📑 Inter-disciplinary curriculum: why is it so difficult to develop? (part two)

Bookmarked Inter-disciplinary curriculum: why is it so difficult to develop? (part two) by Mark Priestley
Fogarty’s work is especially useful for schools seeking to develop a more integrated curriculum, offering a continuum of practice, including:
  • Fragmented – no joint planning or link making between subjects
  • Sequenced – arranging teaching so that related topics are taught concurrently within different subjects (e.g. allowing the study of the First World War in History to coincide with the study of war poetry in English).
  • Shared – joint planning of related disciplines (e.g. identifying commonalities between Science and Geography).
  • Webbed – the use of thematic approaches to bring content from different disciplines together (e.g. an Africa week when all curriculum areas focus on this single theme).
  • Threaded – a cross-curricular approach where big ideas (e.g. citizenship, thinking skills) are coherently planned across the curriculum.
  • Integrated – largely an interdisciplinary organisational approach, which breaks down traditional subject boundaries – either partially (e.g. hybrid subjects) or fully (e.g. the US middle school approach)
Mark Priestley discusses some of the challenges associated with inter-disciplinary curriculum in Scotland, including the differences between primary and secondary education. It is interesting to consider Priestley’s research and observations alongside Richard Wells’ 2020 project.

One response on “📑 Inter-disciplinary curriculum: why is it so difficult to develop? (part two)”

Reposts

  • Jacques du Toit

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *