Models of Curriculum Integration in New Zealand

Secondary Schools

Sabbatical report, Term 2, 2015

Philip Jellyman
St Dominic’s Catholic College

Acknowledgements

I wish to thank all those schools and individuals who assisted me with this investigation for
their willingness to give up their time and their openness to discussing the ways in which
curriculum integration has been implemented in their schools.

Thank you to:

Alfriston College
Albany Junior High School
Albany Senior High School
Gulf Harbour School
Hobsonville Point Secondary School
Kelston Girls College
Manurewa High School
Mission Heights Junior College
Ormiston Senior College
Wellington East Girls College
Wellington High School
Whangaporoa College

I would also like to thank the Principal, Carol Coddington and Board of Trustees of St
Dominic’s Catholic College for their support and those staff who willingly covered my
various roles in my absence.

Finally I would like to acknowledge The Ministry of Education for supporting and funding
the sabbatical.

Purpose

The aim of my sabbatical was to investigate, through research and visits to identified schools,
innovative approaches to junior school (Year 7 to 10) curriculum design, particularly in
regards to the development and introduction of integrated curricula.

Recent literature has highlighted the benefits of a more flexible, integrated curriculum with a
focus on developing key competencies in addition to subject knowledge and skills. A range of
both intermediate and secondary schools, particularly those built in the past decade, have
moved toward such a curriculum, using a variety of approaches.
The purpose of the sabbatical was therefore to investigate and research:
• how schools have (re)designed their curriculum to encompass a more integrated
approach
• how schools have changed teacher roles to accommodate these curriculum changes
• the effectiveness of curriculum redesign in raising student achievement, engagement
and the development of key competencies.

Curriculum Integration – the theory

The concept of curriculum integration has been around for many years dating back to the
early 20th century, however what is apparent is that there is a relatively wide range of views
as to what curriculum integration could look like. It is not the goal of this report to analyse in-
depth the history and various arguments in terms of what is and is not curriculum integration
however, in general, curriculum integration can be broadly categorised as fitting into the
following:

1. Multidisciplinary integration or Thematic approach

Here a common theme, context or “big question” is established for the various subject areas
to use as a focal point to their programme. This could mean that students are taught within
each separate subject area where it is up to the separate subject areas to decide how this
theme or context will be used, that subject teachers collaborate to maximise the degree of
integration occurring in their subject specific courses or that theme-based units are developed
collaboratively between subject areas that subsequently share a combined multi-disciplinary
activity or project.

Boyd & Hipkins (2012) describe curriculum integration as “any approach that combines two
or more subjects or learning areas to produce a course of study that draws on the content and
processes of both learning areas…underpinned by the idea that learning is more relevant and
meaningful if it is organised around concepts that are relevant to students”. (Boyd &
Hipkins, 2012, p. 17)

2. Interdisciplinary integration

Common interdisciplinary skills are emphasised across subjects as central to the process of
learning in each subject area but each subject area otherwise determines their own
curriculum. Examples could be where there is an on-going focus in each subject on thinking
skills/learning to learn or on the research process.

3. Transdisciplinary integration or Democratic approach

The curriculum is developed between students and teachers based on real-life questions and
concerns of the students. Negotiation by students is central to this approach. Students learn by
applying what they know and research to problem solve, and aim to produce some form of
social action or product as a result of their investigation. Teachers assist by providing
resources and guidance and may step in to provide specific teaching on areas that are
identified as a weakness. Subject area content is incorporated as and when links naturally
occur. This approach is the most “pure” form of curriculum integration (and would argue that
a thematic approach is not curriculum integration), based on student inquiry and action with
curriculum links where appropriate. Fraser (2013) describes curriculum integration as
involving “the teacher scaffolding students’ learning rather than directing them…tends to be
issue driven rather than topic driven…only draws upon learning areas that relate to the central
issues of the inquiry. No attempt is made to cover all curriculum areas.” (Fraser, Aitkin, &
Whyte, 2013, p. 21)

While there may be argument as to what the best form of curriculum integration may be, it is
apparent that proponents of curriculum integration see these approaches as integral to a move
toward a more modern teaching and learning model that reflects what is now known about
how students learn best and about what modern teaching should look like in order to prepare
students for their future, rapidly changing workplace. Similarly curriculum integration is seen
as a means of better meeting the vision of the New Zealand Curriculum by preparing students
to be confident, connected, actively involved life-long learners as well as developing key
competencies in a more meaningful context.

