In this essay I will discuss current thinking of best teaching and learning practice for learners in the 21st century. I will discuss Beane’s (1997) definition of curriculum integration and other definitions of curriculum integration (CI). I will then discuss the common conception of CI as a variety of thematic curriculum. I will include discussion about my observation of a classroom using and integrated curriculum approach.

The basic dictionary definition of the word integration is ‘the act or process of making whole or entire. Nolan & Harwood (date unknown) suggest that Curriculum integration is the process of experiencing and understanding connections and, because of this, seeing things whole. The difference between the thematic approach and CI is the dialogical negotiation that takes place between the teacher and learner. Thematic approach teachers will plan units of work around a particular ‘theme’ or topic. These topics are frequently high interest topics which children enjoy learning about but which have little relevance or connection to the child’s word or with previous learning.

Using the thematic approach teachers tend to build up a collection of high inte

rest subjects, for example dinosaurs or ancient Egypt, then trot them out each year for study by their current class. Not only is this stagnated learning but it is disconnected to the child’s own world. In an integrated curriculum the teacher will through discussion and explore topical issues raised by the children. I observed a skilled CI teacher begin such a unit of study with year 3 children. The teacher (K) began with a class discussion on the school wide theme of ‘It’s Alive’. She guided them to discuss what they knew about living things. The class created a brainstorm of ‘What is alive?’

Experienced teachers can find CI threatening or disconcerting. It requires a shift in the power structure of the average classroom which many teachers find uncomfortable. Fraser (1999) suggests that in order to effectively implement CI teachers need to recognise and understand the complexity of learning - both their own learning and the learning of children; they need to courageously critique their own practice to bridge the gap between rhetoric and reality; and they need a commitment to power sharing when making curriculum decisions with students.

K then instructed them to work their way around the room stopping at each large paper thinking hat (from De Bono’s Thinking Hats). Children wrote down wonderings (blue hat), facts (white hat), living things they liked (yellow hat), labelled diagrams (green hat), drawings of animals in their habitat, (red hat) and worries or concerns about backyard beasties (black hat). This effectively found out what children knew and would like to know. K then invited the class to share what they could see from looking at the hats. As they contributed she acknowledged and extended their ideas and reformulated questionings from the wonderings hat. This was the basis from which she planned her unit on ‘backyard beasties.

Some topics in this essay:
CI NZ, James Beane, Nolan Harwood, Hats Children, Effective IC, Integration Zealand, Zealand NZ, BS Ed, curriculum integration, Integration Site, Integration SET, teaching learning, begin unit, teaching practice, learner centred, thematic approach, integrated curriculum, conception ci variety, previous learning, alive’ guided, freire 1970, curriculum integration ci, definitions curriculum integration, common conception ci, integration definitions curriculum,