----

##  Integrative Curriculum in a Standards-Based World. ERIC Digest.              

Curriculum integration has long been proposed as a way of organizing            the "common learnings" or life skills considered essential for all              citizens in a democracy. Curriculum is organized around real-life               problems and issues significant to both young people and adults,                applying pertinent content and skills from many subject areas or                disciplines. The intent is to help students make sense out of their             life experiences and learn how to participate in a democracy (Beane,            1997). 
The last decade of the 20th century witnessed considerable             interest in curriculum integration, especially at the middle level.             Paradoxically, at the same time, schools were being subjected to                increasing pressure for "accountability" and for "standards-based               reform." These demands have been accompanied by high-stakes testing,            a standardized, subject-centered curriculum, and sometimes even                 scripted teaching lessons. This trend continues today. How can                  curriculum integration survive under such circumstances, since it is            clearly at odds with many of the teaching and testing methods that              have been advocated within the standards-based reform                           movement? 
This Digest suggests how middle level schools can, at               the same time, reap both the benefits of genuine student-centered,              integrative curriculum and instruction (Beane, 1993, 1997) and also             develop student competencies in state-mandated standards so that                students can make acceptable scores on typical standards-based                  tests. The Digest also identifies some sources of "integrative                  standards" and cites research on student academic achievement in                various types of integrative programs that may provide some                     reassurance for today's educators. STANDARDS-BASED CURRICULUM                 INTEGRATIONOne deterrent to curriculum integration is the fact              that most state standards and proficiency tests are set up in terms             of conventional subject areas, such as reading, mathematics,                    science, or social studies. Another huge problem is the sheer number            of competencies specified in the standards. One research team                   estimates that it would take even a very competent student nine                 additional years in school to reach acceptable performance in all of            the standards recommended by national organizations! 
Why not just             ignore the standards and focus instead on facts and skills that are             most likely to be on the state tests? Drilling students on these                sample questions may raise students' test scores a bit, but this                approach hardly qualifies as education and is guaranteed to make                school and learning even more distasteful to students than it is to             many today. 
Fortunately, three educational "think tanks" have                 compiled lists of "generic" competencies that cut across discipline             and subject lines. Integrative curriculum should emphasize                      these "common learnings" or life skills. 
1. "Schoolwide Goals for             Student Learning" (NSSE and ACR). One carefully designed set of                 common learnings has been developed by the National Study of School             Evaluation (NSSE) and the Alliance for Curriculum                               Reform (ACR) (Fitzpatrick, 1997). They examined the proposals of the            various academic professional organizations and identified goals                that are common across several specific subject standards. Those                common learnings, called "Schoolwide Goals for Student Learning,"               are divided into (1) Learning-to-Learn Skills, (2) Expanding and                Integrating Knowledge, (3) Communication Skills, (4) Thinking and               Reasoning Skills, (5) Interpersonal Skills, and (6) Personal and                Social Responsibility. 
Rubrics suggested for evaluating student               performance in each of these areas are stated in general terms.                 However, their examples of "Performance Indicators"                             are "Discipline-Based," as are the Program Evaluation Guides used               for evaluating specific school programs or services. Thus, the                  structure of the handbooks may handicap schools in their efforts to             make sure "that their instructional and assessment efforts                      contribute to a coherent curriculum" (Fitzpatrick, 1997, p.                     xi). 
2. "Core Standards" (CORD). An even more comprehensive                   approach has been used by the Center for Occupational Research and              Development (CORD) in Waco, Texas (Edling & Loring, 1996). CORD                 identified common learnings embedded in standards proposed by both              academic organizations and also by groups advocating "workforce                 education" (businesses, industries, and vocational educators) and               created a database of 38 sets of proposed standards. From these,                they pulled out 53 "Core" standards that describe a broad array of              competencies, from "general housekeeping" to statistical analysis               and computer literacy to ethics and self-concept. 
What CORD calls             Integrated Standards also have been generated for various                       occupational fields such as business, engineering, the arts, and                service. Field tests of this approach to both common learnings and              integrated curriculum are going on in 12 states, and 14 curriculum              packages are being developed to help school personnel implement the             process (Edling & Loring, 1996). 
