E Book

How to
INTERGRATE the
CURRICULA
Third Edition
The poet, who navigates the stars …
The writer, who touches the soul …
The inventor, who notes nature’s ways …
The friend, who connects one with another …
How to
INTERGRATE the
CURRICULA
Third Edition
Robin Fogarty
Foreword by Heidi Hayes Jacobs
Copyright © 2009 by Corwin
All rights reserved. When forms and sample documents are included, their use is
authorized only by educators, local school sites, and/or noncommercial or nonprofit entities
that have purchased the book. Except for that usage, no part of this book may be
reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including
photocopying, recording, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without
permission in writing from the publisher.
For information:
Corwin
A SAGE Company
SAGE India Pvt. Ltd.
2455 Teller Road
B 1/I 1 Mohan Cooperative Industrial Area
Thousand Oaks, California 91320
Mathura Road, New Delhi
(800) 233-9936
India 110 044
Fax: (800) 417-2466
www.corwinpress.com
SAGE Ltd.
SAGE Asia-Pacific Pte. Ltd.
1 Oliver’s Yard
33 Pekin Street #02-01
55 City Road
Far East Square
London EC1Y 1SP
Singapore 048763
United Kingdom
Printed in the United States of America.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Fogarty, Robin.
How to integrate the curricula / Robin Fogarty.—3rd ed.
p. cm.
Includes bibliographical references and index.
ISBN 978-1-4129-3888-4 (cloth : alk. paper)
ISBN 978-1-4129-3889-1 (pbk. : alk. paper)
1. Education—Curricula—United States—Handbooks, manuals, etc. 2. Interdisciplinary
approach in education—United States—Handbooks, manuals, etc. I. Title.
LB1570.F655 2009
375—dc22 2008056034
This book is printed on acid-free paper.
09 10 11 12 13 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
Acquisitions Editor: Hudson Perigo

Editorial Assistant: Lesley K. Blake
Production Editor: Cassandra Margaret Seibel
Copy Editor: Sarah J. Duffy
Typesetter: C&M Digitals (P) Ltd.
Proofreader: Carole Quandt
Indexer: Jean Casalegno
Cover Designer: Anthony Paular
Graphic Designer: Scott Van Atta
Contents
Foreword
Heidi Hayes Jacobs
Acknowledgments
About the Author
Introduction
What Is This Book All About?
Why Bother?
The Theorists: Research on the Brain and Learning
The Practitioners: Abandonment of an Overloaded Curriculum and
Adherence to Standards of Learning
The Parents: What Will Our Children Need 25 Years From Now?
The Students: Education Is a Vaccination
How Can the Curriculum Be Integrated?
10 Models of Integrating the Curricula
Agree/Disagree Introductory Activity
Four-Fold Concept Development Activity
Examples of the Four-Fold Concept Development Activity
How Do Teachers Use This Book?
Model 1. Cellular
What Is the Cellular Model?
What Does It Look Like?
What Does It Sound Like?
What Are the Advantages?
What Are the Disadvantages?
When Is This Cellular Model Useful?
How to Integrate the Curricula Working With Model 1: Cellular
Model 2. Connected
What Is the Connected Model?
When Is This Connected Model Useful?
How to Integrate the Curricula Working With Model 2: Connected
Model 3. Nested
What Is the Nested Model?
When Is This Nested Model Useful?
How to Integrate the Curricula Working With Model 3: Nested
Model 4. Sequenced
What Is the Sequenced Model?
When Is This Sequenced Model Useful?
How to Integrate the Curricula Working With Model 4: Sequenced
Model 5. Shared
What Is the Shared Model?
When Is This Shared Model Useful?
How to Integrate the Curricula Working With Model 5: Shared
Model 6. Webbed
What Is the Webbed Model?
When Is This Webbed Model Useful?
How to Integrate the Curricula Working With Model 6: Webbed
Model 7. Threaded
What Is the Threaded Model?
When Is This Threaded Model Useful?
How to Integrate the Curricula Working With Model 7: Threaded
Model 8. Integrated
What Is the Integrated Model?
When Is This Integrated Model Useful?
How to Integrate the Curricula Working With Model 8: Integrated
Model 9. Immersed
What Is the Immersed Model?
When Is This Immersed Model Useful?
How to Integrate the Curricula Working With Model 9: Immersed
Model 10. Networked
What Is the Networked Model?
When Is This Networked Model Useful?
How to Integrate the Curricula Working With Model 10: Networked
Appendix. Assessing Curriculum Integration: Units of Study
Appraising Curriculum Integration
Appraising the Integrity of the Breadth and Depth of the Curriculum
Integration Unit
Sample Rubric
Assessing the Effectiveness of the Unit in Terms of Student Achievement
General Rubric
History Rubric
Language Arts Rubric
Conclusion
References
Index
Foreword
In the spirit of continuous learning, Dr. Robin Fogarty has added new
insight into this third edition of How to Integrate the Curricula. Her initial
contribution to the field of education was to give teachers clear and practical
images and exercises that provoked new perspectives on curriculum making.
In this edition, she builds and adds useful suggestions that deepen the work.
She has added refined practices, engaging strategies, and targeted research
references to support her models for curriculum design.
Ultimately, this is a practical book supported by strong theoretical
underpinnings. It is a useful tool for inservice workshops and personal
instructional growth that teachers and staff developers will find extremely
helpful. Dr. Fogarty has a knack for cutting directly to key points in an
engaging style. Certainly the goal of any professional improvement plan is to
eventually help learners. How to Integrate the Curricula can help educators
assist all learners in the classroom to be thoughtful, creative, and mindful.
Dr. Heidi Hayes Jacobs

President, Curriculum Designers
Rye, New York
Acknowledgments
This book took a year—plus a lifetime—to write! The thoughts shared here
represent an accumulation of ideas over time and present the core of the
integrated learner model. Learners must constantly and continually make
connections. As they proceed on their journeys, they single-mindedly dig into
an idea and at the same time network with others for breadth across related
fields. As a result, concepts come into focus and emerge as beliefs that propel
learners even further along on their chosen path and into never-ending circles
of expert associates. In my work with curriculum and cognitive instruction,
two camps of expert associates have influenced my thinking about how to
integrate the curricula: expert theorists and expert practitioners.
In the theorists’ camp, I’d like to acknowledge Heidi Hayes Jacobs for
providing the initial impetus for this work. Her “Design Options for an
Integrated Curriculum” (in Interdisciplinary Curriculum: Design and
Implementation; Jacobs, 1989) acted as a catalyst for the ideas presented in
this book.
In addition, I am especially grateful to David Perkins for an illuminating
discussion on finding fertile themes with which to integrate curricula. With
his rich criteria, this thematic model takes on new integrity. In the absence of
applied criteria, topical themes are often superficial, with content artificially
included or excluded accordingly. David’s “lenses” provide the needed rigor.
In addition, thanks go to David for the idea of the characters placed in a
school setting. This sparked the inclusion of the dialogues that appear
throughout the book to illuminate the teachers’ process as they move toward
a more coherent curriculum.
Finally, also in the theorists’ camp, I’d like to thank Art Costa for his
initial review of the integrated models and his timely suggestion for one that
illustrates how a teacher targets several ideas in a single lesson or nests
several ideas together—thus, the nested Model 3.
Now, in the practitioners’ camp, there are five distinct expert flanks.
Influencing the first two editions of this book were teachers from
Carpentersville, Illinois; the Waterford School District, in Michigan; the
Richmond School District, in British Columbia, Canada; and Virginia Beach
Schools, in Virginia. The final group, which influenced this latest edition,
were Singaporean teachers from Teach Less, Learn More (TLLM) Ignite
Schools.
Elementary and middle school teachers from Carpentersville, Illinois,
worked on models to help integrate the curricula for lessons and learners.
Some of their lesson designs appear as examples in this book. I thank the
following teachers for their early efforts in exploring this idea of an
integrated curriculum: Carol Bonebrake, Jane Atherton, Suzanne Raymond,
Barbara Bengston, Al Eck, Kathleen Vehring, Roseanne Day, Nancy
Blackman, Clifford Berutti, Linda Morning, Diane Gray, and Terri Pellant.
Thanks to Julie Casteel and her teachers in Michigan, especially Al
Monetta, Chris Brakke, Lori Broughton, and Sue Barber, who provided the
topics to fill in the first model in Figure 1.1. A pioneer practitioner leading
the thinking skills movement into action research teams, Julie Casteele was
on the cutting edge with the integrated learning idea. Thanks to both Julie and
her risk-taking staff for letting me test the models with real teachers.
Thanks also to friends and colleagues in Canada, first to Carol-Lyn Sakata,
who brought us there, then to Bruce Beairsto, David Shore, and Darlene
Macklam, for introducing us to the teachers of Richmond. Their heroic
efforts to implement a visionary provincial document, Year 2000: A
Framework for Learning, inspired our work. I am especially indebted to one
teacher, Heather MacLaren. She asked her seventh graders to prepare to talk
at their parent conferences about what they had done that year and how all the
things they had learned overlapped and were connected. The students’
intricate Venn diagrams provided graphic representations of integrating the
curricula as perceived through the eyes of learners. These drawings sparked
our thinking about creative, integrative models.
With 80 teachers in a summer workshop in Richmond called “Teaching for
Transfer,” including John Barell, David Perkins, and our superhero, Captain
Meta Cognition, we had a first stab at trying to help teachers sift out
curricular priorities. This, too, served as an initial springboard for our ideas
about how to integrate the curricula. Also, special thanks to Monica Pamer,
Gina Rae, and Jacquie Anderson for their conversations and encouragement.
The fourth set of practitioners are those from the Virginia Beach Schools.
Their work with student learning standards in designing performance tasks
illuminates the process of designing integrated curricula with the “standards
in mind.” For their robust performance tasks, I am most grateful.
And for the fifth set of pioneering educators, I must salute the Singapore
Ministry of Education leadership, especially Karen Lam and Puay Lim; the
Academy of Principals and the efforts of Ezra Ng; and the TLLM Ignite
school teams for their dedicated efforts in creating more engaged learning
models with the integrated curriculum approach. Working with the 10
models, these teachers are dedicated to the development of an integrated
curriculum that demonstrates richness, rigor, and integrity. We value their
work immensely as it enhances ours.
I would be remiss if I neglected to mention the network of colleagues who
have helped shape this book. Thanks to Jim Bellanca for his mentoring ways;
Hudson Perigo for shepherding the process with skill and charm; and last but
not least, our office administrator, Megan Moore, for her invaluable
assistance in organizing and reorganizing, formatting and reformatting,
editing and re-editing, and submitting and resubmitting. She has been a
godsend in this endeavor.
PUBLISHER’S ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Corwin gratefully acknowledges the contributions of the following reviewers:
John C. Baker
Eighth-Grade Social Studies Teacher/Department Chair
Salem Middle School
Apex, NC
Julie Prescott
Assessment Coordinator
Vallivue High School
Caldwell, ID
Darlene Vigil
Language Arts Coordinator
Albuquerque Public Schools
Albuquerque, NM
Mark White
Elementary School Principal
Hintgen Elementary School
La Crosse, WI
About the Author
Robin Fogarty received her doctorate in curriculum and human resource

development from Loyola University of Chicago. A leading proponent of the
thoughtful classroom, she has trained educators throughout the world in
curriculum, instruction, and assessment strategies. She has taught at all levels
from kindergarten to college, served as an administrator, and consulted with
state departments and national ministries of education in the United States,
Puerto Rico, Russia, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Germany, Great
Britain, Singapore, Korea, and the Netherlands. She has published articles in
Educational Leadership, Phi Delta Kappan, and the Journal of Staff
Development. She is the author or coauthor of numerous publications,
including Brain-Compatible Classrooms (2009), Literacy Matters (2007),
The Adult Learner (2007), A Look at Transfer (2007), Close the Achievement
Gap (2007), Twelve Brain Principles That Make the Difference (2007), Nine
Best Practices That Make the Difference (2007), and From Staff Room to
Classroom: A Guide for Planning and Coaching Professional Development
(2006).
Introduction
To the young mind every thing is individual, stands by itself. By and by,
it finds how to join two things and see in them one nature; then three,
then three thousand; and so, tyrannized over by its own unifying instinct,
it goes on tying things together, diminishing anomalies, discovering
roots running underground whereby contrary and remote things cohere
and flower out from one stem…. The astronomer discovers that
geometry, a pure abstraction of the human mind, is the measure of
planetary motion. The chemist finds proportions and intelligible method
throughout matter; and science is nothing but the finding of analogy,
identity, in the most remote parts.
—Emerson
WHAT IS THIS BOOK ALL ABOUT?

To help the “young mind … [discover] roots running underground whereby
contrary and remote things cohere and flower out from one stem” is at once
the mission of the teacher and of the learner. To that end, this book presents
models to connect and integrate the curricula in a more coherent fashion.
Yet the question begging for an answer is, “What does integrating the
curricula mean?” Does it mean sifting out the parcels of each overloaded
discipline and focusing, in depth, on the true priorities, the enduring learnings
(Wiggins & McTighe, 1998) (Cellular Model)?
Yet the question begging for an answer is, “What does integrating the curricula mean?”
Does it mean integrating or connecting yesterday’s lesson to today’s topic?

Or relating all issues studied in the biology class to the concept of evolution?
Or studying concepts such as power and isolation throughout social studies
1
topics? Does it mean making connections explicit rather than implicit with
every classroom opportunity (Connected Model)?
Does integrating curricula mean targeting multidimensional skills and
concepts into one lesson (Nested Model) or mapping the curricula by
rearranging the sequence of when a topic is taught to coincide with a parallel
topic in another content area (Sequenced Model)? Does it mean integrating
one subject with another through the learner’s conceptual eye or selecting an
overall theme (such as persistence or argument) or a simple topic (such as
transportation) to use as a “big idea” thematic umbrella (Shared Model)? Or
is it more deductive in nature, such as selecting a book, an era, or an artist
and weaving those natural and obvious themes into the fabric of the
discipline (Webbed Model)?
Model Definition
Cellular Model Focusing on priorities of each course
Making explicit connections with each classroom
Connected Model
opportunity
Targeting multi-dimensional skills and concepts into one
Nested Model
lesson
Rearranging sequence when a topic is taught to coincide
Sequenced Model
with a parallel topic in another discipline
Integrating one subject with another through the
Shared Model
learner’s conceptual eye
Weaving natural and obvious themes of a subject (such
as the work of an artist or writer) into the fabric of a
Webbed Model
discipline
Integrating what is taught with cognitive tools,

Threaded Model
strategies, and technical tools that cross disciplines
Involving interdisciplinary team discussions when
Integrated Model
planning curriculum
Connecting past experiences and prior knowledge with
Immersed Model new information
2
Networked Model Building new bonds of interest with other experts
through networking
Does integrating curricula mean integrating the content of what is taught

with cognitive tools (predicting, classifying), cooperative strategies (debating,
finding consensus), and technical tools (computer skills, electronic media)
that cross disciplines and spill into real-life situations (Threaded Model)? Or
does it encompass interdisciplinary team discussions and planning in which
conceptual overlaps (structures, cycles) become the common focus across
departments (Integrated Model)?
Does integrating the curricula mean exploiting integrative threads sparked
from within the intense interests of the learner (photography, hunting,
dancing) to connect past experiences and prior knowledge with new
information and experiences (Immersed Model)? Or does it mean reaching
out to build bonds with experts in the area of interest (hunting,
environmentalist, cartographer) through networking (Networked Model)?
The answer, of course, is that integrating the curricula can be any or all—
and more—of the aforementioned models. Each teacher and each learner
views the integration process differently. Each finds natural and robust ways
to connect the world in search of deeper meaning and richer understanding.
Each seeks the relatedness between and among things to discover “roots
running underground whereby contrary and remote things cohere and flower
out from one stem.”
WHY BOTHER?
Why bother being concerned with a coherent curriculum? What is the
rationale for connecting ideas, discerning themes, and threading skills? The
answer lies in the four winds of change, coming from four distinct directions,
that create the urgency for a more integrated curriculum. The north and south
represent the ideas of educational theorists and the challenges of
practitioners; the east and west represent the concerns of parents and the
perspective of students themselves. From the theorists come data on teaching,
learning, and the human brain; from the practitioners, frustration with an
overcrowded standards-based and test-driven curriculum. From opposite
vectors, parents are concerned about student preparation and readiness for
3
real-world issues, while students see learning as fractured and not very
relevant. A closer look at these crosswinds of change reveals their impact on
the current educational climate of school reform in our nation’s schools.
The Theorists: Research on the Brain and Learning

Supporting the concept of a more connected, integrated curriculum is a
research base that delineates 12 principles of the brain and learning (Caine &
Caine, 1994, 1997). Note that some of the principles in Figure 0.1 are
common sense, others reinforce accepted pedagogy, and still others are just
gaining acceptance in the world of cognitive/neuroscience.
Figure 0.1 Caine & Caine’s 12 Principles of the Brain and Learning
SOURCE: Adapted from Making Connections: Teaching and the Human Brain, by R. N.
Caine and G. Caine, 1994, Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Copyright 1994 by Geoffrey
Caine. Adapted with permission.
Supporting the concept of a more connected, integrated curriculum is a research base

that delineates 12 principles of the brain and learning.
Creating the Learning Environment
4
The first three principles create the learning environment.
1. Learning is enhanced by challenge and inhibited by threat. The brain
learns optimally when appropriately challenged and reacts viscerally when it
senses threat. Therefore, a safe, rich environment fosters a state of relaxed
alertness for learning, whereas threatening experiences, such as testing
situations, often create a state of fear and anxiety.
2. Emotions are critical to patterning. Emotions and cognition cannot be
separated. When emotions kick in, the brain pays attention. Attention is
necessary for memory and learning. Therefore, a positive emotional hook,
such as an intriguing question, enhances learning.
3. Learning involves both focused and peripheral perception. The brain
responds to the entire sensory context. Therefore, in an enriched
environment, peripheral information can be purposely organized to facilitate
learning. Learning centers, study stations, and even the way teachers
represent information on the board are organizational tools that enhance
memory and learning.
Using Explicit and Implicit Memory Systems

Principles 4 and 5 involve the memory systems.
4. The brain processes parts and wholes simultaneously. Bilateralization of
right and left hemisphere processing, although inextricably linked for
interaction, allows the brain to reduce information into parts and at the same
time perceive and work with the information as a whole. Therefore,
immediate application of direct instruction of skills and concepts allows the
learner to perceive information from both perspectives.
5. The brain has a spatial memory system and a set of systems for rote
learning. There are facts and skills that are dealt with in isolation and require
rehearsal, and at the same time there is natural, spatial memory that needs no
rehearsal and affords instant memory. Therefore, rote memorization
techniques are necessary for fostering long-term learning for transfer. Rote
memorization requires more conscious effort to remember because the facts
may have little meaning or relevance to the learner. When the brain senses
that there is no need to remember, it tends to let go of the information.
5
Therefore, rote memorization of isolated facts often needs more explicit work
to learn and recall information, whereas spatial memory has built-in cues that
help in the retrieval of information. Teaching that focuses on the personal
world of the learner to make learning relevant taps into the experiential or
spatial memory system. In sum, rote memory is explicit, while spatial
memory is implicit.
Processing Incoming Information

