During an integrated curriculum unit on the American Revolutionary War, 5th grader James,who recognized my British accent, turned to me and asked, “What do you think about the Revolutionary War? Do you mind that you lost? Where are you from, anyway? Or weren't you alive then?” In that moment, parenthetical to planned classroom activities and discussions, James demonstrated how he was trying to make personal sense of history and of the curriculum.
Does James care about learning? He cares about answering personal questions raised for him by the curriculum and his own experiences. Does he care about learning in the same terms as his teacher and the curriculum? Other comments from James suggest he does not share the learning goals that they have for him. And yet James is involved in integrated curricular units that are expressly designed to encourage students to make connections and learn within and across the curriculum. Perhaps James and other students can help us think more deeply about the complex relationship between curricular and teacher-constructed learning goals and the personal construction of meaning and knowledge by learners.
When Teachers Construct Connections
I spent much of one school year in James's 5th grade classroom working with the teacher, Terri, to find out more about what students learn from an integrated curriculum, particularly one that integrates history and literature. During two integrated units, we explored the connections that students made within each subject, across the subjects, and with their own lives.
The first unit integrated the historical study of the Revolutionary War with the reading of historical fiction novels set during the same period. The curriculum emphasized the integration of content across subjects to reinforce and extend learning about the period. This approach is a common form of integrated curriculum, consistent with correlation (Case, 1991), the parallel model (Jacobs, 1989), and the sequenced curriculum (Fogarty, 1991).
A later unit integrated several subjects along the broader theme of freedom. In history, students studied the Civil War. In literature groups, students selected from nonfiction texts organized by such topics as women's rights, civil rights, immigrant citizens' rights, and World War II and the Holocaust. Students explored the theme of freedom from the perspectives of both their historical study of the Civil War and readings that their literature group had chosen. The goal of the theme approach was to encourage connections across subjects and across the yearlong history curriculum.
Both units provided interesting learning opportunities for students that might not have occurred in a more subject-based approach. James's questions, however, remind us to look more closely at actual student responses to this curriculum and to think about the personal sense-making and construction of knowledge that individual students undertake as they encounter the same classroom curriculum. After all, the goal is integration of student learning, not just integration of the curriculum, and so we must examine that learning for individual students.
When Students Construct Learning
Near the end of my time with Terri's students, I used a card-sort activity to help uncover what connections the students had made. I gave students index cards with the titles of the history units or eras they had been introduced to that year: Native Americans, colonization, Revolutionary War, westward expansion, Civil War, and Vietnam War. I added cards that represented literature group topics from the integrated freedom unit: civil rights, women's rights, World War II, and immigrant citizens' rights. I also added cards that represented major themes or topics from the year: conflict, freedom, and the U.S. Constitution. Finally, I included a card called “Me and My Life” to encourage students to talk about any personal connections they made with the curriculum.
I asked students to show, in whatever way they chose, how any of the cards connected with any others and to talk about what they were doing. Together, we recorded their thinking on chart paper. For many students, this exercise prompted excitement and new thinking about connections across topics. The exercise helped me better understand individual student learning, particularly of history, but it also demonstrated the different ways that students made sense of their learning and drew connections personally and across the curriculum. I will share three examples.
James's Multiple Connections
James often appeared unmotivated by classroom assignments. In individual or small-group conversations about the books that he was reading, however, he frequently drew on his own diverse background knowledge to make sense of new learning. For example, while reading about Cambodian immigrants, he became fascinated by the Pol Pot regime. He drew comparisons with Hitler, talked about the breakup of Yugoslavia and the Soviet Union, and even discussed ancient Greece. He pondered what being an immigrant might feel like and made connections with readings about the U.S. internment of Japanese during World War II. His written work and class contributions, however, rarely reflected this kind of thinking.
James sorted the cards according to major themes, associating all the wars with the theme of conflict, and then adding westward expansion and Native Americans because “[they] thought it was home and we thought it was just the desert.” He recognized women's rights as connecting with the theme of freedom—“because women didn't have the freedom that men had”—and then connected immigrants to Native Americans “because they didn't have the freedom to have their own land.” In the end, he decided that everything connected to the theme of conflict. When asked, he also decided that everything connected to his own life. For example,The Revolutionary War was an important part of my life because if it weren't for that I might have not been born in a good country like this. And the Civil War was important in my life because if it weren't for that we would have two countries instead of just one. Native Americans were important to my ancestors because I'm a quarter Mexican and half Native American.
Significantly, James was excited by this activity and announced, “Everything fits. That's what I was trying to do. I was trying to think about it.” Earlier in class, he had claimed that he didn't need to learn “this stuff” because it wouldn't help him in his future career.
Did James care about learning? James's general classroom demeanor often implied not. He became fascinated by some topics he encountered, however, and he made thoughtful connections to the curriculum as a result. James often ignored curricular and teacher-made connections and learning goals, but he found ways to make personal connections and sense of the material.