How are New Zealand secondary schools implementing curriculum integration?

Fifteen different schools offering some form of integrated curriculum were either visited or
researched as a part of this investigation. It became apparent that there is no common
structural template amongst schools and pedagogical approaches within similar structures
vary considerably, particularly in terms of the extent to which the curriculum is pre-planned
versus student negotiated. While the structure utilised within different schools was essentially
a means to an end it is useful to consider the different structures used as these impact upon
the pedagogical approach used.

1. Core subjects based integration

A number of schools based their integrated curriculum around four or five core subject
teachers (Science, Maths, English, Social (Global) Studies and PE and Health) with an
expectation that these teachers will integrate what they are teaching between subjects. In most
cases teachers have scheduled times to meet for planning, sometimes timetabled, sometimes
in non-contact time. The effectiveness of this structure appeared to depend on a number of
factors including the commitment of the teachers (and their department heads) to the idea of
integration and the professional development provided for the teachers in terms of their
understanding of what an integrated curriculum should look like.

Integration generally takes the form of a common big topic, question or issue which could be
investigated from the various subject points of view with cross-over between subjects as and
when logical connections occurred. The types of “topics” utilised tended to be broad thereby
providing flexibility for teachers, and intentionally relevant to the students, for example
“Who am I?”, “Who are we?”, or based around local events or issues such as a local food
festival or environmental issue. Notably this model generally involved programmes that are
pre-planned by the teachers with varying degrees of negotiation by the students as to what
and how they investigated the subject area, although some level of inquiry was usually
incorporated. Other integration occurred through common skills strategies.

The advantage of this approach to integration is that specialist subject teachers are able to
continue to focus on their subject area while working collaboratively with the other subject
teachers to create a common thread or approach throughout their programmes. However the
downside is that such an approach can lead to minimal integration where teachers are ill-
prepared or do not actively engage with the concept.

2. Paired teachers

Effectively a subset of that outlined above, in this structure, teachers or departments are
paired to develop integrated programmes where connections can be regularly explored, or
one programme is developed that incorporates both subjects. “Logical” pairings were usually
seen as English/Social Studies and Science/Maths though one school challenged their
teachers to seek integration wherever crossover could be imagined with combinations
differing from semester to semester and students opting for the approach or topic that
interested them the most.

This approach allows specialist subject teachers to maintain a focus on their subject area as in
the example above and, by integrating with just one other subject may allow greater
flexibility in how that integration takes place in terms of both pedagogy and collaboration
between the teachers involved. However, restricting integration to specific combinations in a
school will limit the depth and breadth of integration that might otherwise be possible.

3. Multiple teachers/one programme

In this structure a class or classes have two or three teachers who assist the students in
progressing through a pre-prepared integrated programme again usually based around a big
topic, question or issue, possibly taking an inquiry approach (particularly as students become
comfortable with the structure). Programmes are generally designed to cover particular
curriculum achievement objectives from different subjects in an organic way that does not
separate the subject areas as the students work. Teachers act as facilitators and usually offer
“clinics” or tutorial sessions on areas that need more support for some students. This structure
was often supported in schools that had modern learning environments so that the teachers
are timetabled together in a shared space allowing teachers to work with any of 50 to 60
students. This allows students to access subject specialists as and when they need or to access
those teachers with which they have a good rapport to support their learning.

This approach requires the teachers involved to take on multiple roles including as subject
specialists, facilitators and mentors. Schools following this approach reported that the degree
of cross-curricular collaboration is enhanced as is the relationship between students and the
staff involved.

4. Integrated Curriculum as a subject

In this model “integrated studies” is provided as a separate subject while students also take
core subjects elsewhere in their timetable. The subject is run by one or two teachers though
may be supported by core subject teachers who are also timetabled to work with the class.
The programme is usually designed around a big concept and can be inquiry based. Again
pedagogical design varied with one school providing a pre-planned programme designed to
allow students to work through a “big concept” through a variety of approaches to suit
student preferences.