Processing is supported by four principles.
6. The brain is a parallel processor. Thoughts, emotions, imagination, and
predispositions operate simultaneously. Therefore, optimal learning results
from orchestrating the learning experience to address multiple operations in
the brain. When all four lobes of the brain (frontal, occipital, temporal,
parietal) are activated, memory is enhanced. And memory is the only
evidence we have of learning (Sprenger, 1999).
7. Learning engages the entire physiology. Learning is as natural as
breathing, yet neuron growth, nourishment, and emotional interactions are
integrally related to the perception and interpretation of experiences.
Therefore, stress management, nutrition, exercise, and relaxation are integral
to the teaching and learning process.
8. Each brain is unique. Although most brains have a similar set of
systems for sensing, feeling, and thinking, the set is integrated differently in
each brain. In short, each and every brain is wired differently. Therefore,
teaching that is multi-faceted, with inherent choices and options for the
learner, fosters optimal learning.
9. Understanding and remembering occur best when the facts are
embedded in natural, spatial memory. Specific items are given meaning
when embedded in ordinary experiences, such as learning grammar and
punctuation and applying that learning to writing. Experiential learning that
affords opportunities for embedded learning is necessary for optimal
learning.
Making Meaning
6
The final three principles address the brain’s way of making meaning.
10. The search for meaning is innate. The search for meaning cannot be
stopped, only channeled and focused. Therefore, classrooms need stability
and routine as well as novelty and challenge. The learning can be shepherded
explicitly through mediation and reflection.
11. The search for meaning occurs through patterning. The brain has a
natural capacity to integrate vast amounts of seemingly unrelated
information. Therefore, when teaching invokes integrated, thematically
reflective approaches, learning is more brain compatible and, subsequently,
enhanced.
12. Learning always involves conscious and unconscious processes.
Enormous amounts of unconscious processing go on beneath the surface of
awareness. Some of this happens when a person is awake, and much of it
continues when a person is at rest or even asleep. Other learning occurs when
the person is fully conscious and aware of the process. Therefore, teaching
needs to be organized experientially and reflectively to benefit maximally
from the deep processing.
Profile of Intelligences
In addition to these principles of the brain and learning, another important
fact is that each brain has a unique profile of intelligences (Gardner, 1983,
1999) that reveal both strengths and weaknesses in accessing learning. These
intelligences include verbal-linguistic, visual-spatial, interpersonal-social,
intrapersonal-introspective, musical-rhythmic, logical-mathematical, bodily-
kinesthetic, and naturalist-physical world.
These principles of learning and the theory of multiple intelligences
provide a profound backdrop of theory-embedded ideas that comprise this
first wind of change. What does this forceful wind bring to the educational
agenda? It brings the idea of orchestrating the curriculum into complex
experiences that immerse students in multiple ways of learning and knowing
(Kovalic, 1993). These robust curriculum models include integrated, thematic
instruction and ongoing projects and performances, such as a student-
produced newspaper, a school musical, or a service learning project to
eliminate graffiti in the community (Caine & Caine 1991, 1994, 1997). This
7
seamless learning—curricula that find the “roots running underground”—
fosters connection-making for lessons and learners.
These principles of learning and the theory of multiple intelligences provide a profound
backdrop of theory-embedded ideas.
The Practitioners: Abandonment of an Overloaded

Curriculum and Adherence to Standards of Learning
One university professor tells his pre-med students, “By the time you
graduate and become practicing physicians, 50 percent of what we’ve taught
you will be obsolete … and we don’t know which half that will be” (Fogarty
& Bellanca, 1989). Curriculum overload is a reality that teachers from
kindergarten to college face every day. Drug and alcohol education, AIDS
awareness, consumer issues, marriage and family living, computer
technology, Web and Internet training, wikis, blogs, podcasts, character
education and bullying, the human brain, and safety and violence prevention
programs have all been added over the years to an already content-packed
curriculum. There is no end to it. The myriad content standards of the various
disciplines and the process standards or life skills—thinking, organizing,
assessing information, problem solving and decision making, cooperation,
collaboration, and teamwork—inundate the expanding curriculum.
Meeting Standards With Integrated Curricula

There is much concern about how to meet the spectrum of content
standards required by various states. Some think that each standard must be
addressed discretely and within a particular discipline. Yet common sense
tells us that if educators try to approach standards by laying them end to end
in a sequential discipline-based map, they would need to add at least two
more years to the schooling cycle. The only way the compendium of
standards can possibly be met is by clustering them into logical bundles and
addressing them in an explicit yet integrated fashion. It’s not standards or
curriculum, but rather standards and curriculum. Standards help to prioritize
content teaching in an overloaded, fragmented, and sometimes outdated
curriculum. They provide the foundation for what students need to know and
be able to do. Well-designed standards help set the curricular priorities
8
necessary for an integrated, coherent, and authentic curriculum.
Common sense tells us that if educators try to approach standards by laying them end to
end in a sequential discipline-based map, they would need to add at least two more years
to the schooling cycle.
With this solid foundation firmly in place, decisions about curriculum

become seamless as teachers decide what to selectively abandon and
judiciously include in their planning. Standards champion the cause of a more
connected, more relevant, more purposeful curriculum at all levels of
schooling.
The sample standards of learning in Figure 0.2 illustrate the types of
learning goals contained in typical state standards for student achievement. A
cursory look at these reveals the broad strokes of the standards and the ease
of integration that can result if they are clustered and layered within robust
learning.
This book promotes the concept of a standards-based and integrated
curriculum that is reflective of lifelong learning. With standards as the guide
for rigorous and relevant curricular decisions, readers may use the inventories
provided later in this introduction (Figures 0.7 and 0.8) to determine what
they are already doing to foster integration of concepts, skills, and attitudes
across the disciplines.
These quick inventories introduce readers to the 10 models that shape
integration of the curricula in myriad ways. As readers learn about the models
described in this book, they discover ways to prioritize curriculum concerns,
methods for sequencing and mapping curricular content, templates for web-
bing themes across disciplines, techniques for threading life skills into all
content areas, and strategies to immerse students in content through self-
selected, personally relevant learning experiences.
The focus on standards-based curricula begins the conversation about what
students need to know and be able to do. The concept of integrated curricula
continues the conversation with practical ways to transform that learning into
real-life experiences that transfer effortlessly into future applications.
Remember, it’s not standards or integrated curriculum, but both standards
and integrated curriculum that lead to students who are well prepared for a
world that we as their teachers may never know.
9
The concept of integrated curricula continues the conversation with practical ways to
transform that learning into real-life experiences.
With a multitude of standards as the goal, coverage of content, of course, is

an ongoing concern as traditional evaluations (e.g., “the test”) are
supplemented with more authentic assessments (e.g., portfolios,
performances). Yet as Hunter (1971) so aptly puts it, “Covering the
curriculum is like taking a passenger to the airport—you rush around and get
to the airport on time, but you leave the passenger at home” (p. 51). In other
words, a teacher finishes the book or curriculum but wonders if the students
came along for the ride. In the flurry of covering content standards to prepare
students for “the test,” teachers leave some students far behind. As one
student said, “Mrs. Smith, may I be excused? My brain is full.”
What does this powerful wind of change mean for schools? It means
educators need to seek ways to “selectively abandon and judiciously include”
standards in the curriculum (Costa, quoted in Fogarty, 1991, p. 65). The
standards are the goals of the curriculum approach, within a single discipline,
across content areas, and in the mind of the learner.
The Parents: What Will Our Children Need 25 Years

From Now?
A father of a 13-year-old describes the typical, cellular model of schooling
in which an eighth-grade student brings home “thirty examples to do for math
homework, twenty minutes of trombone practice, an autobiography to
complete, irregular French verbs to learn for a test, and a chapter to read in
the science text” (Fogarty, 1991, p. 61). He goes on: “There is a need to
examine what students learn under these circumstances. Students may opt to
do all of it, do some of it or do none of it. Surely we must wonder: what do
we want kids to know twenty-five years from now? And, we must create the
organizational structure that eliminates obstacles and enables students to
grow and learn” (p. 62).
10
Figure 0.2 Sample Standards of Learning
SOURCE: Adapted from Standards of Learning, by Missouri Department of Elementary
and Secondary Education, 1996, Jefferson City, MO: Author. Copyright 1996 by Missouri
Department of Elementary and Secondary Education. Adapted with permission.
Surely we must wonder: what do we want kids to know twenty-five years from now?
This wind of change means that students need schooling for a lifetime, not
just for the test (Bellanca & Fogarty, 1991). In terms of relevant learning for
life, one parent related a comment from her son, who told her, “I have a
11
million things on my mind, and not one of them turned up on the test.”
Yes, educators want all students to meet the learning standards, and they
want them to pass the test, but in the end they really want students to be able
to function effectively in life. Interestingly, one critical element of integrated
learning is the lifelike projects that are relevant and meaningful to students.
The Students: Education Is a Vaccination

A student once told me, “Math is not science; science is not English;
English is not history. A subject is something you take once and need never
take again. It’s like getting a vaccination; I’ve had my shot of algebra. I’m
done with that.” While subject matter content falls neatly into those
discipline-based departments, students, unfortunately, do not
compartmentalize themselves or their learning that readily.
Learning is incidental and inductive (Kovalic, 1993); it’s holistic and
interactive (Bellanca & Fogarty, 1991). Students learn complex language
skills from their interactions with the language in genuine and authentic
episodes. Baby talk disappears because other people do not talk that way. The
comment “We learned about unregular verbs today” will be self-corrected to
conform with standard English because students desperately want to say
things “the right way.” And they learn much of this naturally in integrated,
cross-ability groupings of siblings and peers.
What does this wind of change mean? It means a shift toward more
holistic, experiential learning for children. It means problem-based learning,
case studies, performance tasks, service learning, apprenticeships, and
internships. Learning is a function of experience, and teachers must create the
experiences for learners.
HOW CAN THE CURRICULUM BE INTEGRATED?

Each teacher and each learner views the integration process differently. Yet
there is a common vision encompassing three distinct dimensions that is
accepted by a large number of educators (see Figure 0.3).
Each teacher and each learner views the integration process differently.
12
The vertical spiral represents the spiraling curricula built into most texts
and standards documents as content is integrated and revisited through the K–
12 grades. Introduction, development, and mastery of certain materials are
expected at various levels in preparation for building on that material for the
next concepts at subsequent levels. Integration occurs vertically throughout
the schooling years.
The horizontal band represents the breadth and depth of learning in a given
subject. As different subjects are approached, explored, and learned within
each discipline, a cumulative effect is anticipated. Students are to expand
their conceptual bases for future learning in related fields: one math concept
builds toward the next as ideas are integrated within a discipline.
Finally, the circle represents the integration of skills, themes, concepts, and
topics across disciplines as similarities are noted. These explicit connections
are used to enhance the learning in a holistic manner as students link ideas
within one subject area and from one subject to another. Both integration
within a discipline and integration across disciplines are necessary to fully
integrate the curricula.
10 Models of Integrating the Curricula

To further explore this idea, this book presents detailed discussions on a
range of models (see Figure 0.4 for a graphic overview). Beginning with an
exploration within single disciplines, at the left end of the spectrum, and
continuing with models that integrate across several disciplines, the
continuum ends with the ultimate and most natural models that integrate
within the learner.
These models provide a tool for teachers and teacher leaders to inventory
what they are already doing in their classrooms and schools to integrate the
curricula. Figure 0.5 identifies the 10 views for integrating the curricula. See
Figures 0.6 and 0.7 for interactive charts of the 10 models.
These are the forces that are moving educators toward integrated, holistic, and authentic
kinds of learning.
The winds of change are stronger than we think. The brain research, the
off-loading of an overloaded curriculum, the emergence of standards-based
13
curricula, the need for the life skills of thinking and collaborating, and the
call for learner-centered schools are moving forces in the educational world
today. These winds signal the need for integrated, rich, and robust curricula
that serve as gateways to lifelong learning—not as gatekeepers that block the
pathways from one discipline to another. These are the forces that are moving
educators toward integrated, holistic, and authentic kinds of learning. The
winds will not calm. Change is in the air. It is imminent.
AGREE/DISAGREE INTRODUCTORY ACTIVITY

Use the Agree/Disagree chart (Figure 0.8) to record your positions regarding
statements about integrating the curricula before reading more about it. Read
each statement and place a plus, minus, or question mark next to it.
Plus—Agree
Minus—Disagree
Question Mark—Not Sure
14
Figure 0.3 How to Integrate the Curricula: Three Dimensions
Figure 0.4 How to Integrate the Curricula
15
Figure 0.5 Toward an Integrated Curriculum
SOURCE: Based on Design Options for an Integrated Curriculum, by H. H. Jacobs (Ed.),
1989, Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
16
Figure 0.6 10 Models of Curricular Integration: How Are We Doing?
17
Figure 0.7 Tally Sheet for Personal Reflections and Comments
18
Figure 0.8 Agree/Disagree Chart
Copyright © 2009 by Corwin. All rights reserved. Reprinted from How to Integrate the
Curricula, Third Edition, by Robin Fogarty. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin,
www.corwinpress.com. Reproduction authorized only for the local school site or nonprofit
organization that has purchased this book.
FOUR-FOLD CONCEPT DEVELOPMENT

ACTIVITY
19
To discover the meaning behind the idea of curriculum integration, the team-
building four-fold concept development activity can help the group come to a
common understanding of the concept. In groups of two, three, or four, fold a
large piece of poster paper into four sections and label the sections as shown
in the diagram: LIST, RANK, COMPARE, ILLUSTRATE. Write
“Curriculum Integration” at the top of the paper, and follow the cues
provided by the headers and label in Figure 0.9.
First, brainstorm 10–20 synonyms of phrases for the concept of curriculum
integration. Then, rank the top three through discussion and place the three
words in the appropriate section. Now, think of an analogy, by finding a
tangible, concrete object, to compare to the concept of curriculum integration.
Figures 0.10–0.12 provide several examples to use to prime the pump as
you and your team think about an analogy. Look these over, and then proceed
with your analogy in the third section. Then, add the accompanying visual
metaphor or poster illustration in the last section.
20
Figure 0.9 Curriculum Integration
EXAMPLES OF THE FOUR-FOLD CONCEPT

DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY
21
Figure 0.10
22
Figure 0.11
23
Figures 0.12
HOW DO TEACHERS USE THIS BOOK?

This book is divided into 10 chapters, one for each of the models. The
discussion for each model includes answers to the following questions:
What is it? (a metaphorical name and description of the model)
24
What does it look like? (examples of integrating the model)
What does it sound like? (examples of integrating the model)
What are the advantages? (benefits for teaching and learning)
What are the disadvantages? (detriments for teaching and learning)
When is this model useful? (purposeful and meaning applications)
To complete the discussion of each model, a vignette of teachers working

with it is presented in script format for a quick readers’ theater activity when
using the book as a course or for the reader to ponder if using the book
independently. The scripted scenarios depict the ongoing interactions and
evolving journey of four faculty members trying to integrate the curricula.
There are four teachers in the scripts, symbolizing typical departmental
staff who are in the process of shifting toward a more integrated approach to
curriculum. The first teacher is Maria Novela, the language arts teacher, who
has been with the district for 17 years. The second teacher, Sue Sum, is a
recent graduate who landed a job in the mathematics department. Bob Beaker
has manned his science lab for the past 5 years. And Tom Time has been in
the history department “since time began.” Obviously, with tongue in cheek,
these scenarios are included to signify the real concerns of staff.
Each chapter ends with a set of graphics that are included for reader use.
Each model includes actual samples of curricular integration for teachers to
study and discuss as well as a graphic that requires teachers to design lessons
and units using the construct.
Whether you are working alone, with partners, or in teams, the organizers
provide immediate and visible transfer of the models into useful prototypes.
In fact, a faculty can easily work with this over time to develop integrated
curricula throughout the school. Each staff member or team can choose one
model to work with each semester or combine models that seem to have a
synergy built in. Or students themselves can work with the models to explore
the connections they make within and across disciplines and within and
across learners.
The templates are visible evidence of the integration ideas and solidify the
ideas in a highly concrete way. As teachers begin the conversation about
25
integrating the curricula, the spectrum of models becomes more inviting.
As teachers begin the conversation about integrating the curricula, the spectrum of
models becomes more inviting.
26
Model
1
27
Cellular
Are we or how are we setting curricular priorities?
Periscope—one direction; one The traditional model of separate and

sighting; narrow focus on single distinct disciplines, as depicted by student
discipline or content area. learning standards in each discipline.
Example
The teacher applies this view in
mathematics, science, social studies,
humanities, fine and practical arts.
“Education is the instruction of the intellect in the laws of Nature.”
—Thomas Huxley
Let’s not dismiss the traditional model too lightly. It has worked for many
years. There must be a reason it has survived the test of time.
WHAT IS THE CELLULAR MODEL?

The traditional curricular arrangement dictates separate and distinct
disciplines. Typically, the four major academic areas are labeled
mathematics, science, language arts, and social studies. Fine arts and practical
arts pick up other subjects, including art, music, and physical education,
while technology, drafting, graphic arts, business, and accounting may be
28
slotted in the technical arts. Another grouping of the disciplines uses the
categories of humanities, sciences, practical arts, and fine arts. In the standard
curriculum, these subject matter areas are more often than not taught in
isolation, with no attempt to connect or integrate them. Each is seen as a pure
entity in and of itself. Each has separate and distinct content standards.
Although there may be overlap between physics and chemistry, the
relationship between the two is implicitly, not explicitly, approached through
the curriculum.
WHAT DOES IT LOOK LIKE?

In middle and high school, each discipline is taught by different teachers, in
different locations throughout the building, with the students moving to
different rooms. Each separate encounter carries with it a separate and
distinct cellular organization, leaving students with a compartmentalized
view of the curricula. A less severe cellular model, with subjects still taught
separately and apart from each other, is the elementary classroom. In this
situation the teacher says, “Now, put away your math books, and take out
your science packets. It’s time to work on our science unit.” The daily
schedule shows distinct time slots for mathematics, science, and social
studies. Often topics from two areas are not intentionally correlated. This
isolation of subjects can be the norm, even in the self-contained classroom, as
content standards reign supreme.
WHAT DOES IT SOUND LIKE?

A young high school student once explained the traditional curriculum like a
vaccination: “Math is not science; science is not English; English is not
history. A subject is something you take once and need never take again. It’s
like getting a vaccination; I’ve had my shot of algebra. I’m done with that.”
In one day, typical junior high school students may be asked to perform in
seven or eight very different subjects, from mathematics to physical
education. They will do this every day in addition to the homework that each
subject generates. To cope with such a workload, students may have to
choose between focusing on the one or two subjects they enjoy doing, and
29
excel in them, and doing the minimum required to get by in the other
subjects. Readers may wonder, “What do students learn under these
circumstances? Are the needs of the system taking precedence over the needs
of the students?”
WHAT ARE THE ADVANTAGES?

One of the advantages of this cellular model, of course, is that the purity of
each discipline is left untainted. In addition, instructors prepare as experts in a
particular field and have the luxury of digging into their subjects with both
breadth and depth. This traditional model also provides a comfort zone for all
concerned because it represents the norm. We’re used to it. The weight of
these pluses must not be taken too lightly. There is value in examining one
discipline or subject as a separate and distinct entity in order to reveal the
critical attributes of each discrete field. In fact, each discipline is a way of
thinking that is inherent and tailored to its field. For example, mathematicians
have distinct ways of categorizing problems, while literature aficionados
glory in their various genres. Each and every discipline offers rigor in its way
of thinking about the world, and immersion in the various disciplines has
immense benefits in rounding out the spectrum of thinking for learners of all
ages.
This model, although it appears at first to be somewhat fragmented, does
indeed provide clear and discrete views of each discipline. In turn, the model
affords a particular way of thinking, through the qualities of designated
disciplines, that enhances the perspectives of learning. In addition, experts
can easily sift out the priorities of their own subject areas as they live and
breathe with their passion for their subject matter. In the final analysis,
students are able to realize the true benefits of this cellular model when
working with a mentor.
WHAT ARE THE DISADVANTAGES?

The disadvantages are threefold. First, learners are left to their own resources
in terms of making connections and integrating similar concepts. Second,
overlapping concepts, skills, and attitudes are not illuminated for the learner;
30
thus, transfer of learning to novel situations is less likely to occur. To leave
the learner unattended in making connections both within and across
disciplines is to overlook some of the latest research on transfer of learning,
which calls for explicit shepherding of the transfer with hugging and bridging
strategies. Third, in this discipline-based model, students can easily get
caught in an avalanche of work. Although each teacher assigns a reasonable
amount, the cumulative effect can become overwhelming for students.
WHEN IS THIS CELLULAR MODEL USEFUL?

The cellular model is a useful curricular configuration in a number of cases. It
works for large schools with diverse populations because these schools may
offer a variety of courses that provide a spectrum of subjects to target special
interests. It is also useful, of course, at the university level, where students
travel on specialized paths of study that require expert knowledge for
instructing, mentoring, coaching, and collaborating. This model is also
helpful in teacher education programs, as the preparation can be more
focused. And it is a good model for practicing teachers who want to sift out
curricular priorities in order to manage the abundance of content standards as
they prepare cross-departmental models for interdisciplinary planning.
Figures 1.1–1.3 are examples of completed cellular model integration
exercises, and Figure 1.4 provides the opportunity for readers to record their
own design for this model.
Model 1: Cellular
Readers’ Theater
“On My Own”
Narrator
Meanwhile, back at the school, teachers with periscopic vision are

unintentionally burying their students with homework as they
individually plan their curricula …
Maria Novela, Language Arts
31
Students can rent the movie Romeo and Juliet over the weekend. They
will be familiar with the plot, and on Monday we can focus on the beauty
of Shakespearean English.
Tom Time, History
This list of topics will help students select their semester projects on
Western Civilization. They can start researching their projects this
weekend.
Sue Sum, Mathematics
If we get through this lesson today, I’ll assign these theorems for
weekend homework.
Bob Beaker, Science
Students can read the chapter on the periodic table of elements over the
weekend. It’s long, but then they’ll have a jump on the rest of the
semester.
HOW TO INTEGRATE THE CURRICULA

WORKING WITH MODEL 1: CELLULAR
Essential Reasoning:
“I prioritize the fundamental or basic understandings first; then I look

for the topics, concepts, or units that can be given a different weight.”
To work with Model 1, the Cellular Model, think about the elements of the
curriculum. First, select one subject (math, science, social studies) that you
teach at the elementary level or one class prep (algebra, geometry,
trigonometry) that you have at the middle or high school level.
Once you have a focus on the subject or prep, think about the curriculum
standards addressed, and list all of the relevant topics of study for that area.
32
After you have listed the topics of study, think about which ones are most
important and which are least important. Then prioritize the list by numbering
the items, with 1 as most important and the highest number as least
important. This process is known as a forced ranking, but it is helpful to
discern the significance of each topic.
After you have made your decisions, dialogue with a partner in the same
department or a similar grade level about the curricular priorities in that
discipline. Discuss how you set priorities and what considerations you make
in deciding how to weigh the various pieces of the targeted curriculum. Let
your partner comment on your list.
33
Figure 1.1 Elementary School Example
Figure 1.2 Middle School Example
34
Figure 1.3 High School Example
35
Figure 1.4 On Your Own
Notes & Reflections

Model 1: Cellular
36
“I prioritize the fundamental or basic understandings first; then I
look for the topics, concepts, or units that can be given a different
weight.”
Each teacher in each discipline plans the topics and content in isolation
from the other teachers in other disciplines. For example, the language
arts teacher and the science teacher simultaneously list their traditional
topics for a semester, yet they do so independently of the other
disciplines.
This cellular model is truly the traditional way of working with
curriculum, with little or no attention to integrating the disciplines. Yet
the sequence and time allotment determined by each individual teacher,
using individual criteria, is a necessary step in sifting out curricular
priorities. It is the first step in how teachers set about “selectively
abandoning” or “judiciously including” (Costa, 1991a, p. 65) material in
curricular design.
“In third-grade math, I prioritize mathematical operations as the
fundamental or basic understandings first; then I look at geometry and
probabilities because I can give them a different weight in the grand
scheme of things.”
37
Connected
How are we connecting the curriculum in explicit ways?
38
Model
2
Opera glass—details of Within each subject area, course content is

one discipline; focus on connected topic to topic, concept to concept, one
subtleties and year’s work to the next, and relates ideas
interconnections explicitly.
Example
The teacher relates the concept of fractions to
decimals, which in turn relates to money, grades,
etc.
“The object of education is to prepare the young to educate themselves
throughout their lives.”
—Robert Maynard Hutchins
WHAT IS THE CONNECTED MODEL?

Although the major discipline areas remain separate, this curricular model
focuses on making explicit connections within each subject area, connecting
one topic to the next, connecting one concept to another, connecting one skill
to a related skill, connecting one day’s work to the next, or even connecting
one semester’s ideas to the next. The key to this model is the deliberate effort
to relate curricula within the discipline rather than assuming that students
understand the connections automatically.
In this way, students are aware of the flow of content created by the
teacher. This flow enhances the connectivity between the various topics
39
presented. It exposes the teacher’s inherent planning and intentions as
students become privy to the purposeful flow of the curricular elements and
how they unfold in a logical sequence. More often than not, this flow is
devised by the teacher for specific reasons.

Within the elementary curriculum, for example, a relationship is drawn
between the rock unit and the simple machines unit as students explicitly
connect these while simultaneously seeing them as two distinct science areas:
one is earth science and the other is physical science. By labeling for students
the broad terms (in this case, earth science and physical science), teachers can
help students begin to define the spectrum of the sciences for themselves with
these traditional, organizational umbrellas. This becomes a first critical step
in their understanding and conceptualization of the sciences as a realm of
knowing.
Likewise, in a middle or secondary school setting, the earth science teacher
relates the geology unit to the astronomy unit by associating the evolutionary
nature of each. The similarities between the two units become organizers for
students as they work through both units to see that they can make explicit
interrelationships.

Students see connections between subject areas that have traditionally been
taught separately. For example, a student concludes that a particular law in
physics has logical inconsistencies. Then he notices that when he looks at
biology, he encounters that law again and once again finds logical
contradictions. By looking across disciplines, he finds specific examples that
he connects to support his thoughts about this particular law. The teacher can
facilitate such connections in students’ thinking by explicitly making links
between various subject areas that occur within a single discipline. For who
better to understand and explain the connections among the sciences than the
science teacher?
40
By connecting ideas within a single discipline, learners have the advantages
of seeing the big picture as well as engaging in focused study of one aspect.
Students see an all-encompassing picture rather than a narrow one. In
addition, key skills and concepts, such as the scientific method or observation
and inference, are developed over time for deeper internalization by learners.
Connecting ideas within a discipline permits learners to review,
reconceptualize, edit, and assimilate ideas gradually, with more chance of
facilitating transfer.

The various disciplines in this model remain separated and appear unrelated,
yet connections are made explicit within the designated discipline. Teachers
are not encouraged to work together in this model, so content remains the
focus without stretching concepts and ideas across other disciplines. The
concentrated efforts to integrate within the discipline overlook opportunities
to develop more global relationships to other subjects.
WHEN IS THIS CONNECTED MODEL USEFUL?

The connected model is useful as a beginning step toward an integrated
curriculum. Teachers feel confident looking for connections within their own
discipline. As they become adept at relating ideas within one discipline, it
becomes easier to scout for connections across multiple disciplines. This
process of connecting ideas applies to content standards also. It is one way
that teachers manage and make sense of the overwhelming number of
standards. Connection making can be done collaboratively within department
meetings—which is old and familiar ground that sets a safe climate for
change. Using this model to start teacher teams within a department or grade
level can be a fruitful strategy to prime the pump for using more complex
integration models later on.
Figures 2.1–2.3 are examples of completed connected model integration
41
Model 2: Connected
Readers’ Theater
“The Glue”
Narrator
Back at school, our teachers start to explore the connectors within their
own subject areas.
Sue Sum
I want to present units so they make more sense to students. It seems

logical to introduce the concept of negative numbers after they work with
the quadrants in graphing.
Bob Beaker
To help students understand how everything in biology is related to the

theory of evolution, I’ll have them keep an evolution notebook. They can
log ideas as we study, read about, and discuss various topics.
Maria Novela
To generate an integrated understanding of American literature, I’ll ask

students to critique each author we read this semester using “the
American Dream” as a theme. This will weave a common strand
throughout the units.
Tom Time
By intertwining the unit on early Greece with Greek drama, I can help
students get a study of humanities rather than discrete studies of history
and literature. It should provide a more enduring image of the era.
42
43
44

WORKING WITH MODEL 2: CONNECTED
“The reason I like to teach ____ followed by ____ is because ____.”
45
To use Model 2 to make connections between topics (or concepts or units)
more explicit, identify two topics that you teach in a certain sequence, within
a discipline or class. Using the template for Model 2 (Figure 2.4), put one
topic on the top line and another on the bottom line to represent the one that
you teach first and the one that follows.
For a logical reason, one is always taught before the other. Why? Think
about why you put them together in that particular sequence. Why does it
seem to make sense for you to teach these two topics in this order? And what
is the connector that ties them together in this logical sequence? Now, with
thought and care, put that connecting idea on the center line. Sometimes this
connector is elusive. Think of the big ideas that often connect the skills,
processes, attitudes, or dispositions.
Notes & Reflections

Model 2: Connected
“The reason I like to teach ____ followed by ____ is because ____.”
Teachers in the various disciplines or subject areas delineate the flow of

topics that they use as they plan particular topics, units, or concepts. As
they look at the planned flow of the content, they think about their
reasons for plotting the flow from one topic to the other. As they become
clear on the reasons for flowing the topics, concepts, or units in their
usual way, they begin to realize that there are big ideas that act as
connectors or organizing threads to tie the topics together.
While teachers may have an awareness about these connecting ideas,
many times students are not aware of how the curriculum ties together.
But if these connections are made explicit in the minds of teachers, they
can in turn share these reasons for the flow of ideas with students.
A teacher may say, “The reason I like to teach the unit on relationships
followed by the one on mental health in seventh-grade health class is
because they are connected by the idea of self-esteem. Many times,
meaningful relationships often require sound decision making that comes
from a healthy sense of self. This idea of good self-esteem is directly
46
connected to reactions in relationships, during good times and bad. These
two units just seem to go together, so it makes sense to flow them
together.”

47
Nested
How are we explicitly nesting life skills and process
standards into core curricular content?
48
Model
3
3-D glasses—
Within each subject area, the teacher targets multiple
multiple dimensions
skills: a social skill, a thinking skill, and a content-
to one scene, topic,
specific skill based on standards.
or unit.
Example
The teacher designs the unit on photosynthesis to
simultaneously target consensus seeking (social skill),
sequencing (thinking skill), and plant life cycle (science
content).
“The business of education is not to make the young perfect in any one of
the sciences, but to open and dispose their minds as may best make them
capable of any, when they shall apply themselves to it.”
—John Locke
WHAT IS THE NESTED MODEL?

The nested model of integration is a rich design used by skilled teachers.
They know how to get the most mileage from any lesson. Yet in this nested
approach to instruction, careful planning is needed to structure multiple
targets and multiple standards for student learning. Nested integration takes
advantage of natural clusters and combinations, so the model offers
efficiency in addressing myriad skills at once.
49
An elementary- or primary-level content lesson on the circulatory system
targets the concept of systems as well as facts and understanding on the
circulatory system in particular. But in addition to this conceptual target, the
teacher highlights a thinking skill or a process standard such as cause and
effect. In this scenario, throughout the study of the circulatory system,
students will focus on causes and effects as they pertain to the circulatory
system.
In addition, a social skill such as cooperation may be a focal point as the
class learns about working with others and the skills of teamwork. Flow-chart
design may be an organizational skill developed during this unit. In this
highly utilized model, as the teacher covers the content standards, generic,
generalized life skills are nested together to enhance the learning experience.
Figure 3.1 lists examples of skills that may be targeted for nesting.
A high school lesson in a computer science class may target computer-
aided design/computer-aided manufacturing (CAD/CAM) programs. Yet as
the students learn the actual workings of the programs, the teacher also
targets the thinking skill of visualizing for explicit exploration and practice.
In this nested approach, students are also instructed in ergonomics as they
design furniture for schools of the future. Thus, the teacher clusters several
skills and/or process standards in this nested model of integrating the
curricula.

Teachers used to be pretty predictable. They would tell you
STUDENT 1:
what you were supposed to know, and they tested you on it.
Yeah! I know what you mean. It was easy to psych out the
STUDENT 2: test questions because the stuff was repeated 18 times in
class.
But now they expect you to sort out what’s important. And
STUDENT 1:
they want you to tell them how you figure things out.
50
Figure 3.1 Skills Chart
That’s not all. My teacher watches our social behavior, too.

STUDENT 2: She says our thinking and our behavior are just as important
as our answers. This is getting out of control.
Yeah! They’re getting too much mileage out of one lousy
STUDENT 1:
lesson.

The pluses of the nested model are obvious to the veteran teacher. By nesting
and clustering a number of skills and standards in the learning experience,
teachers enrich and enhance student learning. Typically focusing on content,
thinking strategies, social skills, and other serendipitous ideas, the single
lesson takes on multiple dimensions. In this age of information overload,
overcrowded curricula, numerous standards, and tight schedules, experienced
teachers may seek out fertile lessons that lay the groundwork for learning in
multiple areas. While the nested model provides needed attention to several
areas of interest at once, it does not require the added burden of finding time
to work and plan with other teachers. With this model, a single teacher can
provide extensive integration of curricula. Of course, if teachers plan or work
together, this model offers many opportunities to combine various and sundry
skills and concepts to achieve more complexity and depth in the lessons.
51
The disadvantages of the nested model arise from its very nature. Nesting
two, three, or four learning targets and/or standards in a single lesson may
confuse students if the nesting is not executed carefully and if the
combinations are superficial or artificial. The conceptual priorities of the
lesson may become obscure because students are directed to perform many
learning tasks at once. One other drawback of the nested model is that the
teacher may not be explicit about the various layers of learning, resulting in
little actual transfer or application of skills and concepts.
WHEN IS THIS NESTED MODEL USEFUL?

The nested model is most appropriate to use as teachers try to infuse process
standards, such as thinking skills, cooperative skills, and literacy skills, into
their content lessons. Keeping the content objectives in place while adding a
thinking focus, targeting social skills, and infusing literacy skills enhances
the overall learning experience. Nesting particular skills in these three areas
integrates concepts and attitudes easily through structured activities. In fact,
this model is commonly found in early-level classrooms, as teachers are
responsible for the entire curriculum.
Figures 3.2–3.4 are examples of completed nested model integration
Model 3: Nested
Readers’ Theater
“Multitasking”
Narrator
Meanwhile, back at school, our teachers are getting a lot of mileage out of
their lessons—they’re targeting social skills, thinking skills, and content
skills within a single lesson.
52
Tom Time
I like the idea of nested skills as a way to integrate. It keeps my discipline

pure and intact, yet I extend the lesson into other realms. In global
studies, I can use De Bono’s (1985) Six Thinking Hats for point-of-view
of current events. With a jigsaw model, I can talk about student
responsibility.
Bob Beaker
Good idea, Tom! When I introduce the periodic table of elements, I could
focus on the content of the chart and then try nesting other skills and
concepts such as patterns or memory techniques.
Maria Novela
While teaching The Old Man and the Sea, I can focus on author style and
use of language as I have in the past. But I can also target the concepts of
perseverance and friendship. Emphasizing teamwork as a social skill
looks possible, too.
Sue Sum
In a math lesson, I can teach the skill of graphing information and also
emphasize prediction of the line. I could use the idea of nesting and
require group consensus for predictions.

WORKING WITH MODEL 3: NESTED
“I like to ‘nest’ several critical life skills, such as ____, ____, and
_____, into the target concept of ___________ because it is an easy and
effective way to integrate the curricula.”
53
Use the template for this model (Figure 3.5) to integrate the curricula within a
single discipline or class subject. The template is a bull’s eye or target.
Beginning with the standard of learning, place the targeted content focus in
the center of the template. This is an essential learning that becomes the
centerpiece of learning. Then add at least two outer circles, and nest in
several process standards to illustrate graphically how you are able to layer,
cluster, and combine a number of standards into a robust learning experience.
These process standards may be thinking skills, cooperative skills, multiple
intelligences, habits of mind, technology tools, or simply other subject area
tools such as reading, writing, speaking, or listening.
54
55
The following is an example of the nested model for a science unit on
matter and energy:
1. Thinking skill: Compare and contrast types of energy

2. Social skill: Come to agreement about the most efficient types of energy
3. Multiple intelligences: Bodily-kinesthetic—use lab experiments to
check hypotheses
4. Technology skill: Write up a lab report using Microsoft Word
5. Habit of mind: Curiosity—reflect on how curiosity is a catalyst for
56
scientific discoveries
Notice that there are five nested areas in this example, yet they involve
skills and strategies that are implicitly included in the actual orchestration of
the lesson. Using the template for the nested model makes the focus on these
peripheral skills and strategies explicit. The nested integration model allows
teachers to see graphically and visually how lessons become richer and more
robust.
Notes & Reflections

Model 3: Nested
“I like to ‘nest’ several critical life skills, such as ____, ____, and
_____, into the target concept of ___________ because it is an easy
and effective way to integrate the curricula.”
Upon reflecting on this model, it seems quite natural and fairly easy to
look for the life skills that surround the development of the lesson or unit.
The content is always the target focus, of course, yet there are so many
opportunities to enrich the lesson with these complementary skills. It is
something that many of us already do, but this nested model makes the
inclusion of these supplementary skills more explicit.
Within a content standard, the teacher uses the subject matter as the
pivot point for a number of skills, concepts, and attitudes. The topic or
unit provides the vehicle to carry along learning in related areas.
The nested model truly is an enriching model for integrating any
number of skills and attitudes, dispositions, or habits of mind into the
focus lesson. Now that this model is clearer, it seems almost impossible
to teach the lesson without nesting.
Think about it. To teach the lesson without nesting in these rich and
rigorous skills would really be the bare-bones basics. And nesting is
almost an essential integration piece if teachers expect to teach all of the
life skills explicitly and effectively. Otherwise, they would simply be
using the skills but not expressly teaching students about them.
57
Teachers often see themselves using the nested model almost daily as
they understand more fully the impact of nesting skills into a content-
focused lesson. After all, the apparent benefit to students in obvious.

58
Model
4
59
Sequenced
How are we aligning standards and mapping curriculum
for commonsense parallels?
Eyeglasses—varied Topics or units of study are rearranged and

internal content framed sequenced to coincide with one another. Similar
by broad, related ideas are taught in concert while remaining separate
topics subjects.
Example
An English teacher presents a historical novel
depicting a particular period while the history
teacher teaches that same historical period.
“Education is the transmission of civilization.”
—Will and Ariel Durant
WHAT IS THE SEQUENCED MODEL?

With limited articulation across disciplines, teachers can rearrange the order
of their topics so that similar units coincide with each other. Two related
disciplines may be sequenced so that the subject matter content of both is
taught in parallel. By sequencing the order in which topics are taught,
teachers allow the activities of each to enhance the understanding of the
other. In essence, one subject carries the other and vice versa.
If a district or school has not done any curriculum mapping, this model
provides a tool with which to begin the process. If the district or school has
done some curriculum mapping by grade level or department, the next step is
to begin the conversation across two subject areas that seem most likely to
60
have connections; for example, math and science or literature and history are
typical pairings. Or a teacher may pair up with a friend and colleague in the
building to try mapping and resequencing some topics or units that seem like
natural mates. This facilitates connection making for learners in both subject
areas and reinforces deep learning as it enhances the two curricular topics
under study. While this is a simple step in the integration models, it does
indeed begin the process of teacher collaborations and those critical
conversations about curricular content.

In the self-contained elementary classroom, the book Charlotte’s Web can
accompany a unit on insects and spiders, in particular. Johnny Tremain, a
book set during the Revolutionary War, can parallel the traditional study of
that era in American history. Or the graphing unit can coincide with data
collection in the weather unit.
A high school teacher might sequence the study of the stock market in
mathematics with the study of the Great Depression in history. Domestic and
global events can be used to parallel various units in different subjects. In this
way, current relevant topics become the catalyst to study historic foundations,
related mathematical concepts, or appropriate literary references.

John Adams once said, “The textbook is not a moral contract that teachers are
obliged to teach—teachers are obliged to teach children.” Unfortunately,
more often than one cares to admit, teachers may closely follow the format of
the texts, going from the front of the book to the back, or try to teach each
standard separately. Although this may work well in some cases, in other
cases it might make more sense to rearrange the sequence of the units. The
new sequence may be more logical if it parallels subject matter content across
disciplines. When learners are given the advantage of seeing these natural
connections across content, both the students and the teachers benefit.
Learning becomes more generalized and therefore more easily transferred.
61
By rearranging the sequence of topics, chapters, and units, teachers can
dictate curricular priorities rather than follow the sequence established by the
textbook’s editorial staff. In this way, teachers can make critical decisions
about content. From the students’ point of view, the deliberate sequencing of
related topics across disciplines helps them make sense of their studies in
both subject and content areas. Once again, integration aids transfer. When
students see teachers making similar points in different content areas, in
different rooms, during different class periods, their learning is reinforced in
powerful and meaningful ways. Students then have the advantage of focusing
explicit attention on these learnings across subject areas, and the ideas are
naturally reinforced in the different classes.