3. "Life Skills" (McREL).                    Researchers at Mid-continent Research for Education and                         Learning (McREL), a regional educational research center in Aurora,             Colorado, also began their search for "essential knowledge" by                  building a standards database incorporating 116 national standards              documents in 14 content areas (Kendall & Marzano, 1999). In the                 process, they identified a set of "life skills," which they                     described as "a category of knowledge that is useful across content             areas as well as important for the world of work" in four areas: (1)            Thinking and Reasoning, (2) Working with Others, (3)                            Self-Regulation, and (4) Life Work. Note the similarity to                      the "Schoolwide Goals" of NSSE/ACR and the "Integrated Standards" of            CORD. 
Any set of these standards-based common learnings or, better            yet, a composite of all three would provide a much-needed focus in              curriculum planning at all levels and could be especially important             in designing integrative curriculum. Some providers of teaching                 materials are beginning to get the message. For example, the                    Performance Indicators available from Sunburst Technology include               a "General" collection dealing with collaborative lifelong learning,            class participation, work habits, and problem solving. USING                  STANDARDS IN CURRICULUM INTEGRATIONTeachers may deal with                   standards before, during, or after engaging students in planning                learning experiences focused on their personal and social concerns.             Core teachers sometimes "back-map" a completed unit to show students            and parents where they had been dealing with content and skills                 typically taught in separate courses. This sort of "after-the-fact              accountability" is even more essential today (see Brodhagen, 1995).             Identifying and labeling the standards and competencies included in             a unit not only provide evidence that standards are being addressed             but also may reveal competencies that merit further attention in                succeeding units. 
Teachers are ultimately responsible for what is             taught, but they should not have to bear the entire standards                   burden. A much better approach is to invite students to join with               them to make sure that mandated competencies are addressed. When                students understand the standards that are to be met during any                 particular year, they can suggest many creative ways to address them            within units focused on their personal and social concerns. As long             as the number is not excessive, posting the major standards in the              classroom is a good reminder for both teachers and                              students. 
Inviting students to help in the process gives them                 excellent opportunities to develop critical thinking, demonstrates              that their ideas are valued, and helps them to see that education is            a matter of serious concern for our entire society. Perhaps if more             people had gained this kind of insight while still in school, there             would be more support for the schools today! RESEARCH ON THE                  EFFECTIVENESS OF INTEGRATIVE CURRICULUMIt is still too early to             obtain reliable data on how students in integrative programs fare on            state proficiency tests. However, recent analyses of                            studies (National Association for Core Curriculum, 2000; Vars, 1996,            1997; Arhar, 1997) point to the same general conclusion: Almost                 without exception, students in any type of interdisciplinary or                 integrative curriculum do as well as, and often better than,                    students in a conventional departmentalized program. These results              hold whether the combined curriculum is taught by one teacher in a              self-contained or block-time class or by an interdisciplinary                   team. 
For the most part, these results were obtained using                    standardized achievement tests designed for a conventional                      separate-subjects program. Most standardized tests are normed-                  scores of individual students are compared with the mean or average             of whatever group is considered "normal." In contrast, current state            tests may have arbitrary cut-off scores that all students must meet             in order to "pass" or be considered "competent." In other words, the            rules of the assessment game have been changed radically.                       Furthermore, the quality of many statewide assessment measures has              been widely criticized, raising serious questions about the morality            of using them to determine a student's grade promotion or high                  school graduation. 
It will probably be many years before problems             in the assessment of student performance are solved. In the                     meantime, educators considering curriculum integration will need to             proceed carefully and take full advantage of the decades of research            and experience with this potentially powerful way of designing and              carrying out education (Vars, 1993; Beane, 1997). It also is                    important to keep all stakeholders-students, teachers, families, and            the general public-both informed and involved in continuing efforts             to provide every student with meaningful learning                               experiences. CONCLUSIONIntegrative curriculum in the new                  millennium will have to deal with societal expectations, as spelled             out in standards and state tests, while still giving primary                    emphasis to student needs, problems, and concerns. Using any of the             standards-based formulations of common learnings can make societal              expectations more manageable. Then students can be invited to share             in addressing those expectations as they and their teachers plan                learning experiences. FOR MORE INFORMATIONArhar, Joanne                   M. (1997). The effects of interdisciplinary teaming on students and             teachers. In Judith L. Irvin (Ed.), WHAT CURRENT RESEARCH SAYS TO               THE MIDDLE LEVEL PRACTITIONER (pp. 49-56). Columbus, OH: National               Middle School Association. ED 427 847. 