This approach allows specialist subject teachers to continue to teach in a siloed way while
students have the opportunity to develop key competencies and inquiry learning in the
integrated programme.
5. Project based

Bearing some similarities to the example above, in this model students may be offered the
opportunity to explore a common context within a project which may be either teacher or
student designed/negotiated. These tend to be focussed on connecting to the real world
possibly developing connections to external organisations and designed to cut across
curriculum areas. Alternatively students may be provided time and guidance to work on
“passion” or “impact” projects in which they have relative freedom to investigate an area of
interest, negotiated and guided by the teacher to ensure that suitable depth of thinking and
learning will take place. In either case these projects typically seek to produce actionable
outcomes to ensure greater authenticity for the students and subject integration occurs only as
and when appropriate.

6. Combinations

One school offers combinations of these structures i.e. students do several differing integrated
units, each developed and taught by two teachers from differing subject areas as well as a
“big project” offered by individual teachers.

Additional notes

While not central to the concept of integrated curriculum it is worth noting the following in
terms of the ways that schools were going about implementation:

• a number of schools have longer period times to facilitate more in-depth focus and
learning, typically 100 minute periods. In general the extended time was welcomed by
both students and staff though it was noted that staff needed to be fully prepared for
the additional demands of the longer time frame.

• several schools intertwined their pastoral care approach into their integrated
curriculum programme, including learning or academic coaches. For example, in
some cases the students’ integrated curriculum teachers were also their learning
coaches, or alternatively time was specifically set aside in the timetable for learning
coaches to meet students and discuss their planning and progress (particularly in
schools with very inquiry focussed approaches that allowed greater student
independence), as well as for the students to reflect on their progress and next steps.

Benefits of an integrated curriculum

The perceived benefits of an integrated curriculum intrinsically depends on the pedagogical

approach taken in developing the programme. An integrated curriculum design that is not
supported by staff, department heads and/or senior management is unlikely to be an
improvement on current subject specialist approaches in secondary schools. However,
designed well and supported by staff, schools with integrated curriculum reported that
students tended to be more engaged in their learning and developed deeper questioning and
independent thinking skills than is typically the case in subject specialist classes. This was
credited as occurring because the subject matter being investigated tended to be more
authentic and relevant to the students and the greater emphasis on student inquiry enhanced
student agency. Students reported that they could better recognise the connections between
different subject areas and how differing elements of different subjects impact upon each
other.
Schools noted that while subject specific achievement was not notably improved, the
development of students as “21st century learners” who meet the vision of the New Zealand
Curriculum was more effectively achieved. Staff also commented that working together
across curriculum areas enhanced their understanding of what was happening elsewhere in
the school, allowing them to better integrate their own subject material as well as improving
connections between departments.

In summary reported benefits of an integrated curriculum include:

• providing a learning environment that enables students to make connections within

and across subjects

• providing greater engagement and perseverance by enabling students to focus on

issues significant to themselves thereby making learning relevant to their world which
also encourages greater depth of thinking and questioning

• enabling for authentic learning where the focus is on real world issues and applying
ideas to the real world

• fewer attendance concerns, less disruptive behaviour and fewer discipline problems

• improved decision making abilities and the ability to think critically and creatively

• more personalised learning for each student which benefits both high achieving and at
risk students

• improved relationships between students and mentors (learning leaders/coaches etc)

as more time is available for one on one conversations and

• greater preparedness for the work environment on 2020 and beyond.

Barriers to implementing an integrated curriculum

It was apparent that there are several key barriers that influenced the effectiveness of the
implementation of an integrated curriculum in the schools investigated:

1. A confused vision of what an integrated curriculum is - those schools where an integrated

curriculum was being introduced but where the vision of what an integrated curriculum looks
like was not clear struggled to get staff buy-in as staff were uncertain as to the approach they
should be focussed on and wished to avoid investing time an energy going down the “wrong”
track.

2. Staff resistance – a number of schools attempting to bring in an integrated curriculum

model reported resistance from staff and particularly subject leaders who were concerned that
“vital” subject specific knowledge would be lost and that this would therefore impact on
NCEA results. Two schools reported moving away from an integrated curriculum precisely
because of pressure and reluctance from subject leaders.
Staff also found the just-in-time planning needed to facilitate programmes that are relevant to
current issues to be challenging. For example several schools planned their next term or
semesters programmes only in the last few weeks of the previous term based on student
interest and current issues which is challenging to staff used to following a pre-prepared
programme that they are very familiar with. Fraser (2013) notes that “curriculum integration
requires a shift in the traditional role of the teacher. It is more dynamic, interactive and finely
nuanced…It requires teachers to share decision making and the messy process of inquiry,
where the outcomes are unknown” (Fraser, Aitkin, & Whyte, 2013).