One drawback of sequenced curricula is the compromise required to shape
the model. Teachers must give up autonomy in making curriculum sequences
as they partner with others. Also, sequencing according to current events
requires ongoing collaboration and extreme flexibility on the part of all
content area teachers who are involved. This is not as easy as it sounds.
However, in a very short time, even with only one afternoon together, teacher
partners can usually manage to do some rearranging and sequencing as a
beginning step. If this first attempt at correlating two subject areas works, the
two teachers often feel encouraged to try sequencing more units for parallel
teaching.
WHEN IS THIS SEQUENCED MODEL USEFUL?

This model is useful in the beginning stages of the integration process, using
two discipline areas that are easily tied to each other. Working as partners,
teachers start by listing curricular content separately. Then, the team juggles
the separate content pieces until the two can match up or sequence some
things to coincide. Then they try to parallel their different content to make
more sense to the students who are learning both. In this model, both
62
disciplines stay pure. Specific emphasis is still in the domain of the subject
matter, but the students reap the benefits of related content.
In addition, the sequenced model is useful, as mentioned earlier, for
starting the conversation across disciplines and subject areas. In elementary
schools, classroom teachers can use this model to work with special area
teachers. A classroom teacher can work with the music teacher, art teacher,
physical education teacher, or special educators, such as the reading teacher
or learning disabilities teacher.
At the middle and high school levels, of course, teachers can reach across
two content areas. The conversation is as important as the final product in a
pairing such as this because in talking to each other, teachers learn about each
other’s content. Once they gain this awareness, it is easy to make connections
to other subject areas in order to help students see the cohesiveness.
Figures 4.1–4.3 are examples of completed sequenced model integration
Model 4: Sequenced
Readers’ Theater
“Common Sense”
Narrator
By now, teachers at school are beginning to see the advantages of making

connections for both lessons and learners. Our teachers start talking about
doing some planning together.
Sue Sum
As we agreed in our last faculty meeting, Bob, I’ve listed the key units I
will cover this semester in the usual order.
Bob Beaker
Great, Sue! I made a similar list. Let’s compare lists and see if there’s a
logical sequencing so that the units can have more match-up for students.
63
Sue Sum
Sounds good. It would be easy for me to adjust, and I like the idea of
reinforcement of the concepts in math class.
Maria Novela
I’ve noticed you’ve listed your unit on pollution. I teach a similar

literature unit on projecting future problems. Maybe we could plan some
films or field experiences together.
Tom Time
You know, Maria, that makes a lot of sense. I’m glad we started looking
at all of this. It’s refreshing to juggle things around sometimes.

WORKING WITH MODEL 4: SEQUENCED
“As ninth-grade teachers, we think it just makes sense to teach

__________ in this department, while at the same time _____ teaches
__________ in that class because one will enhance the other for the
students.”
Working with another teacher in another subject area, this template (Figure
4.4) is designed to help you see how changing the sequence of when certain
units or topics are taught provides fertile ground for natural synchronization
and integration. In essence, the process is simple: working with two different
subject areas, the two teachers list their topics or units by the month on the
lines at the bottom of the page, giving a long look at the term. The listing
represents the curricular scheme of things for the term or the year. It is the
scope and sequence.
64
65
66
Then, after listing topics on the lines, the two teachers take turns talking
about their sequence and why they teach certain things at various times. They
try to find one or two parallel units to list in the circles above. There are often
units that can be moved around to match up with each other’s units; these are
the parallel units that have potential for integration as the two teachers agree
to teach the units at the same time.
The teachers do not team teach, but they do teach the targeted units
simultaneously. They may share a film, a field trip, a speaker, but most things
67
are done within their separate classrooms. The sequence is simply changed to
provide a more connected approach for students. This is a simple model for
two or three teachers to start integrating curricula.
Notes & Reflections

Model 4: Sequenced
“As ninth-grade teachers, we think it just makes sense to teach

__________ in this department, while at the same time _____
teaches __________ in that class because one will enhance the other
for the students.”
Curriculum mapping is a foundational step toward curriculum integration.

Simply mapping the curriculum, month by month or term by term, makes
the scope and sequence of units visible and accessible to all teaches on a
team or within a grade level.
The curriculum map can then be manipulated to maximize the natural
connections between two units. Sequencing units with another teacher is
an easy way to ensure that students see the connectivity between the skills
and concepts that the two teachers are addressing in the process of
teaching the units.
Finding opportunities to change the sequence of when something is
taught is one of the easiest and earliest integration strategies to try. It does
not require a great deal of team time once the sequence is established.
Two teachers use a two step process: (1) list the traditional sequence of
topics or units and (2) talk about which ones seem to go together, make a
check mark by one or two of them.
More specifically, one partner lists the topics or units at the bottom of
the graphic on the lines representing the various months and talks a little
bit about the unit. Then the other partner does the same thing, listing and
talking. Even as this is unfolding, the teachers will begin to see several
ideas emerge that seem to go hand in hand. These are the units that they
will both place in their respective circles at the top.
68
Now the teachers talk about these designated units to see whether they
really can be switched around in terms of when the units occur during the
term. Finally, they agree to try teaching them simultaneously in order to
see if the obvious connections become more explicit for the students. If
and when this occurs, students will have the advantage of reinforced
concepts and skills as they attend both classes that are working on similar
topics.
Again, with some basic curriculum mapping, the natural sequence of
units often becomes quite noticeable as the map develops. This makes it
easy to integrate across subjects simply by reorganizing two courses into
parallel units.
69
70
Shared
How are we collaborating with other teachers to find the
big ideas that we share across disciplines?
71
Model
5
Binoculars—two
Shared planning takes place in two disciplines
disciplines that share
in which overlapping concepts or ideas emerge
overlapping concepts and
as organizing elements.
skills
Example
Science and mathematics teachers use data
collection, charting, and graphing as shared
concepts.
“The chief object of education is not to learn things, but to unlearn things.”
—G. K. Chesterton
WHAT IS THE SHARED MODEL?

Certain broad disciplines create encompassing curricular umbrellas:
mathematics and science paired as sciences; language arts and history
coupled under the label of the humanities; art, music, dance, and drama
viewed as the fine arts; and computer technology, industrial arts, and home
arts embraced as the practical arts. Within these complementary disciplines,
partner planning and teaching create a focus on shared concepts, skills, and
attitudes that provide rich and robust integration of the curricula.

In the shared model of curriculum integration, cross-departmental or cross–
subject area teachers—whether at the elementary, middle, or high school
72
level—partner to plan an in-depth unit of study. At least two members from
two different disciplines approach the preliminary planning session with a
notion of key concepts, skills, and attitudes that are traditionally taught within
the single-subject approach. As the teachers identify their respective
priorities, they look for overlaps in subject matter content by having real
conversations about what they teach in a selected unit of study. For example,
the literature teacher may focus on the concept of the American Dream as an
organizer for a collection of short stories by American authors. At the same
time, the history teacher notes that the unit on American history, which
focuses on a study of each of the decades, could also use the American
Dream as a unifying theme.
The shared model is based on shared ideas that come from within the
disciplines. This model differs radically from the thematic approach in the
conceptualization of unifying concepts because the concepts result from
shared elements rather than the introduction of a theme from the outside.
(The shared model is an inductive approach, emerging from various specific
content, whereas the webbed or thematic model uses a deductive approach,
with the shared concept identified and labeled prior to unit development.)
This is what a Venn diagram (see Figures 5.1–5.4) represents—similarities in
the overlapped section. The key is to look for concepts, topics, skills,
attitudes, standards, and habits of mind that occur in both subjects.
To use the shared view of curricular integration, the teachers need to
explore two disciplines for mutual concepts, skills, and attitudes as well as
for actual content overlap. This process is more complex than simply
sequencing a unit to coincide with one in another subject area. Rather than
using a long look at the semester or year, teachers go in-depth with two units
of study that are already designated for the current period of time.

Elementary models of shared curricula embody standard planning models
already in wide use. The self-contained classroom teacher plans the science
unit on simple machines and the social studies unit on the Industrial
Revolution around the concept of efficiency. This shared concept becomes the
organizing umbrella. When using this model, teachers ask each other
questions such as the following: What concepts do these units share? Are we
73
teaching similar skills? Do the two units have shared ideas in terms of
concepts, skills, attitudes, and standards?

Advantages of this model of shared curriculum planning rest in its easy use as
an early step toward more fully integrated models that encompass the four
major disciplines. By coupling similar disciplines, the overlap facilitates deep
learning of concepts for transfer. Simply put, it’s easier to schedule common
planning periods for a two-teacher team than it is to juggle the scheduling for
a four-teacher team. In addition, planning often leads to shared instructional
experiences, such as showing an appropriate film or planning a relevant field
trip, because the two teachers may be able to put their two periods back to
back in order to create a larger time block.

A barrier to shared curricula is the planning time needed to develop the units.
In addition to time, flexibility and compromise are essential ingredients for
successful implementation; it requires both trust and teamwork. This model
of integration across two disciplines requires commitment from the partners
to work through the initial phases. To find real overlap in curricular concepts
requires in-depth dialogue and conversation.
WHEN IS THIS SHARED MODEL USEFUL?

This model is appropriate when subject areas are clustered into broad bands
such as the humanities or practical arts. Also, this model facilitates early
stages of implementation toward integrated curricula. It is a viable model to
use with two disciplines as an intermediary step to teams of four disciplines
that are much more complicated and complex. This model truly looks for
those “roots running underground” because they bring cohesiveness to the
curricula. It really searches for the conceptual understandings that are
designated to be enduring—learning that follows students into real-world
74
experiences.
Figures 5.1–5.3 are examples of completed shared model integration
Model 5:
Readers’ Theater
“Try One!”
Narrator
Teachers at the school discuss possibilities for some shared curricular

integration in the form of cross-departmental partnerships. Working in
teams of two, they are discussing some planning ideas.
Sue Sum
I was intrigued by the number of students last semester who made explicit
connections between what you were doing and what I was doing. The
sequencing really seemed to foster the integration of the material.
Bob Beaker
You know, I had the same experience. They took much more notice of the
similar contents than I expected. In fact, I never thought they’d notice at
all.
Maria Novela
I suggested last year that we might share some films and field
experiences. How would you feel about trying one short unit next
semester, say, three weeks long?
Tom Time
I’m willing to try one if it is well planned and doesn’t take too much time.
Do you have one unit in particular in mind?
75
76
77

WORKING WITH MODEL 5: SHARED
“We can dialogue in depth about a particular unit from our respective
78
classes and find shared concepts, skills, and attitudes that seem to
overlap.”
The template for this model (Figure 4.4) is designed for use with two
different subject areas. It can be two teachers of the same grade level using
two content areas or two teachers from different departments. The goal is to
integrate curricula by looking in depth at the two units of study and finding
the overlapping ideas, concepts, or skills.
Each of the partners thinks about particular units of study or standards-
based topics that they teach. They decide on two units—one for each teacher
—that seem to make a logical or commonsense match. (These may have been
discovered in Model 4: Sequenced as teacher partners looked for ways to
resequence their curricula.)
Using the Venn diagram in the template, the teachers take turns talking and
writing in the outer circles about the units. Via in-depth conversation, they
tell each other specifically what they do in the unit.
Then they find the concepts, skills, or attitudes (the content and the process
standards) that the two units share and overlapping ideas that the units have
in common. The teachers use the most robust idea to create a thematic focus
around a key concept or a skill focus that duplicates practice with life skills
addressed in both units.
Notes & Reflections

Model 5: Shared
“We can dialogue in depth about a particular unit from our

respective classes, and find shared concepts, skills and attitudes that
seem to overlap.”
It’s true that topics and units from two related or unrelated disciplines can
offer rich possibilities for integration. Identifying basic concepts, skills,
attitudes, and standards that overlap enables the commonalities among
these distinct disciplines to readily emerge.
79
It really is such a surprise to see how much the two disciplines have in
common as teachers share the details of their units with each other. They
may have thought that their disciplines were so far apart and so separate.
It can be very energizing to see so many shared ideas and to think
about how these will be addressed fully in both classrooms and what a
boost the collaboration will provide for the kids. Benefits abound with
this collaborative approach.
“We can’t wait to get started and to try this with other units. This
curriculum integration planning model is at the top of our list because we
only need to have time to meet with one other teacher, rather than with a
whole team. Also, we are thinking about what other teachers and
disciplines we might meet with to talk about our units. We believe that
this is a viable model that could be used many times over.”
80
81
Webbed
Are we or how are we using patterns and themes to
integrate the curricula?
82
Model
6
Telescope—broad view
of an entire constellation Webbed curricula represent the thematic approach
as one theme, webbed to to integrating subject matter.
the various elements.
Example
The teacher presents a simple topical theme, such
as the circus, and webs it to the subject areas. A
conceptual theme, such as conflict, can be webbed
for a broader reach in the theme approach.
“We must open the doors of opportunity. But we must also equip our people
to walk through those doors.”
—Lyndon B. Johnson
WHAT IS THE WEBBED MODEL?

Webbed curricula represent the thematic approach to integrating subject
matter. Typically, this thematic approach to curriculum development begins
with a theme such as transportation or inventions. After a cross-departmental
team has decided on a theme, it uses the theme as an overlay to the different
subjects: inventions lead to the study of simple machines in science, reading
and writing about inventors in language arts, designing and building models
in industrial arts, drawing and studying Rube Goldberg contraptions in
mathematics, and making flowcharts in computer technology classes. In more
sophisticated webbed models, intricate units of study can be developed in
83
which integration occurs in all relevant curricular areas to cluster and address
standards through robust curriculum models.

In departmentalized situations, the webbed curricular approach to integration
is often achieved through the use of a fairly generic but fertile theme such as
patterns or cycles. This conceptual theme provides rich possibilities for the
inherent diversities of various disciplines. And it has more reach across
disciplines; it is more generalizable.
While similar conceptual themes, such as structures or conflict, provide
fertile ground for cross-disciplinary units of study, elementary models can
also use a book or a genre of books as the topic to thematically organize their
curricula. For example, fairy tales or dog stories can become catalysts for
curricular web-bing. Typical lists look like Figure 6.1.

When searching for a theme, teacher teams generally begin with an idea-
gathering session that involves a lot of genuine interaction, conversation, and
dialogue among colleagues: “How about this one?” “What do you think of
this?” “I read about a school that used cultural diversity as an overriding
theme.” “Let’s brainstorm a long list. I don’t want to use the first one we
think of just to be done with it.” “Maybe we should ask the students for their
ideas.” “I have some lists of theme ideas from a workshop.” “Yeah, but we
will need to look at that list carefully and compare them to some criteria. I
have Perkin’s criteria here.” And so it goes as they explore possibilities and
set guidelines for reaching a decision. Figure 6.2 provides criteria for
selecting possible themes.
In selecting a theme, it is important to generate lots of questions. It helps to
explore the depth and breadth of a theme, which often leads to a kid-friendly
tagline (e.g., Change: What Goes Around, Comes Around; Change: The End
Is The Beginning).
84
Figure 6.1 A Look at Webbed Models
Figure 6.2 Fertile Themes for Integrative Learning Are Like a Good Lens
SOURCE: From “Selecting Fertile Themes for Integrated Learning,” by D. N. Perkins, in
H. H. Jacobs (Ed.), Interdisciplinary Curriculum: Design and Implementation (pp. 67–76),
1989, Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

An advantage of the webbed approach to curricular integration is the
motivational factor that results from selecting high-interest themes. In
addition, the webbed model or unit-writing approach is familiar to seasoned
teachers and is a fairly straightforward curriculum planning model for less
experienced teachers to grasp. Thematic units are multidisciplinary units that
make it easy to address various content standards yet keep an overall focus or
pattern. The webbed model also facilitates teamwork planning as cross-
departmental teams work to weave a theme into all content areas. This model
provides a visible and motivational umbrella for students; it is easy for them
to see how different activities and ideas are connected. It is often easy to
brainstorm different activities, projects, and products that mirror the selected
themes. In fact, it is through the creative process of thematic development
85
that teachers and students become energized with the many possibilities.

The most serious difficulty with the webbed model lies in the selection of a
theme. There is a tendency to grab at shallow themes that are superficially
useful in curriculum planning. Often these artificial themes lead to a
contrived curriculum. Also, caution must be taken not to sacrifice the logical
and necessary scope and sequence inherent in the disciplines. In this model,
teachers can get bogged down in curriculum writing that may not warrant the
time involved as compared to long-term use of the thematic unit in years to
come. Yet if a theme is used from year to year, so that over time a number of
thematic units have been developed and “banked” for recycling, the time is
worth it. Another disadvantage of this model is that teachers can become
focused on activities rather than on concept development, so caution should
be taken to keep the content relevant and rigorous.
WHEN IS THIS WEBBED MODEL USEFUL?

Although themes are used by one teacher in a single classroom, the webbed
model for integrating curriculum is often a team approach that takes time to
develop. Summer curriculum writing time is an opportune period to initiate
this model so that teachers can fully explore theme options and set criteria for
quality. This model often takes planning and coordination among various
departments and special subject areas. It is a great model to use when trying a
two- to four-week interdisciplinary pilot unit. Because of the planning needed
to execute this model well, it is advisable to start with a manageable piece of
the curriculum.
Instead of webbing a theme to the various disciplines, try webbing it to
multiple intelligences (Gardner 1983, 1999). Figure 6.3 shows the eight
intelligences and activities that relate to each. Develop a grid with eight
columns and try to place activities for the different intelligences for each cell
in the grid.
Figure 6.4 shows a grid with the eight intelligences and ideas for types of
activities. Figure 6.5 is a grid for teachers to use in identifying specific
86
readings or activities for each intelligence as an integrated unit is developed
around multiple intelligences. It is a variation of the webbed model that
targets differentiated learning through multiple intelligences.
Figure 6.3 Multiple Intelligences Grid of Ideas
Figure 6.4 Multiple Intelligences Grid of Activities
87
Figure 6.5 Blank Multiple Intelligences Grid
Figures 6.6–6.8 are examples of completed webbed model integration
88
Model 6: Webbed
Readers’ Theater
“Oh, the Webs We Weave”
Narrator
At the staff meeting, our teachers commit to do a three-week theme.
Maria Novela
I am excited about selecting a theme that can be webbed to all the

contents. It takes me back to my college days when we used to write
interdisciplinary units. The pendulum does swing, doesn’t it?
Tom Time
You know, I had the same thought. I think this design is worthwhile. It
will pull what were separate and disparate parts of the curriculum
together for the kids.
Maria Novela
Yes! Remember the article we read on finding fertile themes? The criteria
set forth by Perkins in that piece seemed quite useful. Do you remember
what they were?
Sue Sum
I have the article right here. Let’s brainstorm some ideas and selectively
abandon the more superficial ones. I have too many priorities to waste
time. I want activities to be meaningful.
Bob Beaker
It looks like we have two categories: topical themes and conceptual

themes. Let’s sort that out first. Then we can compare the theme to the
criteria from the Perkins article that Tom just listed on the chalkboard.
89
90
91
92
93
94

WORKING WITH MODEL 6: WEBBED
“We like to organize the various subject-oriented standards of our
95
grade level or department around a big-idea thematic unit so that
students learn the curriculum in a more coherent manner.”
Using a list of themes generated by a grade-level or department team, select

one that seems to meet the criteria for fertile themes: applies broadly and
pervasively, discloses fundamental patterns, reveals similarities and
differences, and fascinates both students and teachers.
Once the theme is selected, add a kid-friendly tagline to give it more focus.
The tagline expresses the essence of the theme for students. Here are a few
examples:
Fashion: Whose Statement Is It?

