Running head: CONTENT KNOWLEDGE IN INTERDISCIPLINARY CURRICULUM 1

Content Knowledge in Interdisciplinary Curriculum

Jessica A. Moran

Regent University

In partial fulfillment of EFND 595 Field Experience/Student Teaching ePortfolio, Spring 2017
CONTENT KNOWLEDGE IN INTERDISCIPLINARY CURRICULUM 2

Introduction

From the moment a child is born, learning takes place at an incredible rate. By the time

students reach kindergarten, they have more synapses than when they were born (Bergin &

Bergin, 2015, p. 48), and this continues throughout the brains sensitive period (Bergin &

Bergin, 2015, p. 48) until age ten. Just as a students brain is developing in multifaceted ways, so

must the teacher develop instruction which appeals to diverse areas of higher-level thinking; this

must occur within and beyond the foundation of the transfer of learning from one content area or

skill to another (Bransford, Brown, & Cocking, 2000). To encourage effective memory plus

positive transfer (Bransford, Brown, & Cocking, 2000, p. 51) it is crucial to maintain an

interdisciplinary approach to teaching from the curriculum rather than examining each in

isolation. As an educator, I must engage my students in an active, dynamic process rather

than a passive end-product (Bransford, Brown, & Cocking, 2000, p.53) through inquiry-based

learning and visible thinking (Ritchhart, Church, & Morrison, 2011) strategies. This can be

accomplished through intentional standards-based lesson plan design which allows for implicit

and explicit connections to other content areas.

Rationale for Selection of Artifacts

The first artifact is a collection of lesson plans I designed for a Kindergarten science unit;

it used SOL 5.8 which pertained to the students investigation and understanding of the formation

and characteristics of shadows (VDOE, 2010). To incorporate cross-curricular learning and

eventual transfer, I incorporated Language Arts SOL K.12 which asked the student to write for a

variety of purposes (VDOE, 2010); a Math lesson was also implemented which asked the student

to gather and tally data (SOL K.13, VDOE, 2009). Both fiction and nonfiction materials were
CONTENT KNOWLEDGE IN INTERDISCIPLINARY CURRICULUM 3

selected that related to the theme of shadows with an emphasis on asking and answering

questions (VBO K.7.5).

As the students and I read together, we created a See-Think-Wonder chart (Ritchhart,

Church, & Morrison, 2000) to record student predictions and what they wondered regarding

shadows; each students contribution was labeled with their name as a formative assessment. The

focus of student writing was also shadows as they read the room for words we had used, such as

shadow or light; struggling learners were provided with sentence stems as well as focused

guidance from either myself or the teachers assistant. Students were given the opportunity to

physically create shadows with their hands and bodies, objects around the classroom; they then

wrote about these experiences in relation to the height of the sun at that time. The provided math

lesson relates to student prediction of the groundhog seeing its shadow in relation to the sun that

day, and tallying the response below.

The second artifact provides photographs pertinent to this unit of study. The children used

time outside to trace their shadows with chalk; this provided the opportunity for students to

discuss the suns position in the afternoon related to their shadows length. I then had them make

a connection to their experience through writing with permission to use their imagination. Next,

students predicted whether the groundhog would see his shadow on Groundhogs Day with the

creation of a T-Chart. As we were learning about gathering data and tallying, the students colored

a picture according to their vote. Afterward, we used individual white boards to tally up the total

for each column. I then created a version of this graph as a flip chart which they used during their

centers rotations; students would come around to ask myself or the other students our

predictions, and practice their tally marks. Finally, I made an interdisciplinary center that

revolved around a shadow box. Using an I can poster (Diller, 2008), students had a variety
CONTENT KNOWLEDGE IN INTERDISCIPLINARY CURRICULUM 4

of choices which included the use of a flashlight to make shadows with their bodies and objects,

to read a book about shadows, and to write a shadow sentence.