Vanessa's Stories
Vanessa was a talkative and confident student, ready with answers and contributions. Her response to the card-sort activity was consistent with her general approach to making sense of the curriculum. Vanessa told stories.
Vanessa told mini-narratives to understand and explain historical events in personal and relational terms. For example, she likened the Civil War to disagreements with her mother becauseWe both think that our answer is right. In the Civil War, the South thought what they did was right, and the North didn't. And the North thought that what they did was right, and the South didn't.
Vanessa read and retold stories. She refused to dip into nonfiction texts for specific information but insisted on reading whole books that had narrative texts with related personal stories. To recount some of her reading about the Holocaust, she told only about Anne Frank, focusing on Anne's family and friends.
Vanessa also made connections across historical eras by creating a master narrative for herself. As I showed her the cards, and before I could explain the task of making connections, Vanessa said, “They're all connected together—freedom.” She proceeded to place the freedom card in the middle and then show how each card linked to that larger theme, the narrative that she was creating of U.S. history. For example, she explained that the Revolutionary War and U.S. Constitution were both about freedombecause they were fighting about how they were treated . . . and the United States wanted to have their own country and they didn't have to be a part of the British country.
She also explained that “the Civil War had to do with freedom because they were fighting for slaves' freedom” and that Native Americanswere moved just because of their color, and they couldn't stay there because of where they lived and who they were.
Vanessa claimed that “all the rights have to do with freedom.” She created a theme that reflected her narrative, emotional, relational approach to learning.
Did Vanessa care about learning? Vanessa was a student who could be relied on to complete assignments thoroughly, to contribute to class discussions, and to have appropriate answers to teacher questions. She learned much of what the curriculum and teacher planned for her and picked up on the theme of freedom. She did so in her own way, however. Sometimes, as with her learning about the Holocaust, her insistent focus on narrative and personal stories took her in a different direction from the planned curriculum, and sometimes that divergence helped her make sense of it. She cared deeply about some kinds of learning.
Tim's Linear Approach
Tim was a serious student who liked to work in an orderly way and had a linear, sequential approach to school learning. When asked what the class might study next in history, he anticipated that it would be whatever came next in the historical timeline, but he could remember little about prior units and focused only on the present unit. This was apparent during the card sort when he confused wars and claimed not to remember anything about such topics as colonization or civil rights. He could, however, remember the order in which he had studied them.
Tim sorted the historical era cards chronologically. When he was given the literature group study cards about different rights, he added them to the linear chronology he had created. He placed them next to the Civil War card because “before the Civil War there were all these three subjects.” As we talked, it became apparent that Tim was re-creating the sequence in which these topics were studied during the freedom unit that was linked to the Civil War study. I also asked Tim to tell me which cards could be connected with the “Me and My Life” card—which topics had anything to do with his life now or in the future. He insisted that none of them did or would.
Did Tim care about learning? Tim cared about school success. But he showed few signs of becoming personally engaged with the curriculum. He completed assignments and answered questions, but he did not raise questions or pursue his own interests in the classroom. For Tim, learning was apparently a matter of completing school tasks, in the present, and was not personally connected to his life or interests.
Integrated Curriculum and Integrated Learning
Those who argue for an integrated curriculum often have unexamined assumptions about the relationship between an integrated curriculum and how students learn. James and his classmates help us think more about these assumptions when we see what individual students bring to the learning experience and how they make sense of the integrated curriculum and teacher-planned connections.
Reasons for integrating the curriculum are numerous. The most compelling argument for many teachers is that integration leads to improved student learning. Others claim that an integrated curriculum is more relevant, interesting, and motivating to students than a separate-subject approach. But why would an integrated curriculum necessarily be more interesting to students than other approaches? For Tim, it does not appear to be more interesting.
Many claim that an integrated curriculum increases opportunities for transfer, reinforcement, and application of learning. Helping students make associations or connections can indeed contribute to meaningful learning. It is also possible, however, that these connections may be superficial (Case, 1991) or may contribute to confusion or misconceptions (Alleman & Brophy, 1993). Tim made some faulty connections, and Vanessa ignored some that did not match her interests.
Other writers draw on recent brain research to argue that because the brain learns through searching for patterns and making connections, we should therefore teach those connections by integrating the curriculum. This argument purports to draw on constructivist learning theory (for example, Brooks & Brooks, 1993). The notion that humans learn by making connections and the conclusion that we should therefore teach these connections, however, makes an unwarranted leap of logic and misses the crucial point that it is the learners themselves who do, and need to do, the connection making.
James, Vanessa, and Tim remind us that there is no simple, direct relationship between teacher-constructed integration of curriculum and student-constructed integration of learning. Rather than impose our ready-made curricular connections, we need to uncover and encourage students' connections within and across the curriculum and with their own lives and interests. The card-sort activity is one way to explore these connections.
Many teachers enjoy planning integrated curriculum in part because of the interesting relationships they discover. James and his classmates remind us to share that process with the students. They can and often do care about learning—in their own important ways.