Energy: Vroooooom!
Astronomy: The Stars Are Out
Work around the web (Figure 6.9), labeling the various disciplines
represented by the grade-level subject matter or the content from various
departments. Then proceed to insert learning experiences for the subject or
departments represented.
Complete the discussion by adding spokes to each subject area to indicate
the targeted standards and assessments.
Notes & Reflections

Model 6: Webbed
“We like to organize the various subject-oriented standards of our grade

level or department around a big-idea thematic unit so that students learn
the curriculum in a more coherent manner.”
In this webbed model, the selection of a theme provides a fresh lens with
which to frame and view various subject matter content. The theme acts
as a giant umbrella that is visible and real to students as they work in the
various content areas.
96
In selecting the theme, teachers can find the big ideas that are inherent
in the curriculum. And as they brainstorm all the possible themes, they
can also see the kinds of concepts, topics, or problems that tend to emerge
in their discussions. That, in turn, gives teachers the opportunity to group
the themes into various categories in a coding process. This can be a
helpful way to examine the content of the curriculum at each grade level.
Going on to select the best theme from the collection of ideas, teachers
truly explore the richness of each theme and its potential for addressing
major learning standards. They have a chance to look for the theme’s
breadth and depth as well as interest and intrigue.
Finally, while inserting activities, teachers have a chance to indicate the
various standards addressed as well as the possible or likely assessment
strategies. In brief, the theme provides a way to look at the various
standards (the spokes emanating from the circles) that are addressed in a
robust, thematic unit.
This is not only an easy integration model for learners but also an
energizing one for teachers.
97
98
Threaded
Are we or how are we threading skills across the various
content areas?
99
Model
7
Magnifying glass—
Standards, thinking skills, social skills, study skills,
life skills that magnify
graphic organizers, technology, and a multiple
all content through a
intelligences approach to learning thread through all
metacurricular
disciplines.
approach
Example
The teaching staff targets prediction in reading,
mathematics, and science lab experiments while the
social studies teacher targets predicting current
events, and thus threads prediction across all four
disciplines.
“The great end of an education is to discipline rather than to furnish the
mind. To train it to the use of its own powers rather than to fill it with the
accumulation of others.”
—Tryon Edwards
WHAT IS THE THREADED MODEL?

This threaded model of curricular integration focuses on the metacurriculum
that supersedes or intersects the very heart of any and all subject matter
content. For example, prediction is a skill used to estimate in math, forecast
in current events, anticipate events in a story in English, and hypothesize in
the science lab. Consensus-seeking strategies are used to resolve conflicts in
any problem-solving situation. These skills are, in essence, threaded through
100
standard curricular content. They are life skills that can be successfully
targeted with various content.

The threaded model looks like the now commonly accepted models of
writing across the content areas, reading across the content areas. or even
technology integration. Using the idea of a metacurriculum, or curricular
concerns that go beyond the actual content concerns, grade-level or
departmental teams might target a set of thinking skills to infuse into existing
content priorities. For example, using the thinking skills chart in Figure 7.1,
compare and contrast might be the thinking skill that the freshmen team
chooses to thread across content. Likewise, one of the multiple intelligences
(Figure 7.2), a social skill (Figure 7.3), a study skill, a standard (Figure 7.4), a
graphic organizer, or a performance could be threaded through various
disciplines.

As the standards, thinking skills, social skills, graphic organizers, or multiple
intelligences are threaded into the content, teachers ask appropriate questions
such as “How did you think about that?,” “What thinking skill did you find
most helpful?,” “How well did your group work today?,” and “Have you
used your musical intelligences today?” These processing questions contrast
sharply with the usual cognitive questions such as “What answer did you
get?” and “How many of you agree?” (Sometimes, the metacognitive
questions sound to students like the teacher is off track. Students will often
say, “OK, what are we supposed to do?” to try to get back to the task at
hand.)
101
Figure 7.1 Examples of Thinking Skills as Threads
102
Figure 7.2 Examples of Multiple Intelligences as Threads
Figure 7.3 Examples of Social Skills as Threads
103
Figure 7.4 Generic Standards of Learning as Threads

Advantages of the threaded model revolve around the concept of the meta-
curriculum: the awareness and control of the skills and strategies of thinking
and learning that go beyond the subject matter content. Teachers stress the
metacognitive behavior so that students learn about how they are learning. By
making students aware of the learning processes, teachers facilitate future
transfer. Not only does the content stay pure for each discipline, but also the
students reap the added benefit of an extraordinary kind of thinking that can
transfer into life skills. In addition, each of the disciplines is enhanced by
supporting the life skills.

A disadvantage of the threaded model is the necessity of adding “another”
curriculum, such as a thinking or social skills curriculum. Content
connections across subject areas are not addressed explicitly. The
metacurriculum surfaces, but the disciplines remain static. Connections
between and among the content matter of the subjects are not necessarily
stressed. Also, to thread the metacurriculum through the content, all teachers
need an understanding of those skills and strategies. But developing a list of
the skills teachers address often leads to a rich and meaningful discussion
about various life skills.
104
WHEN IS THIS THREADED MODEL USEFUL?
This model is useful in integrating curricula when a metacurriculum of
thinking and social skills is a district focus. This model is appropriate to use
as one of the alternative steps toward intense subject matter integration. The
threaded model also is easier to sell to hardcore curriculum advocates who
are reluctant to shift subject matter priorities. Therefore, this becomes a
viable high school model to start with as teachers keep their content intact
and infuse thinking, cooperating, and multiple intelligences into that content.
Figures 7.5–7.10 are examples of completed threaded model integration
Model 7 Threaded
Readers’ Theater
“A Little Dab Will Do Ya!”
Narrator
Our teachers find it easy to thread certain skills, such as inferring, through
their particular contents.
Bob Beaker
So, our teacher terms will focus on the thinking skill of inferring. The
science classes will target inference and observation as key skills.
Tom Time
Right, Bob, inferring from data and predicting trends, both in a historical
sense and in future studies, also has potential to enrich the curriculum
content. At first, I was afraid the subject matter would lose and we would
dilute the disciplines, but this actually is enhancing my content!
Maria Novela
Reading between the lines, making inferences, is an absolute basic
105
expectation of good readers. I think the study of literature this semester
will be expected to go beyond the literal information presented.
Sue Sum
And inferring from graphs, charts, and data is a natural for math class.
With the overload of information and the increased use of graphics,
students need work in making inferences from the gathered data. It’s a
rich thread to string through contents.
106
107
108
109
110

WORKING WITH MODEL 7: THREADED
“We can dialogue from our respective classes and find shared concepts,
111
skills, and attitudes that easily thread through various disciplines, giving
students a shot of the skills, concepts, and attitudes in every class.”
Working as a cross-disciplinary team in the elementary, school, or high

school, teachers meet to generate lists of the life skills students are expected
to develop and use across many content areas. These are lists of the most
common skills encountered in various disciplines. In the meeting, teachers
focus on the many kinds of skills needed throughout life: thinking
(predicting), social (reaching agreements), technology (spreadsheets),
organizational (outlining), and habits of mind (perseverance) and strategies
(problem solving, making decisions).
Once the life skills have been delineated, teachers select one skill to focus
on for an agreed-upon period of time (week, month, term). They then build
the skills into their lessons and look for teachable moments to thread the
skills into the different subject areas.
Teachers meet periodically to discuss the impact of the threading in
different classes.
Also, teachers can try threading several threads at once. For example:
thinking—comparing and contrasting, communicating—debating, and
writing—persuasiveness seem to go together.
Notes & Reflections

Model 7: Threaded
“We can dialogue from our respective classes and find shared
concepts, skills, and attitudes that easily thread through various
disciplines, giving students a shot of the skills, concepts, and
attitudes in every class.”
While this model of integrating the curricula by threading skills,

concepts, and attitudes through various subject areas does require
consensus from the team members, it is an integration model. The
integration is natural, taking advantage of the teachable moments that
occur in every lesson or unit.
112
At the same time, the curriculum integration is enduring because it is
addressed in every discipline. It follows the old adage, “A little dab will
do ya.” In essence, a little taste of it in math, then again in science, and
yet again in language class provides a broad reach across, and frequency
of use in, various subjects.
In addition, there is no watering down of content in the respective

disciplines. It is an amiable teaching model with positive outcomes for
students. In the end, the threaded model addresses the metacurriculum,
the set of skills, concepts, and attitudes that permeate all disciplines and
even life situations far beyond the classroom.
This model seems natural for the elementary or self-contained classroom,

yet is can also be the perfect fare for beginning curricula integration in
more departmentalized middle and high school settings. In fact, it is the
one model that is totally compatible with high school curriculum planning
because it is so unobtrusive to the entire process.
113
114
Model
8
115
Integrated
Are we designing or how might we design authentic
learning projects and performances that integrate a
number of disciplines?
Kaleidoscope—new
patterns and designs that The integrated curricular model represents a cross-
use the basic elements of disciplinary approach similar to the shared model.
each discipline
Example
In mathematics, science, social studies, fine arts,
language arts, and practical arts, teachers look for
patterns and approach content through these
patterns in all the discipline areas.
“I call a complete and generous education that which fits [an individual] to
perform justly, skillfully, and magnanimously all the offices, both private
and public, of peace and war.”
—John Milton
WHAT IS THE INTEGRATED MODEL?

The integrated curricular model represents a cross-disciplinary approach
similar to the shared model. Although the traditional integrated model blends
the four core disciplines by setting curricular priorities in each and finding the
overlapping skills, concepts, and attitudes that occur in all four, it can be used
116
with any number of disciplines. The model might include the arts as well as
technology and other practical arts.
Yet in any version of the integrated model, just as in the simpler shared
model, the integration is a result of sifting ideas out of subject matter content,
not laying an idea over the subjects as in the webbed model. The integration
sprouts from within the various disciplines, and matches are made among
them as commonalities emerge. This is an inductive approach to curriculum
integration, rather than a deductive approach as in the webbed model. It truly
emerges from conversations and articulation across the disciplines. In fact,
this model is the ultimate integration model because the patterns and themes
truly do emerge from the various subject matter units. In essence, teachers
continue to teach their content, but their focus takes on a bigger meaning that
stretches to other content.

In the middle or high school, the integrated curriculum is conceived as an
interdisciplinary team struggles with an overloaded curriculum. Together, the
team members decide to selectively abandon pieces from the traditional
curriculum. Armed with content standards for the disciplines, the four (or
more) team members begin to explore overlapping priorities and concepts
that under-gird their disciplines. One such overlap that they might discover
early on is the concept of argument and evidence. It works well in
mathematics, science, language arts, and social studies. It is a first step. It has
that overarching quality of themes that makes it easy to use with myriad
content.
In the elementary classroom, an integrated model that illustrates the critical
elements of this approach is the literacy movement in which reading, writing,
listening, and speaking skills spring from a literature-based program that taps
all the energies of the learner and the disciplines. Literacy is learning that
embraces an integrated curriculum as opposed to the more traditional,
fragmented model in which each subject is addressed separately. Integrated
models such as literacy are designed with the learner as the focus, while
fragmented models are designed with content as the focus.
117
What are the intersections of the various disciplines? What are the concepts,
skills, and attitudes that bubble up from different subject matter content?
Richards (1980) says, “Unless we educate for wholeness in person and
wholeness of our Earth planet, we are not really intelligent. In our school
subjects, we have an opportunity to study humankind as a family, and the
Earth as the body of that family. We have the possibility of developing a
curriculum which is like a map of its dreams and its history, a map of
interconnections. Interdisciplinary methods try to avoid squeezing the life out
of one part and blowing it up in another” (p. 11).

A distinct advantage of the integrated model is the ease with which learners
are introduced to the interconnectedness and interrelationships among various
disciplines. The integrated model builds understanding across departments
and fosters appreciation of staff knowledge and expertise. When successfully
implemented, it approaches the ideal learning environment for an integrated
day, externally, and for an integrated learner focus, internally. The integrated
model also carries with it an inherent motivational factor as students and
ideas gain momentum from class to class. The authentic projects and
performances that result from this kind of deep integration are perfect
platforms for integrating mathematics, science, social studies, and language
arts with the visual, performing, and practical arts.

This is a sophisticated model that is difficult to implement fully. It requires
highly skilled staff, confident in their knowledge of the content standards,
skills, and attitudes that pervade their respective disciplines. In addition, the
integrated model works best when interdepartmental teams have scheduled
blocks of planning and teaching time in common, which often means major
restructuring of schedules. To integrate curricula with explicit attention to the
genuine conceptual priorities of each discipline requires the commitment of a
118
myriad of resources.
WHEN IS THIS INTEGRATED MODEL USEFUL?

This model is most appropriately used with a cross-departmental team of
volunteers who are willing to commit time and energy to the integration
process. It is helpful to start with a small pilot project such as a three- to four-
week unit. Summer curriculum writing time or designated release time during
the semester is most likely necessary to fully explore this model.
After a pilot project is in place, further team commitment can be made. But
a word of caution is needed here. It is not advisable for a school to adopt this
model as a schoolwide reform without first giving it serious thought.
Remember, committed volunteers across departments are the critical
elements for this complex model. Eventually, as team members work
together to learn about the other disciplines and other team members, the
units can be planned for longer periods of time. This is a gradual process of
building confidence and trust as team curriculum designers. However, after a
team commits to the integrated model, the projects and performances that
result often become unforget-table learning experiences for students.
Figures 8.1–8.4 are examples of completed integrated model integration
Model 8: Integrated
Readers’ Theater
“The Heart of the Matter”
Narrator
Meanwhile, over the summer, meetings at the school are frequent and
heated. Our teachers and the principal are exploring possibilities and
looking for match-ups.
Sue Sum
119
I liked the webbed model we tried last year. But I sometimes felt like I
was manipulating and contriving my content a bit. What if we tried a full-
blown interdisciplinary team approach this year and looked for the natural
overlaps?
Tom Time
I agree, Sue, but what if we only find a few guideline areas of overlap?
How do we come to terms with that without artificially stretching our true
priorities? Let’s try the integrated approach in a pilot only. Maybe plan a
three-week segment.
Bob Beaker
I think I know what you mean, Tom. We should first look at our
individual content priorities and then sift out concepts, ideas, and
attitudes that have overlapping elements. For example, my DNA unit.
Aside from the technical information about genetic engineering, there are
moral and ethical issues that overlap with social studies and language
arts. There are also a number of mathematical concepts inherent to the
DNA model.
Maria Novela
That’s an exciting idea! I like coming from the heart of each discipline
and then looking for the overlapping concepts. Let’s go for it!

WORKING WITH MODEL 8: INTEGRATED
“We use the integrated model as an inductive process for discerning the
essential and enduring skills, concepts, and attitudes embedded within
our disciplines. As we discuss our units of study, our minds close in on
the overlapping ideas. The more we share, the more these
120
commonalities simply bubble up from the content we are all
addressing.”
Similar to the shared model, in which two teachers look for overlapping ideas
from their respective disciplines, the integrated model template (Figure 8.5) is
designed for a team of three or four teachers. As an interdisciplinary middle
or high school or grade-level team, teachers take turns talking and writing
about the units or topics in each of the disciplines.
121
122
123
Each teacher selects a unit of study for that term and shares in some detail
what occurs during unit. While talking about the unit, he or she writes key
words in the outer circle for that subject.
As the discussion progresses, the team members use an inductive approach
and start to identify and label what bubbles up in the center. They look for
overlaps and commonalities among the various subjects.
Once the team finds the life skills and big ideas that could serve as themes
for all the subjects represented in the integrated unit, they proceed to develop
124
essential questions from each discipline to drive the theme.
Notes & Reflections

Model 8: Integrated
“We use the integrated model as an inductive process for discerning

the essential and enduring skills, concepts, and attitudes embedded
within our disciplines. As we discuss our units of study, our minds
close in on the overlapping ideas. The more we share, the more
these commonalities simply bubble up from the content we are all
addressing.”
With content priorities in mind, team members look beyond the topics to
the concepts, skills, and attitudes targeted in the separate disciplines.
Armed with these basics, the team looks for overlapping ideas that
emerged as common ground among the four disciplines.
The numerous similarities that naturally emerge from the content
pieces may surprise the team members. It can be such an easy discussion
to have because each teacher simply talked about his or her own content
and the things addressed in the unit. No one needs to feel intimidated
because no one is expected to know the others’ content. It is a true
learning experience as team members become privy to what other
teachers are doing in their everyday lessons.
“We had no idea that there would be that many meaningful
connections. We even commented that before the discussion that revolved
around this model, we really did not know that much about what the other
subject area teachers actually taught.”
SOURCE: Adapted from a course taught by Kathleen Vehring, Carpentersville, IL.
125
126
Model
9
127
Immersed
Are we or how are we using learner-centered models in
which students have choices?
Microscope—intensely personal view The individual integrates all data,

that allows microscopic exploration as from every field and discipline, by
all content is filtered through lens of funneling the ideas through his or
interest and expertise her area of intense interest.
Example
A student or doctoral candidate has
an area of expert interest and sees all
learning through that lens.
“The one real object of education is to have a [person] in the condition of
continually asking questions.”
—Bishop Mondell Creighton
WHAT IS THE IMMERSED MODEL?

Aficionados, art students, prodigies, graduate students, doctoral candidates,
and postdoctoral fellows are totally immersed in a field of study. The
immersed model filters all curricular content learning through one
microscopic lens. In this model of integrated curricula, the integration is
internally and intrinsically accomplished by the learner with little or no
extrinsic or outside intervention. It is real-world integration that naturally
occurs as the learner reaches into the topic of interest and starts to find all
128
kinds of marvelous connections.

At the university level, a doctoral candidate is immersed in, for example,
biochemistry. Her area of specialization is chemical bonding of substances.
Even though her field is chemistry, she devours the software programs in
computer science classes so she can analyze her data in simulated lab
experiments, saving days of tedious lab work. She accepts an offer to learn
patent law in order to protect her ideas for her company and to protect her
company from liability cases. All learning paths are sparked by her passion
for her field.
Likewise, a first grader writes incessantly about butterflies, bugs, spiders,
insects, and creepy crawlies of all sorts. Her artwork is modeled on the
symmetrical design of ladybugs and the patterns of butterflies. She counts,
mounts, frames, and sings about them. Her interest in insect biology is
already consuming her. The books she chooses reflect her internal integration
of her interest in learning this subject.

An immersed learner might say something like this: “I’m totally immersed in
my work. It is a labor of love, and my laboratory is my life. It seems that
everything I choose to pursue with any fervor is directly related to my
intellectual interest.” Just as the writer records notes and the artist makes
sketches, the immersed learner is constantly making connections to his or her
subject. With this self-directed, self-initiating learner, the teacher’s mission
often becomes one of getting out of the learner’s way or finding ways to
ignite the learning interest with myriad paths of discovery.

The ultimate advantage is that integration must take place within the learner,
which is exactly what is illustrated in this model. The learner is self-driven by
129
an insatiable hunger to understand. “The more we know, the more we know
we don’t know” becomes an unhidden truth. As the student digs deeper into a
field of interest, the related areas and new pathways seem unending. And the
immersed learner exhibits phenomenal discipline as he or she develops this
intense focus. Of course, another plus is that the connection making of this
learner is often made explicit to other learners as the expert makes advances
in the field.

The filtering of all ideas through a single microscopic lens may occur too
prematurely or with too narrow a focus. Richness of experience and broad
bases from which to review a specialization bring depth and dimension to the
learner’s perspective. A liberal background that cuts across the major
disciplines provides the most fertile ground for enriching the learner’s
experience—the more varied, in fact, the better, at least early in the
educational process. There is plenty of time to specialize later.
WHEN IS THIS IMMERSED MODEL USEFUL?