3. Parental resistance –in some cases there was strong parental resistance to a move to an
integrated curriculum primarily because of the focus on preparing students for NCEA and
therefore the perceived need for subject specialised teaching. Parents may have difficulty
recognising the value of developing their child’s key competencies as opposed to learning
“stuff” as may have been the focus in their own schooling. This view is exacerbated by the
media focus on NCEA league tables.

4. Time – teachers reported that preparing integrated programmes took additional time
compared to what was traditionally the case due to the need to meet with colleagues on a
regular basis to discuss, design and update the programme to meet student needs and
interests. Some schools provided timetabled meeting times to facilitate this planning.

Integrated curriculum in Year 11 -13

While not the focus of this investigation it was interesting to note the varied approaches to
curriculum integration taken as students move from the junior secondary school to Year 11 -
13. Generally speaking, in most schools implementing an integrated curriculum in the junior
school, at Year 11 the curriculum tended to became more siloed with the view that the
requirements of NCEA effectively mandated this to be the case, particularly the requirements
for subject endorsement. A few schools continue to seek ways to buck the trend in differing
ways such as:

• offering courses that combine aspects of different subjects where logical connections
exist e.g. Art History & English, Science & Maths

• offering an integrated course combining English and Social Sciences to students who
are considered as still working towards Level 1 NCEA

• incorporating a separate non-NCEA based passion or impact project into the

timetable.

Conclusion

Implemented well, an integrated curriculum, aligned with modern teaching practices such as
inquiry learning based on authentic contexts, has the potential to enhance student learning
and competencies beyond what is generally possible in subject specific lessons. Schools
considering introducing some form of integrated curriculum should be wary of the barriers
identified above and take steps to address them in advance. The most successful schools
operating integrated curricula tended to be those new schools that have been built over the
past 10 years. The reason for their success is that they were able to integrate solutions to these
barriers into their design. For example, a clear vision of what an integrated curriculum looks
like was typically established as a part of the founding principles of the school with the
timetable designed to facilitate this from the beginning. Staff were hired with a clear
understanding what this vision was and the ramifications for their teaching and parents were
inducted into the school’s vision without any baggage as to how things were done in the past.
In addition, the advent of more open plan modern learning environments contributes to the
opportunities to integrate the curricula by allowing multiple teachers to be operating in the
same space with several classes.

This latter point may constitute an opportunity for established schools considering an
integrated curriculum in that, as new school buildings are built along modern learning
environment principles over the coming years, this could provide a catalyst for discussion and
integrated curriculum development.

In terms of the best structure for an integrated curriculum, from my observations I would
suggest that the structure is less important than the collective vision of what the school wants
the students to gain from it. Staff and senior leadership need to be clear as to what a move to
an integrated curriculum is designed to achieve for the students and the rationale behind it.
If the staff are on board and supported with time and professional development, then any
structure can be made to work well and similarly, if staff do not buy into the programme then
which structure is followed will not matter either.

References

Arrowsmith, S. (2013); New Zealand secondary school teachers perceptions and practices
toward curriculum integration (Masters thesis); Victoria University of Wellington, ellington,
New Zealand.

Bartlett, J. (2005). Inquiry-based curriculum integration in the secondary school. SET:

Research Information for Teachers (3), 39-43.

Boyd, S. (2013). Student Inquiry and curriculum integration. Ways of learning for the 21st
century (Part B). SET: Research Information for Teachers (1), 3-11.

Boyd, S., & Hipkins, R. (2012). Student inquiry and curriculum integration: Shared origins
and points of difference (Part A). SET: Research Information for Teachers (3), 15–23.

Drake, S. and Burns, D. (2004); Meeting Standards through Integrated Curriculum,

Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, Alexandria VA.

Dowden, T. (2012); Implementing curriculum integration: Three easy lessons from past
practice. SET: Research information for teachers (3), 25-31

Fraser, D. (2000). Curriculum integration: What it is and is not. SET: Research Information
for Teachers (3), 34-37

Fraser, D., Aitkin, V. & Whyte, D.(2013); Connecting curriculum, linking learning;
Wellington; NZCER Press