Running head: REFLECTION ON CURRICULUM INTEGRATION

Reflection on Curriculum Integration Fang Ge Michigan State University

REFLECTION ON CURRICULUM INTEGRATION

The notion of curriculum integration is appealing to me for the major reason that it is based on the realization that people understand and use knowledge as it is integrated in the context of the real problems and issues, not in terms of the differentiated compartments by which it is labeled in school. Such a dynamic view of knowledge and its application resembles real life situations. Take myself, and a lot of my college classmates for example. As a required class, we learnt Probability Theory and Mathematical Statistics in college. However, not even for a single time that we were asked to apply what we learnt in real life. As a result, all the abysmal theories and calculations that we spent days and nights to study were only good for receiving high scores in tests and examinations. Without contextualizing knowledge and relating it to problems and issues, it would be impossible for learners to apply it to problem-solving in real life. However, without any direct or indirect experience with the implementation of this curriculum design theory and being brought up in an educational system that strictly follows separate-subject curriculum, I have the following questions about the theory. First, what are exactly the learning outcomes of this approach? As I understand from the text, curriculum integration explores a given theme without regard of the subject-area lines. In this process, knowledge and skills are used as facilitating tools to solve personal and social problems of significance. Does it mean that various solutions of a certain problem constitute the objectives of learning? I agree that memorization and accumulation of knowledge in itself is only the means of learning, but that is not to say it is unimportant in the process of problem solving. Without a comprehensive understanding of knowledge and repeated practice of skills, it is difficult to proceed to the higher levels of Blooms taxonomy such as analysis, synthesis and evaluation.

REFLECTION ON CURRICULUM INTEGRATION

Another question in relation to the learning outcome is the role of knowledge and skills play in the learning process of curriculum integration. Admittedly, following the sequence of knowledge is important for learners to build upon what is learnt in the acquisition of new knowledge. When planning a unit or lesson without regard to subject areas, how can teachers make sure that the sequence is coherent and continuous. For example, one theme involves the subject areas such as science, history and mathematics. The next theme, however, may engage arts, music and geography. Such a random arrangement of subject areas may be detrimental to students comprehension and absorption of knowledge. Furthermore, the authors preference of social problems and issues and concerns of young people themselves as the primary sources of organizing centers raises concerns for me. Some topic such as dinosaurs contained within the separate subjects doesnt seem to directly relate to students immediate life, however, this piece of knowledge is among the many building blocks of our basic knowledge about the history of the earth. Such knowledge, on the surface, may not help us solve any issues or problems, but it enhances our understanding of the physical environment that we used to live in and thus contributes indirectly to solving related problems such as preserving endangered animals and environmental protection that we face today. Finally, which model of curriculum planning works for the idea of curriculum integration poses a realistic question for me. It seems to me that all the technical production perspectives, whether it be Tylers rationale for curriculum planning, Tabas sevens steps, Schwabs deliberation and eclectic approach, Walkers naturalistic model or the conceptual model proposed by Goodlad and Johnson, are based on the means-ends rationality. In other words, their planning starts with various subjects and important knowledge and skills to be mastered within them. On the contrary, the planning of curriculum integration begins with a

REFLECTION ON CURRICULUM INTEGRATION

central theme. Without a better understanding of how to set up learning objectives in curriculum integration, it is hard for me to relate the technical production perspectives with curriculum integration. The critical perspective, on the other hand, bears some resemblance to curriculum integration in that its themes are drawn from real life and it leads to action to solve problems and issues in the real world. Nevertheless, the explanation of this perspective puts more emphasis on identifying the assumptions underlying it and less on outlining the procedures of planning itself. In summary, curriculum integration looks promising to educators due to its organization of knowledge around pertinent personal and social problems and its emphasis on the application of knowledge to real life. For such an approach to have a real and far-reaching impact on education, theorists need to work in conjunction with educators to provide answers to questions such as how to define learning outcomes, how to transit from old knowledge in an coherent way to new knowledge, how to embrace knowledge and skills that are indirectly related to solving problems. Most importantly, how to plan an integrated lesson in a step-bystep fashion. These and other potential questions being answered, curriculum integration will eventually prove itself to be a superior curriculum design theory.