As teachers strive to differentiate curricula, they use the immersed model as
part of various units of study. They direct students to choose an area of
interest within a given framework and to pursue that area as a special project
within the unit. When students select an area, they often become more
invested in it and begin to integrate disciplines as they work on the project.
In other situations, such as career academies, high school students are
already being asked to find their areas of strengths and choose a preliminary
path of study that is connected to the careers in those stronger academic
areas. Some select the art academy, while others prefer the health and science
academy or the business academy. These learners practice the immersed
model as they learn things through the lens of their career interest.
Immersion often begins as a hobby or a labor of love that directs the
student’s learning because of an intense interest in the area. Eventually, the
student filters all learning through the lens of this interest, making natural
connections across many disciplines.
130
Figures 9.1–9.3 are examples of completed immersion model integration
exercises, and Figure 9.4 provides an opportunity for readers to record their
Model 9: Immersed
Readers’ Theater
“The Ultimate Integrator”
Narrator
A graduate of the integrated curriculum school, and the university, tells

his colleague …
Graduate
I’d been with the firm for five years as a chemical researcher and liked to
just stick to the laboratory. But then I had to learn the CAD/CAM
programs to use the technical equipment. The time I saved by using the
computer simulations was unbelievable. Then I started spending a lot
more time on the patenting process and started looking at patent law.
Now the company wants me to go to law school.
Not only that, in order to deal with our Japanese manufacturers, I’ve
started studying Japanese! I need some understanding of the language and
culture. The learning never stops. Who knows what I’ll get into next!
131
132
133

WORKING WITH MODEL 9: IMMERSED
“I integrate many different skills, concepts, and attitudes from various
134
subject matter content as I pursue my interest in _____.”
The natural integration of the various subjects for one student is represented
in this template design (Figure 9.4). As the student pursues his or her
personal area of intense interest, integration is naturally occurring. Use this
template to plot the various disciplines involved as the student’s investigation
and curiosity drives the learning.
To utilize this immersed model, select one student or try it out on your own
hobby, favorite pastime, or area of interest.
Through dialogue and discussion with a partner, take turns plotting the
learning exposure to the various subjects through the selected lens of interest.
Use the samples as guides, but let the ideas flow to see how much
integration actually occurs through the natural inquiry that is part of
intrinsically motivated endeavors. This model’s template offers a visual
record of the integration that occurs.
Notes & Reflections

Model 9: Immersed
“I integrate many different skills, concepts, and attitudes from

various subject matter content as I pursue my interest in _____.”
In the immersed model, students tend to funnel much authentic learning

through their area of interest. Simply by following their consuming
interest in a chosen area, they find that they are required to use many of
the things they have learned throughout the disciplines. In fact, it is also
the reason they learn many new things that they need in order to continue
their journey. In essence, their overwhelming interest becomes the driving
force for tackling new skills, concepts, and attitudes.
Students may find that they use a refined selection process that
automatically screens input and seeks out the areas that have explicit
and/or implicit connections to the things that they are most interested in.
The more expert they become, the more fine-tuned the selection
135
process is. Their interest, their passion propels their learning in directions
that they often do not anticipate. Yet with each new step they take, they
learn and absorb whatever they need in order to foster their intense
personal interest.

136
137
Model
10
138
Networked
Are we or how are we modeling real-world learning that
utilizes networks of experts?
Prism—a view
that creates The networked model of integrated learning is an
multiple ongoing external source of input, forever providing new,
dimensions and extended, and extrapolated or refined ideas.
directions of focus
Example
An architect, while adapting the CAD/CAM technology
for design, networks with technological programmers
and expands his or her knowledge base, just as he or she
had traditionally done with interior designers.
“The education of a man is never completed until he dies.”
—Robert E. Lee
WHAT IS THE NETWORKED MODEL?

The networked model of integrated learning involves ongoing external input
from other experts within and outside of the field of study and interest.
Learners’ professional networks usually grow in obvious, and sometimes not
so obvious, directions. In the search for knowledge, learners come to depend
on their networks as a primary source of information that they must filter
through their own lens of expertise and interest.
139
In the networked model of integration, unlike in the earlier models,
learners direct the integration process through self-selection of the needed
networks. Only the learners themselves, knowing the intricacies and
dimensions of their field, can target the necessary resources. This model, like
the others, develops and grows over time as needs propel learners in new
directions.

This model of networked integration is seen to a limited extent in the
elementary school. Imagine a fifth grader who has maintained a keen interest
in Native Americans since his toddler days of playing “Cowboys and
Indians.” His passion for Native American lore leads him to historical
readings—both fiction and nonfiction. His family, well aware of his intrigue
with Native Americans, hears about an archeological dig that recruits
youngsters to participate in the dig as part of a summer program offered by a
local college. As a result of the boy attending this summer camp, he meets
people in a number of fields: an anthropologist, a geologist, an archeologist,
an illustrator, and a student of the fine arts who was hired to represent the dig
in drawings. This learner’s networks are already taking shape. His natural
interest has led him to others in the field who offer various levels of
knowledge and insight that extend his learning.

The networked model sounds like a three- or four-way conference call that
provides various avenues of exploration and explanation. Although these
diverse ideas may not come all at once, the networked learner is open to
multiple modes of input as divergent components are sifted and sorted to suit
the need. This model sounds like the network news—pulling in pictures and
stories from around the globe. The network is much like a satellite beaming
signals here and there and receiving signals from everywhere.
140
The advantages of the networked model are many. This integrated learning
approach is extremely proactive in nature, with learners initiating searches
and following the newly emerging paths. Learners are stimulated with
relevant information, skills, or concepts that move their learning along. The
advantages of this model, however, cannot be imposed on learners, but rather
must emerge from within. But mentors can and do provide the necessary
support to encourage this sophisticated stage of learning.

The disadvantages of the networked model are familiar to those who have
developed many diverse interests in their labors of love. It is easy to get
sidetracked into one of the tangential ideas. It is also possible to get in over
one’s head. A particular path may seem inviting and useful, but may
suddenly become overwhelming; the benefits no longer outweigh the price
one has to pay. Another drawback is that the networked model, if taken to
extremes, can spread interests too thin and dilute a concentrated effort.
WHEN IS THIS NETWORKED MODEL USEFUL?

This model, like the immersed model, often moves the onus of integration to
learners rather than to outside instructional designers. However, it is an
appropriate model to present to motivated learners. Tutors or mentors often
suggest networking to extend the learners’ horizons or provide a needed
perspective. Of course, many times this model simply expands naturally from
learners’ inherent interest and motivation.
As networks evolve, serendipitous connections appear along the way.
Often, these accidental findings propel learners into new depths in the field or
lead to the creation of a more specialized field. One such example is the field
of genetics, which has developed an area known as genetic engineering. This
unfolding of a field is really the result of immersed expert learners
networking with other immersed expert learners.
A more explicit example of the networked model is also used in larger high
schools. As schools move to the small schools concept and create career
academies, students are often expected to network with businesses in their
141
chosen fields. This networking often leads to apprenticeships and/or
internships within the career areas of interest. Of course, networking across
various disciplines occurs as a natural part of this process.
Figures 10.1–10.3 are examples of completed networked model integration
Model 10: Networked

Readers’ Theater
“Out There!”
Narrator
Years later … a graduate of the integrated school is on a conference call

with two network experts, a cognitive psychologist and a computer
programmer.
Lucy Librarian
I think of myself as a librarian. That was my training—library sciences.

But as a doctoral candidate in the area of artificial intelligence, I need to
network with others in highly technical fields. I am searching for a
program to help simulate a cognitive search for information.
Sy Kee
What we know about how the brain works can be represented in the
diagrams I sent you. Also, by scripting the talk-aloud monitoring of
subjects, I think you’ll be able to see patterns of connection making. If we
put our heads together, this will start to make sense.
Connie Computo
It’s hard to duplicate the insightful connections made by the human brain,
but the randomness in the procedures can be programmed in. I will need
explicit details from you, Lucy, about how we make those connections in
the human brain.
142
143
144

WORKING WITH MODEL 10: NETWORKED
“I network with others, various experts in their field of study, as I
145
explore all aspects of my area of interest.”
To work with the networked model, the teacher thinks of a passion, a labor of
love, an area of intense interest that one student exhibits. The teacher might
work with his or her own focus as a way to start using the template for this
model (Figure 10.4).
Then, the teacher plots the path of networking opportunities for that
student as he or she pursues this area of interest. As the student searches for
information about the interest, myriad opportunities arise for the student to
network with others, whether they be experts in the field or other colleagues
pursuing the same interest. The student may also find print or electronic
resources that lead to blogs or other connections.
To use the template (Figure 10.4), record the connected learning
experiences that result, or might result, from the original seed of interest.
Note how an interdisciplinary approach is inherent in this kind of natural
pursuit of learning. This is the ultimate integration that takes place in the
mind of the learner.
Notes & Reflections

Model 10: Networked
“I network with others, various experts in their field of study, as I

explore all aspects of my area of interest.”
When learners have a special interest area that has become a passion, they
naturally seek others who know more about this area than they do.
Learners find themselves searching out experts, both inside and outside
the field, to extend and enrich the field.
Learners look for expertise from those immersed in the same field of
study as they are. They may want a mentor to push their thinking and
awareness of all angles. They seek those who have insights and
inclinations that they might otherwise miss.
Interestingly, learners may also find themselves networking with
146
people in other fields as their journey leads them in many directions and
toward unintended outcomes. These people are experts in their fields and
are welcome colleagues engaged along the way. The richness of these
encounters cannot be overstated. Their impact on the entire pursuit is
invaluable.
In brief, this networked model is perhaps the most inherently authentic
model of curriculum integration because it involves the practical pursuit
of learning about a deeply consuming area of personal interest.
147
148
Appendix
149
Assessing Curriculum Integration
Units of Study
APPRAISING CURRICULUM INTEGRATION

The question about how to assess integrated curriculum is often on teachers’
minds as they move toward more integrated curriculum models. While this is
a fair question and appears to be quite straightforward, it is actually fairly
ambiguous. Is the question about assessing the quality of the curriculum
integration unit itself, or is it about how to assess students who are involved
in the curriculum integration unit?
The answer is that it is about both. Teachers want some yardstick with
which to measure the unit of study that has been developed around the idea of
a more coherent, more connected way of addressing the curriculum. Yet they
also want and need ways to assess the learning that occurs when students are
immersed in integrated curriculum projects and performances.
In the subsequent discussion, two sets of rubrics are presented. First comes
a scoring rubric that helps teachers look at the integrity of the curriculum
integration unit. This is followed by two examples to illustrate how teams
might analyze a unit for curriculum integrity and instructional quality. The
second set of rubrics includes viable tools for evaluating student work; they
provide various criteria that can serve as assessment areas for student
learning. One rubric provides a general assessment of student learning for the
entire unit of study, and two others provide discipline-specific rubrics as
models for individual teacher assessment of student work in their subject.
In the end, both kinds of rubrics provide distinct pivot points for
discussions. These conversations often lead to deeper understanding of how
to develop quality curriculum integration and foster an examination of how to
assess and appraise student work within a unit. After all, grades and rankings
are a necessary evil of the school curriculum.
APPRAISING THE INTEGRITY OF THE BREADTH
150
AND DEPTH OF THE CURRICULUM
INTEGRATION UNIT
To fully examine the quality of a curriculum integration unit, five
characteristics are used: relevance, richness, relatedness, rigor, and recursion.
Let’s unpack the meaning of these critical elements as they apply to the
curriculum integration process and as products of a more integrated approach
to curriculum. Then we’ll proceed to the sample rubric and the two examples
to see how these elements are applied to curriculum integration units.
Relevance
Students expect learning to be meaningful and often search for the reason
that they are learning something and how they will use it. Integrated units are
developed for that very reason: to make the learning purposeful. The intent is
to make learning opportunities more personally relevant by incorporating life
experiences and real-world applications.
Richness
Richness involves multilayering. It is about units of study that address the
eight multiple intelligences delineated by Gardner (1983, 1999): visual-
spatial, verbal-linguistic, intrapersonal-self, interpersonal-social, musical-
rhythmic, mathematical-logical, naturalist-physical world, and bodily-
kinesthetic. Richness is about ambiguity and wholeness; it is about depth and
texture. Richness enhances the unit with its robustness.
Relatedness
Relatedness refers to natural hookups and connections across the various
disciplines. It is about how broadly the unit reaches into the various
disciplines in genuine and interwoven ways. Relatedness is really about how
cohesive the unit is, how tightly it is designed, and how many genuine
overlaps are evidenced across multiple content areas.
Rigor
Rigor is about complexity and the intricacies of higher-order thinking that
are inherent in the unit of study. Rigor does not mean that the work is hard,
but rather that it is of high quality and complexity, that it requires the
151
thoughtfulness and mindfulness of problem solving and decision making.
Rigor dictates expert performances and results in multilayered products.
Recursion
Recursion is about how often the themes and big ideas recur in the unit as
well as in other school and life circumstances. Themes of the highest integrity
are those that recur often and in various ways in subject matter content and
real-life situations. Recursion is evidence that the themes are worthy,
worldly, and widely influential.
Sample Rubric
A scoring rubric has three elements that matter: standard, criteria, and
indicators of quality. The standard for a curriculum integration unit of study
is the exemplar of curriculum design that utilizes big-idea themes or life skills
in student-centered learning experiences. The criteria delineate specific
critical components that are targeted in the learning experience. The
indicators of quality represent the range of quality, from low to high, that is
judged in the assessment of the unit.
The rubric developed to appraise the integrity of quality of a curriculum
integration unit applies the five elements described earlier in this discussion:
relevance
richness
relatedness
rigor
recursion
These five elements are the target criteria that are juxtaposed with key
quality indicators:
Not Yet! Limited progress, needs help, does not meet standards
On Our Way! Developing, emerging, on the brink, almost meets
standards
This Is It! In the zone, competent, good job, meets standards
Above and Beyond! Exceptional, superior, proficient, exceeds standards
152
The resulting matrix allows for a rating of the entire curriculum integration
unit. As a unit is designed and implemented, the key players consistently look
at the five elements and try to score them appropriately.
Note in Figure A.1 that each criterion can be scored horizontally across the
row, using the quality indicator headings as a guide. For example:
Relevance is rated from “inert knowledge” to “forecasted utilization.”

Richness moves from “contrived to fit” to “breadth, depth, and
integrity.”
Relatedness spans from “no obvious connections across disciplines” to
“natural, genuine connections to life situations.”
Rigor ranges from “recall and regurgitation” to “applying intricate
complexities.”
Recursion runs from “singular opportunity for concept/skill
development” to “transfer with creative ambiguity.”
Naturally, the more scores that fall on the right side of the matrix as each
criterion is analyzed and examined, the higher the quality of the curriculum
integration unit. Utilizing this kind of analysis affords the design team several
opportunities to look closely at the unit’s integrity. They can review the unit
in the design stage, before it is unveiled, during implementation, and finally
after it has been completed and student learning is addressed.
153
Figure A.1 Rubric for Integrated Curriculum Units of Study SOURCE: Adapted from
“Curriculum Possibilities in a ‘Post-Future,’” by W. Doll, 1993, Journal of Curriculum and
Supervision, 8(4), pp. 270–292.
Example Rubric #1: Social Studies/History Unit: How

Does War Create Peace?
Figure A.2 presents a rubric for determining the quality of an integrated
unit called How Does War Create Peace?
A quick glance horizontally across the rows of Figure A.2 reveals the kind
of discussion that might occur. The questions, of course, can only be
answered fully when an actual, fully developed curriculum unit is reviewed.
Yet the process can be revealed here in brief. For example, when looking at
the full criteria for the How Does War Create Peace? unit, note the possible
explanations.
Relevance
If the unit is presented as “inert knowledge” rather than a “genuine
comparison to a current conflict,” it would be scored low. The true relevance
of a unit can be judged by the authentic involvement of students and their
personalization of the unit and its many elements.
154
Figure A.2 Rubric for “How Does War Create Peace?” Integrated Unit
Richness
If the unit strives to “develop a dynamic, fluid, and interactive memorial,”
it is more likely to score at the highest end of the rubric. This is determined
by the amount and quality of multimodal opportunities for differentiated
learning and by the genuine performances and products that result.
Relatedness
If the unit connects various disciplines in “real-world cohesive endeavors,”
it would score high in the area of relatedness. This concept of interrelatedness
is signaled by the number of real overlaps across various disciplines as the
projects evolve.
Rigor
If the unit settles for a “show and tell” approach as evidence of student
155
participation and learning, rather than generating “complex hypotheses,” the
element of rigor would rank at the low end. Rigor is not about how hard the
tasks are, but rather how complex and intricate the endeavors become.
Recursion
If theme of conflict moves toward genuine, real-world “ambiguous
conflicts of interests,” the unit would score quite high in terms of recursion.
The recursiveness becomes obvious as the major themes seem to crop up,
over and over again, with connections to life outside of the schoolhouse
walls.
Example Rubric #2: Science/Math/Language Arts Unit:

Bridging the Way
Figure A.3 presents a rubric for determining the quality of an integrated
unit of study called Bridging the Way.
Again, a quick glance horizontally across the rows reveals the kind of
discussion that might occur in terms of this unit’s quality.
Relevance
If the unit demonstrates personal meaning, and the students show evidence
of owning the theme by developing real products and performances based on
“metaphorical” understanding of the bridges concept, it is deemed highly
relevant.
Richness
If the entire unit demonstrates strong, reliable, and valid evidence of
multimodal teaching and learning, with bridges of layered depth and
complexity, that is characteristic of a richness in the approach.
Relatedness
If the unit connects to various disciplines with integrity (e.g., language
arts: conjunctive, prepositional bridges; science: bones, ligaments, and
muscles as bridges; social studies: economic, political bridges; business:
organizational bridges), it is judged to have high quality in terms of
relatedness.
156
Rigor
If the unit focuses solely on real bridges with drawings, model building,
and presentations on the infrastructure of the country, it may result in a high
level of interest from students, yet is seems somewhat limited in its
integrative themes and would be rated low to medium in terms of rigor.
Recursion
If there is extensive evidence of the critical threads in all disciplines being
involved and related to real-life situations in universal and generalizing ways,
the unit scores high in recursion.
Figure A.3 Rubric for “Bridging the Way” Integrated Unit
ASSESSING THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE UNIT

IN TERMS OF STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT
Assessing the effectiveness of the curriculum integration unit in terms of
157
student learning involves another set of criteria and quality indicators that
comprise the elements of a scoring rubric. One rubric may serve as an
assessment for the entire unit, yet it seems prudent that each discipline create
its own scoring rubric. In this way, each teacher, representing a particular
subject, is able to delineate specific areas of assessment appropriate to that
discipline. Thus, students might receive a grade on the entire project and/or a
separate grade for each discipline or subject area. In the following pages,
there is an example of a general rubric that might be used for one class and
one grade. There are also samples of two discipline-specific rubrics, one for
history and one for language arts.
General Rubric
In this general rubric for a robust curriculum integration unit (see Figure
A.4), there are four distinct criteria:
content knowledge
process skills
enduring learnings
serendipities
These criteria are juxtaposed with quality indicators that allow the teacher
and student to judge the work from lower quality to higher quality. As
described before, these four quality indicators comprise the following:
Not Yet! Limited progress, needs help, does not meet standards
On Our Way! Developing, emerging, on the brink, almost meets
standards
This Is It! In the zone, competent, good job, meets standards
Above and Beyond! Exceptional, superior, proficient, exceeds standards
The resulting matrix allows for a rating of the entire curriculum integration
unit. As a curriculum unit is designed and implemented, the key players
consistently look at the four elements and try to score them appropriately.
Content knowledge is rated from “little evidence” to “meaningful
application.” Process skills are scored from “disorganized work with little
evidence of organization and little problem solving or decision making” to
158
“outstanding organization, problem solving, and decision making with
creative ideation.” Enduring learnings are ranked from “unaware of concepts,
big ideas, and themes” to “conceptual understandings are generalized and
applied.” Serendipities range from “not consciously aware of unexpected
results” to “highly positive unintended outcomes applied and used.”
The following two discipline-specific units are intended to be previewed in
the same way as the general rubric (see Figures A.5 and A.6). Move
horizontally across the rows of criteria, and judge the student learning
accordingly.
History Rubric
Description of Criteria
Historical content: facts, dates, events, and major themes
Evidence of research: search with volume, variety, and validity
Historical inferences: higher-order thinking (making inferences, drawing
conclusion, finding relevant implications)
Completion of project: quality project displayed and described with
elaboration
Language Arts Rubric