Beane, James A. (1993). A              MIDDLE SCHOOL CURRICULUM: FROM RHETORIC TO REALITY (2nd ed.).                   Columbus, OH: National Middle School Association. 
Beane, James                A. (1997). CURRICULUM INTEGRATION: DESIGNING THE CORE OF DEMOCRATIC             EDUCATION. New York: Teachers College Press. 
Brodhagen, Barbara               L. (1995). The situation made us special. In Michael W. Apple &                 James A. Beane (Eds.), DEMOCRATIC SCHOOLS (pp. 83-100). Alexandria,             VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. ED 381              902. 
Edling, Walter H., & Loring, Ruth M. (1996). EDUCATION AND               WORK: DESIGNING INTEGRATED CURRICULA. Waco, TX: Center for                      Occupational Research and Development. 
Fitzpatrick, Kathleen                  A. (1997). INDICATORS OF SCHOOLS OF QUALITY: VOL. 1. SCHOOLWIDE                 INDICATORS OF QUALITY. Schaumburg, IL: National Study of School                 Evaluation. 
Kendall, John S., & Marzano, Robert J. (1999). CONTENT            KNOWLEDGE: A COMPENDIUM OF STANDARDS AND BENCHMARKS FOR K-12                    EDUCATORS [Online]. Available: www.mcrel.org [2000, March                       30]. 
National Association for Core Curriculum. (2000). A                      BIBLIOGRAPHY OF RESEARCH ON THE EFFECTIVENESS OF BLOCK-TIME, CORE,              AND INTERDISCIPLINARY TEAM TEACHING PROGRAMS. Kent, OH: National                Association for Core Curriculum. 
Pate, P. Elizabeth; Homestead,               Elaine R.; & McGinnis, Karen L. (1997). MAKING INTEGRATED CURRICULUM            WORK: TEACHERS, STUDENTS, AND THE QUEST FOR COHERENT CURRICULUM. New            York: Teachers College Press. 
Vars, Gordon F. (1993).                         INTERDISCIPLINARY TEACHING: WHY AND HOW. Columbus, OH: National                 Middle School Association. 
Vars, Gordon F. (1996). Effects of                 interdisciplinary curriculum and instruction. In Peter S.                       Hlebowitsh & William G. Wraga (Eds.), ANNUAL REVIEW OF RESEARCH FOR             SCHOOL LEADERS (pp. 147-164). Reston, VA: National Association of               Secondary School Principals and Scholastic Publishing. 
Vars,                  Gordon F. (1997). Effects of integrative curriculum and instruction.            In Judith L. Irvin (Ed.), WHAT CURRENT RESEARCH SAYS TO THE MIDDLE              LEVEL PRACTITIONER (pp. 179-186). Columbus, OH: National Middle                 School Association. ED 427 847. 
----- 
References identified with            an ED (ERIC document), EJ (ERIC journal), or PS number are cited in             the ERIC database. Most documents are available in ERIC microfiche              collections at more than 900 locations worldwide, and can be ordered            through EDRS: (800) 443-ERIC. Journal articles are available from               the original journal, interlibrary loan services, or article                    reproduction clearinghouses such as UnCover (800-787-7979) or                   ISI (800-523-1850). 
----- 
ERIC Digests are in the public domain             and may be freely reproduced. 
This project has been funded at                 least in part with Federal funds from the U.S. Department of                    Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement, under                contract no. ED-99-CO-0020. The content of this publication does not            necessarily reflect the views or policies of the U.S. Department of             Education, nor does mention of trade names, commercial products, or             organizations imply endorsement by the U.S. Government.                      **Title:** Integrative Curriculum in a Standards-Based World. ERIC Digest.              **Document Type:** Information Analyses---ERIC Information Analysis Products (IAPs) (071); Information Analyses---ERIC Digests (Selected) in Full Text (073); **Available From:** ERIC Clearinghouse on Elementary and Early Childhood Education,                 University of Illinois, 51 Gerty Drive, Champaign, IL 61820-7469.               Tel: 800-583-4135 (Toll Free).                                               **Descriptors:** Academic Achievement,  Academic Standards, Competence, Curriculum               Development,  Integrated Curriculum, Interdisciplinary Approach,                Middle School Students,  Middle Schools, Standardized Tests,  State             Standards, Student Centered Curriculum, Student Evaluation, Student             Role                                                                         **Identifiers:** ERIC Digests                                                                 
###
[Return to ERIC Digest Search Page]