents a continuum of 10 models for curriculum integration. The 10 models present an exploration of integration within single disciplines, such as fragmented, connected or nested; within and across several disciplines, such as sequential, shared, webbed, threaded and integrated; and within learners and across networks of learners, namely immersed and networked. The educators will make a decision based on the most appropriate method for each aspect of the curriculum.
45 2.18.1 Fragmented integration
Fragmented integration is noted within a single discipline and this model gives no implicit indication of relationships between the various disciplines. Each discipline remains separated from the others and each subject is dealt with without making connections to other subjects. This creates fragments of knowledge in each subject area (Fogarty, 1991). This type of integration has been documented as the first of 11 steps of the integration ladder of Harden (2000), who indicates that fragmented integration pays no attention to other subjects that are being taught in the same curriculum.
2.18.2 Connected integration
With this level of integration, each discipline remains separated from the others, but explicit connections are made within each subject area, providing reference to what has been learnt in that subject and what is still to be covered as well as connections to other subject areas (Fogarty, 1991; Kysilka, 1992). This is same as the harmonization step of the integration ladder presented by Harden (2000), who highlights the consultation that takes place between the teachers involved in the different subjects, following a formal or informal route.
2.18.3 Nested integration
This integration level remains part of single discipline integration and targets various dimensions of a teaching session, looking at the skills and knowledge in one subject that relate to other subjects, providing the opportunity to strengthen the teaching of one subject by using content from other subjects in that discipline (Fogarty, 1991; Harden, 2000). This type of integration allows recognition of broader curriculum outcomes and the teaching of each subject relates to the programme outcomes, with emphasis on learning and organizational skills (Kysilka, 1992; Harden, 2000).
2.18.4 Sequenced integration
This integration is done across disciplines and allows for the planning of related topics from different disciplines so that they can be presented during the same period in one curriculum (Fogarty, 1991; Kysilka, 1992). It is this level of integration that Harden (2000) refers to as temporal co-ordination or parallel teaching. It necessitates consultation with other disciplines to identify related aspects of each discipline in the curriculum and to arrange the teaching
46
sessions so that students learn similar aspects from different perspectives in the different disciplines but in the same period. This enables them to make their own connections and uncover relationships.
2.18.5 Shared integration
This type of integration involves two disciplines coming together, planning and implementing teaching plans that cover overlapping ideas. It involves the identification of teaching areas that are common to both disciplines and the realization that the two disciplines can teach the subject better if they do it together as opposed to presenting the subject in an isolated, discipline-specific approach (Fogarty, 1991; Kysilka, 1992; Harden, 2000).
2.18.6 Webbed integration
Webbed integration involves choosing a theme as the focus of teaching and learning activities and then the various disciplines and subjects that make up the curriculum build their programmes around the chosen theme. This allows the teacher to maintain the content of the discipline. The discipline remains intact, because the teacher uses the theme to identify concepts and relevant topics for his own course and covers the content and outcomes of the course by showing how that subject/discipline can enhance the students’ understanding of the theme (Fogarty, 1991; Harden, 2000). This type of integration is documented as multidisciplinary by Harden (2000), noting that a theme would be the knowledge that goes beyond subject boundaries and needs to be mastered by the students.
2.18.7 Threaded integration
The curriculum is designed around skills such as thinking, study and social skills, and the content of the various disciplines is used for development of those skills. While the content of each discipline is maintained, there is less emphasis on the discipline and more on the learning process (Fogarty, 1991; Harden, 2000). The threaded model surpasses all content matter of each individual discipline Fogarty (1991).
2.18.8 Integrated model of integration
With this approach many disciplines are involved and common teaching time is used to teach what has been identified as overlapping concepts and ideas, and discipline lines start to disappear (Fogarty, 1991). This type of integration can be referred to as interdisciplinary, as
47
noted by Harden (2000), suggesting that the content of all or most subjects is combined into a new course, with no reference to individual subject or discipline, and themes common to all the included disciplines become the focus for learning. This differs from shared integration in that it combines all or most of the disciplines involved in the curriculum as opposed to just two disciplines.
2.18.9 Immersed integration
This integration is considered to be within students and students are seen as being immersed in their learning, taking responsibility for the integration of what they learn and how to integrate it with limited or no intervention from others (Fogarty, 1991). This integration is also referred to as transdisciplinary, where the focus of learning becomes the field of knowledge as reflected in the real world, and the discipline becomes part of the students’ experiences (Harden, 2000). Literature highlights that this type of integration has also been referred to as ‘authentic’ integration, showing that learning occurs in the real world. Examples of this type of integration relate mainly to students at higher levels of learning such as doctoral students and those busy with their final-year curriculum (Fogarty, 1991; Kysilka, 1992; Harden, 2000).
2.18.10 Networked integration
Networked integration is seen within and between students. It requires students to rearrange ideas within and across disciplines, to make their own connections while being pro-active in their own learning and choosing learning strategies that will enhance integration, including accessing and relating to colleagues and the experts in the field (Fogarty, 1991; Kysilka, 1992).