Description of Criteria
Content knowledge: sound grasp of the language arts content
Persuasive essay: appropriate prototype executed
Evidence of literacy references: seminal references cited properly
Application of skills: utilization of language arts skills and mechanics
159
Figure A.4 Student Learning—General Rubric
Figure A.5 Curriculum Integration Unit: History Rubric
160
Figure A.6 Curriculum Integration Unit: Language Arts Rubric
CONCLUSION
While the assessment of curriculum integration falls into two camps,
assessing the actual unit for depth and integrity and assessing student
progress, assessment in general is an essential part of the curriculum
integration process. And it provides invaluable insight for team discussions
and dialogues.
Assessment is the tool that allows teachers to become better at designing
rich, robust, and relevant integrated curriculum units of study. It is also what
allows teachers to judge the results of implementation of the unit in terms of
student learning.
Continue to explore the assessment tool of the scoring rubric. Work with it.
Let it evolve over time and enhance the curriculum, instruction, and ongoing
assessment of the integrated curriculum process.
161
References
Agor, S. (2000). Integrating the ESL standards into classroom practice grades 9–12.
Alexandria, VA: TESOL.
Arredondo, D. E., & Marzano, R. J. (1986). Restructuring schools through the teaching of
thinking skills. Educational Leadership, 43(8), 28–30.
Barell, J. (1991). Teaching for thoughtfulness. New York: Longman.
Beane, J. (1995). Toward a coherent curriculum. Alexandria, VA: Association for
Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Bellanca, J. (1990). The cooperative think tank. Palatine, IL: Skylight Training and
Publishing.
Bellanca, J., & Fogarty, R. (1991). Blueprints for thinking in the cooperative classroom
(2nd ed.). Palatine, IL: SkyLight Training and Publishing.
Beyer, B. (1987). Practical strategies for the teaching of thinking. Needham Heights,
MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Bloom, A. (1987). The closing of the American mind. New York: Simon & Schuster.
Bloom, B. S. (Ed.). (1984). Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of
educational goals. Handbook I: Cognitive domain. New York: Longman.
Brandt, R. (1988). On teaching thinking: A conversation with Arthur Costa. Educational
Leadership, 45(7), 10–13.
Brown, R. Q. (1991). Schools of thought: How the politics of literacy shape thinking in
the classroom. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Bruner, J. (1975). Toward a theory of instruction. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press.
Burke, K. (2006). From standards to rubrics in six steps: Tools for assessing student
learning, K–8. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
Caine, R. N., & Caine, G. (1990). Understanding a brain-based approach to learning and
teaching. Educational Leadership, 47(2), 66–70.
Caine, R. N., & Caine, G. (1991). Making connections: Teaching and the human brain.
Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Caine, R. N., & Caine, G. (1994). Making connections: Teaching and the human brain
162
(rev. ed.). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Caine, R. N., & Caine, G. (1997a). Education on the edge of possibility. Alexandria, VA:
Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Caine, R. N., & Caine, G. (1997b). Unleashing the power of perceptual change: The
potential of brain-based teaching. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and
Curriculum Development.
Caine, R. N., Caine, G., McClintic, C., & Klimek, K. (2008). 12 brain/mind learning
principles in action: Developing executive functions of the human brain (2nd ed.).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
Campbell, L., & Campbell, B. (1999). Multiple intelligences and student achievement:
Success stories from six schools. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and
Carbol, B. (1990). The intermediate program: Learning in British Columbia. Victoria,
British Columbia, Canada: Ministry of Education, Educational Programs.
Carr, J. F., & Harris, D. (2001). Succeeding with standards: Linking curriculum,
assessment, and action planning. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and
Costa, A. L. (1991a). Orchestrating the second wave. Cogitare, 5(2), 11–14.
Costa, A. L. (1991b). The school as a home for the mind. Palatine, IL: SkyLight Training
and Publishing.
Costa, A. L. (1991c). What human beings do when they behave intelligently and how they
can become more so. In Developing minds: A resource book for teaching thinking (Vol.
I, pp. 212–263). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum
Development.
Costa, A. L., & Garmstom, R. (1988, March). The art of cognitive coaching: Supervision
for intelligent teaching. Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the Association for
Supervision and Curriculum Development, Chicago.
Costa, A., & Kallick, B. (2000a). Activating and engaging habits of mind. Alexandria,
VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Costa, A., & Kallick, B. (2000b). Assessing and reporting on habits of mind. Alexandria,
Costa, A., & Kallick, B. (2000c). Discovering and exploring habits of mind. Alexandria,
Costa, A., & Kallick, B. (2000d). Integrating and sustaining habits of mind. Alexandria,
De Bono, E. (1985). Six thinking hats. Boston: Little, Brown.
163
Doll, W. (1993). Curriculum possibilities in a “post-future.” Journal of Curriculum and
Supervision, 8, 270–292.
Drake, S. (1998). Creating integrated curriculum: Proven ways to increase student
learning. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
Drake, S. (2007). Creating standards-based integrated curriculum: Aligning curriculum,
content, assessment, and instruction (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
Drake, S., & Burns, R. (2004). Meeting standards through integrated curriculum.
Eisner, E. (1991). What really counts in schools. Educational Leadership, 48(5), 10–11,
14–17.
Eisner, E. (1994). Cognition and curriculum reconsidered (2nd ed.). New York: Teachers
College Press.
Elvin, L. (1977). The place of common sense in educational thought. London: Unwin
Educational Books.
Emerson, R. W. (1982). Selected essays. New York: Penguin.
Etim, J. (2005). Curriculum integration K–12: Theory and practice. Lanham, MD:
University Press of America.
Feuerstein, R. (1980). Instrumental enrichment. Baltimore: University Park Press.
Fogarty, R. (1989). From training to transfer: The role of creativity in the adult learner.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Loyola University of Chicago.
Fogarty, R. (1990). Designs for cooperative interactions. Palatine, IL: SkyLight Training
and Publishing.
Fogarty, R. (1991). Ten ways to integrate curriculum. Educational Leadership, 49(2), 61–
65.
Fogarty, R. (1993). How to integrate the curricula: Training manual. Palatine, IL:
IRI/SkyLight Training and Publishing.
Fogarty, R. (1999). Balanced assessment. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
Fogarty, R. (2001a). Differentiated learning: Different strokes for different folks. Chicago:
Fogarty & Associates.
Fogarty, R. (2001b). Student learning standards: A blessing in disguise. Chicago: Fogarty
& Associates.
Fogarty, R. (2001c). Teachers make the difference: A framework for quality. Chicago:
Fogarty & Associates.
Fogarty, R. (2002). Brain-compatible classrooms. Arlington Heights, IL: SkyLight
Training and Publishing.
164
Fogarty, R., & Bellanca, J. (1986). Teach them thinking. Palatine, IL: SkyLight Training
and Publishing.
Fogarty, R., & Bellanca, J. (1989). Patterns for thinking, patterns for transfer. Palatine,
IL: SkyLight Training and Publishing.
Fogarty, R., & Pete, B. (2007). How to differentiate learning. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Corwin.
Fogarty, R., & Stoehr, J. (1996). Integrating curricula with multiple intelligences training
manual. Arlington Heights, IL: IRI/SkyLight Training and Publishing.
Fullan, M. (1991). The new meaning of educational change. New York: Teachers College
Press.
Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences. New York:
Basic Books.
Gardner, H. (1999). Intelligence reframed: Multiple intelligences for the 21st century.
New York: Basic Books.
Glass, K. (2007). Curriculum mapping: A step-by-step guide for creating curriculum year
overviews. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
Glatthorn, A. (1994). Developing a quality curriculum. Alexandria, VA: Association for
Goleman, D. (1995). Emotional intelligence: Why it can matter more than IQ. New York:
Bantam Books.
Hale, J. (2007). A guide to curriculum mapping: Planning, implementing, and sustaining
the process. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
Hart, L. (1983). Human brain, human learning. Kent, WA: Books for Educators.
Hirsch, E. D., Jr. (1987). Cultural literacy. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin.
Hirst, P. H. (1964). Knowledge and curriculum. London: Routledge.
Hirst, P. H., & Peters, R. S. (1974). The curriculum. In E. Eisner & E. Vallance (Eds.),
Conflicting conceptions of curriculum (pp. 176–191). Berkeley, CA: McCutchen.
Hord, S., & Loucks, S. (1980). A concerns-based model for delivery of inservice. Austin:
University of Texas at Austin, Research and Development Center for Teacher
Education, CBAM Project.
Howard, D. L. (1994). Interacting with information: Constructing personal knowledge
using written text. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Hawaii at Manoa.
Hunter, M. (1971). Teach for transfer. El Segundo, CA: TIP.
Hyde, A., & Bizar, M. (1989). Thinking in context. New York: Longman.
Hyerle, D. (1996). Visual tools for constructing knowledge. Alexandria, VA: Association
165
for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Irujo, S. (2000). Integrating the ESL standards into classroom practice: Grades 6–8.
Jacobs, H. H. (Ed.). (1989). Interdisciplinary curriculum: Design and implementation.
Jacobs, H. H. (1997). Mapping the big picture: Integrating curriculum and assessment K–
12. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Jacobs, H. H. (2004). Getting results with curriculum mapping. Alexandria, VA:
Jacobs, H. H., & Borland, J. H. (1986). The interdisciplinary concept model: Theory and
practice. Gifted Child Quarterly, 30, 159–163.
Jensen, E. (1999). Teaching with the brain in mind. Alexandria, VA: Association for
Jones, B. F., Palincsar, A., Ogle, D. S., & Carr, E. G. (1987). Strategic teaching and
learning: Cognitive instruction in the content areas. Alexandria, VA: Association for
Jones, B. F., Tinzmann, M., Friedman, L., & Walker, B. (1987). Teaching thinking skills:
English/language arts. Washington, DC: National Educational Association.
Joyce, B. R. (1986). Improving America’s schools. New York: Longman.
Joyce, B. R., & Showers, B. (1980). Improving inservice training: The message of
research. Educational Leadership, 37, 379–382, 384–385.
Joyce, B. R., & Showers, B. (1983). Power and staff development through research and
training. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Kallick, B., & Colosimo, J. (2008). Using curriculum mapping and assessment data to
improve learning. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
Kentucky Educational Television. (1993). Integrated learning video series
[Videocassettes]. Lexington, KY: Author.
King, K. (2006). Integrating the National Science Education Standards into classroom
practice. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Kirkland, L., Aldridge, J., & Kuby, P. (2006). Integrating environmental print across the
curriculum, PreK–3: Making literacy instruction meaningful. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Corwin.
Kovalic, S. (1993). ITI: The model: Integrated thematic instruction. Oak Creek, AZ:
Books for Educators.
Lawton, D. (1975). Class, culture and curriculum. Boston: Routledge.
166
Lazear, D. (1999). Eight ways of knowing (3rd ed.). Arlington Heights, IL: SkyLight
Training and Publishing.
Marcus, S. (2007). The hungry brain: The nutrition cognition connection. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Corwin.
Marcus, S. (n.d.). Are four food groups enough? Unpublished doctoral dissertation,
Walden University, Minneapolis, MN.
Martin, H. (1996). Integrating mathematics across the curriculum. Arlington Heights, IL:
SkyLight Training and Publishing.
Marzano, R. J. (2004). Building background knowledge for academic achievement:
Research on what works in schools. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and
Marzano, R. J., Pickering, D., & Brandt, R. (1990). Integrating instruction programs
through dimensions of learning. Educational Leadership, 47(5), 17–24.
Marzano, R. J., Pickering, D., & Pollock, J. (2001). Classroom instruction that works:
Research-based strategies for increasing student achievement. Alexandria, VA:
Maute, J. (1989). Cross-curricular connections. Middle School Journal, 20(4), 20–22.
Meeth, L. R. (1978). Interdisciplinary studies: Integration of knowledge and experience.
Change, 10, 6–9.
Meinbach, A., Fredericks, A., & Rothlein, L. (2000). The complete guide to thematic
units: Creating the integrated curriculum. Norwood, MA: Christopher-Gordan.
Ministry of Education. (1991). Integration: A framework for discussion (Draft 2).
Victoria, British Columbia, Canada: Author. Missouri Department of Elementary and
Secondary Education. (1996). Standards of learning. Jefferson City, MO: Author.
Osborn, A. F. (1963). Applied imagination. New York: Scribner.
Parnes, S. J. (1975). Aha! Insights into creative behavior. Buffalo, NY: D.O.K.
Perkins, D. N. (1986). Knowledge as design. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Perkins, D. N. (1988, March). Thinking frames. Paper presented at the Association for
Supervision and Curriculum Development Conference, Approaches to Teaching
Thinking, Alexandria, VA.
Perkins, D. N. (1989). Selecting fertile themes for integrated learning. In H. H. Jacobs
(Ed.), Interdisciplinary curriculum: Design and implementation (pp. 67–76).
Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Development.
Perkins, D. N., Goodrich, H., Tishman, S., & Owen J. M. (1994). Thinking connections:
Learning to think and thinking to learn. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Perkins, D. N., & Salomon, G. (1988). Teaching for transfer. Educational Leadership,
167
46(1), 22–32.
Perkins, D. N., & Salomon, G. (1989). Are cognitive skills content bound? Educational
Researcher, 18(1), 16–25.
Perna, D. M., & Davis, J. R. (2000). Aligning standards and curriculum for classroom
success. Arlington Heights, IL: SkyLight Training and Publishing.
Pete, B., & Fogarty, R. (2003a). Nine best practices that make the difference. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Corwin.
Pete, B., & Fogarty, R. (2003b). Twelve brain principles that make the difference.
Pete, B., & Fogarty, R. (2005). Close the achievement gap: Simple strategies that work.
Pete, B., & Sambo, C. (2004). Data! Dialogue! Decisions! The data difference. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Corwin.
Piaget, J. (1972). The epistemology of interdisciplinary relationships. Paris: Organization
for Economic Cooperation and Development.
Posner, M. I., & Keele, S. W. (1973). Skill learning. In R. M. W. Travers (Ed.). Second
handbook of research on teaching (pp. 805–821). Chicago: Rand McNally.
Ravitch, D. (1985). Why educators resist a basic required curriculum. In B. Gross & R.
Gross (Eds.), The great school debate (pp. 199–203). New York: Simon & Schuster.
Ravitch, D., & Finn, C. (1985). The humanities: A truly challenging course of study. In B.
Gross & R. Gross (Eds.), The great school debate (pp. 308–329). New York: Simon &
Schuster.
Resnick, L. B., & Klopfer, L. (1989). Toward the thinking curriculum: Current cognitive
research. 1989 ASCD Yearbook. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and
Richards, M. C. (1980). The public school and the education of the whole person.
Philadelphia: Pilgrim Press.
Ronis, D. (2001). Problem-based learning for math and science: Integrating inquiry and
the Internet. Arlington Heights, IL: SkyLight Training and Publishing.
Samway, K. (2000). Integrating the ESL standards into classroom practice: Pre-K–2.
Sergiovanni, T. (1987). Will we ever have a true profession? Educational Leadership,
44(8), 44–49.
Shoemaker, B. (1989). Integrative education: A curriculum for the twenty-first century.
OSSC Bulletin, 33(2).
Shoemaker, B. (1991). Education 2000: Integrated curriculum. Phi Delta Kappan, 72,
168
793–797.
Silver, H., Strong, R., & Perini, M. (2000). So each may learn: Integrating learning styles
and multiple intelligences. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum
Development.
Smallwood, B. (2000). Integrating the ESL standards into classroom practice: Grades 3–
5. Alexandria, VA: TESOL.
Sousa, D. (1995). How the brain learns: A classroom teacher’s guide. Reston, VA:
National Association of Secondary Schools.
Sprenger, M. (1999). Learning and memory: The brain in action. Alexandria, VA:
Sternberg, R. J. (1984). How can we teach intelligence? Educational Leadership, 42(1),
38–48.
Sternberg, R. J. (1986). Intelligence applied: Understanding and increasing your
intellectual skills. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
Sylwester, R. (1995). Celebration of neurons: An educator’s guide to the human brain.
Tomlinson, C. (1999). The differentiated classroom: Responding to the needs of all
learners. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Tomlinson, C. (2001). How to differentiate instruction in mixed-ability classrooms.
Tomlinson, C., & Demirski-Allen, S. (2000). Leadership for differentiating schools and
classrooms. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Treadwell, M. (2001). 1001 best Internet sites for educators. Arlington Heights, IL:
SkyLight Training and Publishing.
Tyler, R. W. (1949). Basic principles of curriculum and instruction. Chicago: University
of Chicago Press.
Tyler, R. W. (1986–1987). The five most significant curriculum events in the twentieth
century. Educational Leadership, 44(4), 36–38.
Vars, G. F. (1987). Interdisciplinary teaching in the middle grades. Columbus, OH:
National Middle School Association.
Wiggins, G., & McTighe, J. (1998). Understanding by design. Alexandria, VA:
Williams, R. (2002). Cooperative learning: A standard for high achievement. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Corwin.
Williams, R. (2003). Higher order thinking: Challenging all students to achieve.
169
Williams, R. (2006a). 36 tools for building spirit in learning communities. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Corwin.
Williams, R. (2006b). More than 50 ways to build team consensus (2nd ed.). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Corwin.
Williams, R. (2007). Multiple intelligences for differentiated learning. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Corwin.
Williams, R. (2008). Twelve roles of facilitators for school change (2nd ed.). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Corwin.
Wittrock, M. C. (1967). Replacement and nonreplacement strategies in children’s problem
solving. Journal of Educational Psychology, 58(2), 69–74.
170
Index
Agree/Disagree Chart, 10, 15 (figure)
Algebra, 54 (figure)
Art:
elementary school, 71–72 (figure)
middle school, 61 (figure), 73–74 (figure)
Shared Model, 61 (figure)
Webbed Model, 71–72 (figure), 73–74 (figure)
Attention, 4
Bilateralization, 4
Bodily-kinesthetic intelligence, 5, 68 (figures), 69 (figure), 70, 81 (figure)
Brain and learning:
bilateralization, 4
challenging environment, 3 (figure), 4
conscious/unconscious processing, 3 (figure), 5
emotions, 3 (figure), 4
experiential learning, 4, 5
focused perception, 3 (figure), 4
frontal lobe, 5
innate meaning, 3 (figure), 5
left hemisphere, 4
memory system, 3 (figure), 4, 5
mind-body connection, 3 (figure), 5
multiple intelligences, 5–6
occipital lobe, 5
parallel processing, 3 (figure), 4–5
parietal lobe, 5
patterning, 3 (figure), 5
peripheral perception, 3 (figure), 4
right hemisphere, 4
171
rote learning, 3 (figure), 4
simultaneous processing, 3 (figure), 4
spatial memory, 3 (figure), 4, 5
temporal lobe, 5
threatening environment, 3 (figure), 4
twelve principals, 3 (figure), 4–5
uniqueness, 3 (figure), 5
Cellular Model:
advantages, 23–24
application, 24
assessment criteria, 13 (figure)
assessment template, 14 (figure)
curriculum integration, 1, 11 (figure), 22, 25, 30
defined, 1, 2
description, 12 (figure), 22–23
disadvantages, 24
elementary school, 23, 26 (figure)
essential reasoning, 25, 30
examples, 12 (figure), 22, 23, 25, 26 (figure), 27 (figure), 28 (figure)
high school, 23, 28 (figure)
History, 25
Language Arts, 25, 28 (figure)
lesson template, 29 (figure)
Mathematics, 25, 27 (figure)
metaphorical name, 12 (figure), 22
middle school, 23, 27 (figure)
notes/reflections, 30
parental perspective, 7, 9
Readers’ Theater activity, 25
Science, 25, 26 (figure)
Challenging environment, 3 (figure), 4
Chemistry, 36 (figure)
Civics, 62 (figure)
Communications Arts, 8 (figure)
Computer Science, 40, 75–76 (figure)
Connected Model:
172
advantages, 32
application, 33
curriculum integration, 1, 11 (figure), 31, 37
defined, 1, 2
description, 12 (figure), 31
disadvantages, 32
essential reasoning, 37
History, 33
Language Arts, 33
Science, 33, 35 (figure), 36 (figure)
Conscious/unconscious processing, 3 (figure), 5
Creative thinking skills, 80 (figure)
Critical thinking skills, 80 (figure)
Curriculum integration:
Agree/Disagree Chart, 10, 15 (figure)
brain and learning, 3–6
defined, 1–2
four-fold concept development activity, 16, 17 (figure), 18 (figure), 19
(figure), 20 (figure)
lifetime learning, 7, 9
parental perspective, 7, 9
rationale for, 3
research organization, 21
standards-based curriculum, 6–7, 8 (figure)
standards of learning, 6–7, 8 (figure)
173
student perspective, 9
tenmodels, 1–2, 10, 11 (figure), 12 (figure), 13 (figure)
three-dimensional model, 9–10, 11 (figure)
See also specific model
Curriculum integration assessment:
criteria for, 13 (figure)
examples, 121–124
general rubric, 125, 126 (figure)
History, 121–124, 125, 126 (figure)
integration integrity, 118, 119–124
Language Arts, 123, 124 (figure), 125, 127 (figure)
quality indicators, 120, 121 (figure), 122 (figure), 124 (figure), 125, 126
recursion, 119, 120, 121 (figure), 122 (figure), 123, 124 (figure)
relatedness, 119, 120, 121 (figure), 122, 123, 124 (figure)
relevance, 119, 120, 121, 122 (figure), 123, 124 (figure)
richness, 119, 120, 121 (figure), 122, 123, 124 (figure)
rigor, 119, 120, 121 (figure), 122 (figure), 123, 124 (figure)
scoring rubric, 118, 120, 121 (figure)
Social Studies, 121–124
student achievement, 118, 124–127
template for, 14 (figure)
Curriculum mapping, 48–50, 51, 55
Elementary school:
Art, 71–72 (figure)
Cellular Model, 23, 26 (figure)
Connected Model, 32, 34 (figure)
Health, 84 (figure)
Immersed Model, 105 (figure)
Integrated Model, 93, 96 (figure), 97 (figure)
Language Arts, 52 (figure), 60 (figure), 71–72 (figure), 84 (figure), 96
(figure), 97 (figure), 105 (figure), 113 (figure)
Mathematics, 34 (figure), 71–72 (figure), 84 (figure), 87 (figure), 96
174
Nested Model, 40, 43 (figure)
Networked Model, 111, 113 (figure)
Physical Education, 87 (figure), 97 (figure)
Research, 87 (figure)
Science, 26 (figure), 60 (figure), 71–72 (figure), 84 (figure), 87 (figure),
96 (figure), 97 (figure), 105 (figure), 113 (figure)
Sequenced Model, 49, 50, 52 (figure)
Shared Model, 57–58, 60 (figure)
Social Studies, 43 (figure), 52 (figure), 71–72 (figure), 96 (figure), 105
Threaded Model, 84 (figure), 87 (figure)
Webbed Model, 71–72 (figure)
Emotions, 3 (figure), 4
English:
high school, 86 (figure), 107 (figure)
middle school, 73–74 (figure), 88 (figure)
Experiential learning, 4, 5, 9
Fine Arts, 8 (figure)