Reflection on Theory and Practice

When designing instruction, an educator must see the content not as individual strands,

but as threads woven together into a greater tapestry. One must make choices and frame

prioritiesaround big ideas (Wiggins & McTighe, 2005, p.71) to consider what we want

students to hear, read, view, research, or otherwise encounter (Wiggins & McTighe, 2005, p.72).

Within this framework, students must be given opportunities to develop a deeper understanding

and application of what they are learning rather than rote memorization (Bransford, Brown, &

Cocking, 2000). This may be accomplished through strategies which expose student

misconceptions, in turn scaffolding progress and achievement; this conclusively leads to

activities which enhance their engagement and independence (Ritchhart, Church, &

Morrison, 2011, p. 22). The connection of content knowledge within interdisciplinary curriculum

should present itself in student-directed and inquiry based learning; this will increase the

visibility of student thinking to the educator (Ritchhart, Church, & Morrison, 2011).

As seen in the above artifacts, student-directed learning within standards-based

instruction cultivates engagement, deliberate practice (Ericsson et al., 1993 as quoted by

Bransford, Brown, & Cocking, 2000, p. 59), and the immediate application of skills within a

real-life context. Thus, differentiated lessons are a natural result of an interdisciplinary

curriculum as it relates to the awareness and appreciation of learning stylesfor instructional

and assessment success (Hoskins, 2011, p.115). Consequently, teachers must provide

opportunities for students to self-reflect while guiding them toward the potential transfer

implications of what they are learning (Anderson et al., 1996 as referenced by Bransford,
CONTENT KNOWLEDGE IN INTERDISCIPLINARY CURRICULUM 5

Brown, & Cocking, 2000, p.60). If this is done well, content strands will not lay separate in a

childs mind but will instead be actively conjoined across subjects, naturally extending into their

lives beyond school. Educators must actively engage with content as a springboard for the

development of lessons, being open, and receptive (Stiff-Williams, 2011, 183) to its

possibilities for students within the tapestry of interdisciplinary curriculum.

References

Bergin, C.C. & Bergin, D.A. (2015). Child and adolescent development in your classroom (2nd

ed.). Stamford, CT: Cengage Learning.

Bransford, J.D., Brown, A.L, & Cocking, R.R. (2000). How people learn: brain, mind,

experience, and school. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Diller, D. (2008). Spaces and places. Portland, Maine: Stenhouse Publishers.

Hoskins, J. (2011). The law of unity. In A.A. Arroyo & Hope Jordan, The Secret Kingdom for

Educators (pp. 108-121). Boston, MA: Pearson Learning Solutions.

Ritchhart, R., Church, M., Morrison, K. (2011). Making thinking visible. San Francisco, CA:

Jossey-Bass.

Stiff-Williams, H. (2000). Specific applications for teachers. In A.A. Arroyo & Hope Jordan, The

Secret Kingdom for Educators (pp. 177-219). Boston, MA: Pearson Learning Solutions.

VODE (2010). English standards of learning: curriculum framework 2010. Board of Education:

Commonwealth of Virginia. Retrieved from

http://www.doe.virginia.gov/testing/sol/frameworks/english_framewks/2010/framework_

english_k-5.pdf
CONTENT KNOWLEDGE IN INTERDISCIPLINARY CURRICULUM 6

VDOE. (2009). Mathematics standards of learning: curriculum framework 2009. Board of

Education: Commonwealth of Virginia. Retrieved from

http://www.doe.virginia.gov/testing/sol/frameworks/mathematics_framewks/2009/frame

wk_mathk.pdf

VDOE. (2010). Science standards of learning: curriculum framework 2010. Board of Education:

Commonwealth of Virginia. Retrieved from

http://www.doe.virginia.gov/testing/sol/standards_docs/science/2010/curriculum_framew

k/science-k.pdf

Wiggins, G. & McTighe, J. (2005). Understanding by design (2nd ed.). Alexandria, VA: ASCD.