Flow chart, 40
Focused perception, 3 (figure), 4
Food and Nutrition, 75–76 (figure)
Foreign Language:
high school, 86 (figure)
middle school, 53 (figure)
Sequenced Model, 53 (figure)
Threaded Model, 86 (figure)
Four-fold concept development activity, 16 examples, 18 (figure), 19
(figure), 20 (figure) template, 17 (figure)
Frontal lobe, 5
Geography:
175
Sequenced Model, 53 (figure), 54 (figure)
Graphic organizers:
Nested Model, 40 (figure)
Health:
standards-based curriculum, 8 (figure)
High school:
Algebra, 54 (figure)
Civics, 62 (figure)
Computer Science, 40, 75–76 (figure)
English, 86 (figure), 107 (figure)
Foreign Language, 86 (figure)
Geography, 54 (figure), 107 (figure)
History, 86 (figure)
Human Growth/Development, 62 (figure)
Integrated Model, 93, 99 (figure)
Language Arts, 28 (figure), 89 (figure), 99 (figure), 115 (figure)
Languages, 75–76 (figure)
Mathematics, 45 (figure), 54 (figure), 75–76 (figure), 89 (figure), 99
(figure), 107 (figure), 115 (figure)
Media, 86 (figure)
Networked Model, 115 (figure)
Science, 75–76 (figure), 89 (figure), 99 (figure), 107 (figure), 115 (figure)
Sequenced Model, 49, 50, 54 (figure)
Social Studies, 75–76 (figure), 89 (figure), 99 (figure), 115 (figure)
176
History:
Cellular Model, 25
Connected Model, 33
curriculum integration assessment, 121–124, 125, 126 (figure)
Integrated Model, 95
Nested Model, 42
Sequenced Model, 49, 51
Shared Model, 59
Threaded Model, 83, 86 (figure)
Webbed Model, 70
Immersed Model:
advantages, 103
application, 104
defined, 2
disadvantages, 103–104
elementary school, 105 (figure)
English, 107 (figure)
examples, 12 (figure), 102, 103, 104, 105 (figure), 106 (figure), 107
(figure)
Geography, 107 (figure)
Language Arts, 105 (figure), 106 (figure)
Mathematics, 105 (figure), 106 (figure), 107 (figure)
Science, 105 (figure), 106 (figure), 107 (figure)
177
Social Studies, 105 (figure), 106 (figure)
Innate meaning, 3 (figure), 5
Integrated Model:
advantages, 93–94
application, 94
defined, 2
disadvantages, 94
elementary school, 93, 96 (figure), 97 (figure)
examples, 12 (figure), 92, 93, 95, 96 (figure), 97 (figure), 98 (figure), 99
(figure)
History, 95
Language Arts, 95, 96 (figure), 97 (figure), 98 (figure), 99 (figure)
Mathematics, 95, 96 (figure), 97 (figure), 98 (figure), 99 (figure)
Physical Education, 97 (figure)
Science, 95, 96 (figure), 97 (figure), 98 (figure), 99 (figure)
Social Studies, 96 (figure), 98 (figure), 99 (figure)
Interpersonal-social intelligence, 5, 68 (figures), 69 (figure), 70, 81 (figure)
Intrapersonal-introspective intelligence, 5, 68 (figures), 69 (figure), 70, 81
(figure)
Language Arts:
Connected Model, 33
curriculum integration assessment, 123, 124 (figure), 125, 127 (figure)
elementary school, 52 (figure), 60 (figure), 71–72 (figure), 84 (figure), 96
178
high school, 28 (figure), 89 (figure), 99 (figure), 115 (figure)
Immersed Model, 105 (figure), 106 (figure)
Integrated Model, 95, 96 (figure), 97 (figure), 98 (figure), 99 (figure)
middle school, 44 (figure), 85 (figure), 98 (figure), 106 (figure), 114
(figure)
Networked Model, 113 (figure), 114 (figure), 115 (figure)
Sequenced Model, 51, 52 (figure)
Shared Model, 59, 60 (figure)
Threaded Model, 83, 84 (figure), 85 (figure), 89 (figure)
three-dimensional model, 11 (figure)
Webbed Model, 70, 71–72 (figure), 75–76 (figure)
Languages, 75–76 (figure)
See also Foreign Language; Spanish
Learning stations, 4
Left hemisphere, 4
Lifetime learning, 7, 9
Logical-mathematical intelligence, 5, 68 (figures), 69 (figure), 70, 81 (figure)
Mathematics:
curriculum integration assessment, 123, 124 (figure)
elementary school, 34 (figure), 71–72 (figure), 84 (figure), 87 (figure), 96
high school, 45 (figure), 54 (figure), 75–76 (figure), 89 (figure), 99
Immersed Model, 105 (figure), 106 (figure), 107 (figure)
middle school, 27 (figure), 73–74 (figure), 85 (figure), 88 (figure), 98
Nested Model, 42, 45 (example)
Shared Model, 59
Threaded Model, 83, 84 (figure), 85 (figure), 87 (figure), 88 (figure), 89
179
(figure)
Webbed Model, 70, 71–72 (figure), 73–74 (figure), 75–76 (figure)
Media, 86 (figure)
Memory system:
brain and learning, 3 (figure), 4, 5
explicit memory, 4
implicit memory, 4
rote memorization, 3 (figure), 4
spatial memory, 3 (figure), 4, 5
Middle school:
Art, 61 (figure), 73–74 (figure)
English, 73–74 (figure), 88 (figure)
Geography, 53 (figure)
Integrated Model, 93, 98 (figure)
Language Arts, 44 (figure), 85 (figure), 98 (figure), 106 (figure), 114
(figure)
Mathematics, 27 (figure), 73–74 (figure), 85 (figure), 88 (figure), 98
Music, 61 (figure)
Networked Model, 114 (figure)
Physical Education, 73–74 (figure), 88 (figure)
Science, 35 (figure), 73–74 (figure), 85 (figure), 88 (figure), 98 (figure),
106 (figure), 114 (figure)
Social Studies, 73–74 (figure), 85 (figure), 98 (figure), 106 (figure), 114
(figure)
Spanish, 53 (figure)
Mind-body connection, 3 (figure), 5
Multiple intelligences:
180
activity grid, 68 (figure)
bodily-kinesthetic intelligence, 5, 68 (figures), 69 (figure), 70, 81 (figure)
brain and learning, 5–6
grid template, 69 (figure)
idea grid, 68 (figure)
interpersonal-social intelligence, 5, 68 (figures), 69 (figure), 70, 81
(figure)
intrapersonal-introspective intelligence, 5, 68 (figures), 69 (figure), 70, 81
(figure)
logical-mathematical intelligence, 5, 68 (figures), 69 (figure), 70, 81
(figure)
musical-rhythmic intelligence, 5, 68 (figures), 69 (figure), 70, 81 (figure)
naturalist-physical intelligence, 5, 68 (figures), 69 (figure), 70, 81 (figure)
verbal-linguistic intelligence, 5, 68 (figures), 69 (figure), 70, 81 (figure)
visual-spatial intelligence, 5, 68 (figures), 69 (figure), 70, 81 (figure)
Webbed Model, 67, 68 (figures), 69 (figure), 70
Music, 61 (figure)
Musical-rhythmic intelligence, 5, 68 (figures), 69 (figure), 70, 81 (figure)
Naturalist-physical intelligence, 5, 68 (figures), 69 (figure), 70, 81 (figure)

Nested Model:
advantages, 41
application, 41
defined, 1, 2
disadvantages, 41
examples, 12 (figure), 39, 40–41, 42, 43 (figure), 44 (figure), 45 (figure)
graphic organizers, 40 (figure)
History, 42
181
Mathematics, 42, 45 (example)
Science, 42, 46
skills chart, 40 (figure)
social skills, 40 (figure)
Social Studies, 43 (figure)
thinking skills, 40 (figure)
Networked Model:
advantages, 111
application, 112
defined, 2
disadvantages, 111
examples, 12 (figure), 110, 111, 112, 113 (figure), 114 (figure), 115
(figure)
Language Arts, 113 (figure), 114 (figure), 115 (figure)
Mathematics, 113 (figure), 114 (figure), 115 (figure)
Science, 113 (figure), 114 (figure), 115 (figure)
Social Studies, 113 (figure), 114 (figure), 115 (figure)
Occipital lobe, 5
182
Parallel processing, 3 (figure), 4–5
Parietal lobe, 5
Patterning, 3 (figure), 5
Peripheral perception, 3 (figure), 4
Physical Education:
elementary school, 87 (figure), 97 (figure)
Integrated Model, 97 (figure)
middle school, 73–74 (figure), 88 (figure)
Readers’ Theater activity:

Cellular Model, 25
Connected Model, 33
Immersed Model, 104
Integrated Model, 95
Nested Model, 42
Networked Model, 112
Sequenced Model, 51
Shared Model, 59
Threaded Model, 83
Webbed Model, 70
Recursion, 119, 120, 121 (figure), 122 (figure), 123, 124 (figure)
Relatedness, 119, 120, 121 (figure), 122, 123, 124 (figure)
Relevance, 119, 120, 121, 122 (figure), 123, 124 (figure)
Research (discipline), 87 (figure)
Richness, 119, 120, 121 (figure), 122, 123, 124 (figure)
Right hemisphere, 4
Rigor, 119, 120, 121 (figure), 122 (figure), 123, 124 (figure)
Rote learning, 3 (figure), 4
Science:
Connected Model, 33, 35 (figure), 36 (figure)
curriculum integration assessment, 123, 124 (figure)
183
elementary school, 26 (figure), 60 (figure), 71–72 (figure), 84 (figure), 87
(figure), 96 (figure), 97 (figure), 105 (figure), 113 (figure)
high school, 75–76 (figure), 89 (figure), 99 (figure), 107 (figure), 115
(figure)
ImmersedModel, 105 (figure), 106 (figure), 107 (figure)
middle school, 35 (figure), 73–74 (figure), 85 (figure), 88 (figure), 98
Nested Model, 42, 46
Sequenced Model, 51
Shared Model, 59, 60 (figure)
Threaded Model, 83, 84 (figure), 85 (figure), 87 (figure), 88 (figure), 89
(figure)
Webbed Model, 70, 71–72 (figure), 73–74 (figure), 75–76 (figure)
Sequenced Model:
advantages, 49–50
application, 50
curriculum integration, 1–2, 11 (figure), 48, 51, 55
curriculum mapping, 48–50, 51, 55
defined, 1–2
disadvantages, 50
elementary school, 49, 50, 52 (figure)
Geography, 53 (figure), 54 (figure)
high school, 49, 50, 54 (figure)
History, 49, 51
184
Science, 51
Social Studies, 52 (figure)
Shared Model:
advantages, 58
application, 59
Art, 61 (figure)
Civics, 62 (figure)
curriculum integration, 1–2, 11 (figure), 57, 63
defined, 2
disadvantages, 59
elementary school, 57–58, 60 (figure)
examples, 12 (figure), 57–58, 59, 60 (figure), 61 (figure), 62 (figure)
high school, 57–58, 62 (figure)
History, 59
Mathematics, 59
middle school, 57–58, 61 (figure)
Music, 61 (figure)
Simultaneous processing, 3 (figure), 4
Social skills:
Social Studies:
185
curriculum integration assessment, 121–124
elementary school, 43 (figure), 52 (figure), 71–72
high school, 75–76 (figure), 89 (figure), 99 (figure), 115 (figure)
Immersed Model, 105 (figure), 106 (figure)
Integrated Model, 96 (figure), 98 (figure), 99 (figure)
middle school, 73–74 (figure), 85 (figure), 98 (figure), 106 (figure), 114
(figure)
Sequenced Model, 52 (figure)
Webbed Model, 71–72 (figure), 73–74 (figure), 75–76 (figure)
Spatial memory, 3 (figure), 4, 5
Standards-based curriculum, 6–7, 10
Standards of learning, 6–7
disciplinary examples, 8 (figure)
Temporal lobe, 5
Thinking skills:
Threaded Model:
advantages, 82
application, 83
creative thinking skills, 80 (figure)
critical thinking skills, 80 (figure)
defined, 2
186
disadvantages, 82
elementary school, 84 (figure), 87 (figure)
English, 86 (figure), 88 (figure)
examples, 12 (figure), 79, 80, 81 (figures), 82, 83, 84 (figure), 85 (figure),
86 (figure), 87 (figure), 88 (figure), 89 (figure)
Foreign Language, 86 (figure)
graphic organizers, 80 (figure)
Health, 84 (figure)
History, 83, 86 (figure)
Language Arts, 83, 84 (figure), 85 (figure), 89 (figure)
Mathematics, 83, 84 (figure), 85 (figure), 87 (figure), 88 (figure), 89
(figure)
Media, 86 (figure)
middle school, 85 (figure), 88 (figure)
multiple intelligences, 81 (figure)
Physical Education, 87 (figure), 88 (figure)
Research, 87 (figure)
Science, 83, 84 (figure), 85 (figure), 87 (figure), 88 (figure), 89 (figure)
social skills, 81 (figure)
Social Studies, 85 (figure), 89 (figure)
standards of learning, 82 (figure)
thinking skills, 80 (figure)
Threatening environment, 3 (figure), 4
Three-dimensional model, 9–10, 11 (figure)
Unique brain, 3 (figure), 5
Verbal-linguistic intelligence, 5, 68 (figures), 69 (figure), 70, 81 (figure)

Visual-spatial intelligence, 5, 68 (figures), 69 (figure), 70, 81 (figure)
187
Webbed Model:
advantages, 67
application, 67, 70
Art, 71–72 (figure), 73–74 (figure)
Computer Science, 75–76 (figure)
concept examples, 66 (figure)
defined, 2
disadvantages, 67
elementary school, 71–72 (figure)
English, 73–74 (figure)
examples, 12 (figure), 65, 66, 70, 71–72 (figure), 73–74 (figure), 75–76
(figure)
high school, 75–76 (figure)
History, 70
Language Arts, 70, 71–72 (figure), 75–76 (figure)
Mathematics, 70, 71–72 (figure), 73–74 (figure), 75–76 (figure)
middle school, 73–74 (figure)
multiple intelligences, 67, 68 (figures), 69 (figure), 70
Physical Education, 73–74 (figure)
problem examples, 66 (figure)
Science, 70, 71–72 (figure), 73–74 (figure), 75–76 (figure)
Social Studies, 71–72 (figure), 73–74 (figure), 75–76 (figure)
theme requirements, 66 (figure)
topic examples, 66 (figure)
188
The Corwin logo—a raven striding across an open book—represents the
union of courage and learning. Corwin is committed to improving education
for all learners by publishing books and other professional development
resources for those serving the field of PreK–12 education. By providing
practical, hands-on materials, Corwin continues to carry out the promise of its
motto: “Helping Educators Do Their Work Better.”
189

E Book

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

E Book

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

How to

Printed in the United States of America.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Acquisitions Editor: Hudson Perigo

Dr. Heidi Hayes Jacobs

Robin Fogarty received her doctorate in curriculum and human resource

WHAT IS THIS BOOK ALL ABOUT?

Does it mean integrating or connecting yesterday’s lesson to today’s topic?

Integrating what is taught with cognitive tools,

Does integrating curricula mean integrating the content of what is taught

The Theorists: Research on the Brain and Learning

Supporting the concept of a more connected, integrated curriculum is a research base

Creating the Learning Environment

Using Explicit and Implicit Memory Systems

Processing Incoming Information

The Practitioners: Abandonment of an Overloaded

Meeting Standards With Integrated Curricula

With this solid foundation firmly in place, decisions about curriculum

With a multitude of standards as the goal, coverage of content, of course, is

The Parents: What Will Our Children Need 25 Years

The Students: Education Is a Vaccination

HOW CAN THE CURRICULUM BE INTEGRATED?

10 Models of Integrating the Curricula

AGREE/DISAGREE INTRODUCTORY ACTIVITY

Figure 0.4 How to Integrate the Curricula

FOUR-FOLD CONCEPT DEVELOPMENT

EXAMPLES OF THE FOUR-FOLD CONCEPT

HOW DO TEACHERS USE THIS BOOK?

What is it? (a metaphorical name and description of the model)

What does it sound like? (examples of integrating the model)

What are the advantages? (benefits for teaching and learning)

What are the disadvantages? (detriments for teaching and learning)

When is this model useful? (purposeful and meaning applications)

To complete the discussion of each model, a vignette of teachers working

Periscope—one direction; one The traditional model of separate and

WHAT IS THE CELLULAR MODEL?

WHAT DOES IT LOOK LIKE?

WHAT DOES IT SOUND LIKE?

WHAT ARE THE ADVANTAGES?

WHAT ARE THE DISADVANTAGES?

WHEN IS THIS CELLULAR MODEL USEFUL?

Meanwhile, back at the school, teachers with periscopic vision are

Maria Novela, Language Arts

Tom Time, History

Sue Sum, Mathematics

Bob Beaker, Science

HOW TO INTEGRATE THE CURRICULA

“I prioritize the fundamental or basic understandings first; then I look

Figure 1.2 Middle School Example

Notes & Reflections

Opera glass—details of Within each subject area, course content is

WHAT IS THE CONNECTED MODEL?

WHAT DOES IT LOOK LIKE?

WHAT DOES IT SOUND LIKE?

WHAT ARE THE DISADVANTAGES?

WHEN IS THIS CONNECTED MODEL USEFUL?

I want to present units so they make more sense to students. It seems

To help students understand how everything in biology is related to the

To generate an integrated understanding of American literature, I’ll ask

HOW TO INTEGRATE THE CURRICULA

“The reason I like to teach ____ followed by ____ is because ____.”

Notes & Reflections

“The reason I like to teach ____ followed by ____ is because ____.”

“The reason I like to teach followed by is because .”

“The reason I like to teach followed by is because .”