





































Analyzing Curriculum Models from the 20th Century: A focus on Integration 

 

Rachel Turner 

Southeast Utah State University 

 

Introduction 

The debate on organizing curriculum in 

schools persists, particularly regarding the 

division of specialized subject education vs. 

general education. Even the elementary school, 

at one time devoted to self-contained classrooms, 

operates differently. Younger students, tasked 

with difficult discipline specific goals, find 

themselves segmented by content area. 

Elementary schools reflect semi-

departmentalization, grouping subjects based on 

state testing requirements rather than curriculum 

goals or teacher expertise. In many states, one 

often sees an elementary teacher responsible for 

either math and science or language arts and 

social studies. The most popular reason for this 

arrangement is the fact that math and reading 

include sate assessments. By departmentalizing 

teachers, administrations hope to reduce teacher 

stress as they focus on a single tested subject, 

math or reading, rather than both. The goal for 

semi-departmentalization is increased student 

performance due to more intensive instruction. 

This leads to higher emphasis on the tested 

subjects, reducing time and focus on the non-

tested subjects such as science and social studies.  

However, social studies and science 

inclusion in the elementary school curriculum 

causes growing support for teachers to use 

integration as a method to incorporate social 

studies and science into the tested subjects. This 

primarily occurs in reading. However, in my own 

experience and according to elementary teachers 

with whom I have worked, teacher supports for 

understanding methods for organizing 

curriculum for integration does not exist. 

  

Purpose 

As I explored approaches for organizing 

curriculum across the 20th century, I found the 

most prominent approaches cited include 

correlation, fusion, multidisciplinary, broad 

fields, interdisciplinary, transdisciplinary, and 

core curriculum. As I analyzed each approach, I 

noticed some approaches push for total 

integration of subject matter while others 

advocate for partial integration. I set out to 

determine how teachers use these organizational 

approaches, with their varying degrees of 

integration, to meet student needs, such as real-

world application of knowledge, while also 

providing fundamental skill development within 

the content areas.  I designed a Disciplinary Scale 

that allows me to rate each organizational 

approach along this scale. I hoped, through this 

process, to determine 

• What methods are used to organize 

curriculum to bring multiple subjects 

together?  

 

Literature 

 One of the most prominent education 

debates over the past century centers around the 

separate subject approach vs. the experience 

approach. The separate subject approach 

impacted the education system in the United 

States, particularly curriculum and school 

organization. Curriculum integration emerged as 

an instructional approach as the progressive 

education movement pushed back against the 

separate subject approach. In the following 

section, I summarize the debate around separate 

subjects, as well as knowledge integration, and 

highlight the ways integration of ideas is 

important for student education and 

development.  

 

The Single Subject Approach  

According to Hopkins (1937), “the 

subject curriculum is characterized by a large 

number of subjects taught independent of each 

other. It assumes that education is something 



 

39 

 

 

which an individual does before he enters adult 

life” (198). The separate subject curriculum tends 

to be teacher driven, fact and skill driven, and 

relies heavily on students meeting essential 

benchmarks to move forward (Hopkins 1937). 

Each separate subject includes a unique 

background, education, training, procedure, 

methods and content areas (Piaget 1972).  

The National Education Agency (1895) 

significantly impacted curriculum within schools 

as the Committees of Ten and Fifteen 

emphasized separate subjects in both the 

elementary and high school. Advocacy for the 

study of traditional subject and disciplines as the 

best method to provide optimal learning 

continues (Tanner & Tanner 1995). According to 

Tanner and Tanner (1995): 

 

when the evidence fails to reveal these 

claimed benefits, instead of seeking ways 

of integrating these studies and relating 

them to the life of the learner and to social 

reality, there is a tendency to look to 

extreme learner centered approaches and 

to negate systematically organized 

knowledge. (65) 

 

This shift towards student centered approaches 

has impacted curriculum integration in the 20th 

century. 

The emphasis on separate subjects 

continued into the 1950s with the space race 

emphasizing math, science and foreign 

languages. In the 1960’s, Bruner’s work placed 

emphasis on separate subjects with his focus on 

structure of the disciplines (Beane 1997). By the 

1970’s the discipline-based movement 

reemerged (Evans 2004). This tradition 

continues today as separate subject organization 

remains prevalent in all levels of schooling. This 

prevalence is due to the extensive systems 

formed around specific subjects within school 

systems and educational organizations (Beane 

1997). Additionally, teachers’ tradition of 

teaching using the same methods they 

experienced as students impacted the staying 

power of separate subjects (Beane 1997). The 

organization of teachers and schools into 

discipline departments also influenced the 

popularity, as teacher identity and teaching 

certifications revolve around specific subjects 

(Beane 1997). This connection between teachers 

and curriculum continues to push the separate 

subject approach forward.  

The single subject approach can lead to a 

disconnected curriculum. The separate subject 

curriculum “tends to neglect natural and logical 

connections between and among the separate 

subjects and between the subjects and life outside 

school” (Wraga, 2009, 89). With reform efforts 

such as A Nation at Risk (1983) and No Child Left 

Behind (2001), subject matter has become a 

conduit for passing high stakes tests. This sends 

the message to students that schooling is to study 

subjects and pass tests, rather than prepare for life 

and solve problems (Wraga, 2009).  

 

Why Curriculum Integration?  

Curriculum integration emerged in the 

late 19th century and throughout the 20th century 

was a prominent method to move away from the 

separate subject approach. A number of scholars 

and theorists who shifted away from the separate 

subject approach in the late 1800’s into the early 

1900’s include Herbartian society members 

Charles A. and Frank M. McMurray and Charles 

DeGarmo’s ideas about correlation between 

content and development (Gutek 1995). Charles 

A. McMurray (1857-1929) was most known for 

his views on interdisciplinary curriculum, while 

his brother Frank M. McMurray (1862-1936), 

was most known for developing student teaching 

practices. Charles DeGarmo (1849-1934), 

another prominent Herbartian society member, 

wrote extensively on educational practice and 

theory. Additionally, Francis Parker’s (1837-

1902) problem centered experiences (McMurry 

1927), and Dewey’s (1859-1952) social 

experiences related to school life (Dewey 1938) 

helped push forward the experience approach. 



 

40 

 

 

John Dewey (1916), who tested his progressive 

ideas while at the University of Chicago, felt that 

one of the biggest problems with education itself 

was the separation of curriculum from everyday 

life. Even with these scholars pushing against 

separate subjects, curriculum makers continued 

to focus on the school experience on separate 

subjects.  

Two major issues raised around the 

separate subject approach include overcrowded 

and disjointed curriculum. Wesley and Adams 

(1946) stated “since each subject tends to set its 

own limits and to demand that its requirements 

be met, their mere presence leads to an 

overcrowded curriculum” (161). This 

overcrowded curriculum makes integration much 

more difficult, as focusing on separate subjects 

leads to isolated and unrelated topics (Wesley & 

Adams, 1946). Separate subjects make it more 

difficult to draw connections between subject 

areas and make it more difficult to draw 

connections to life itself. Curriculum integration 

developed because teachers had an “unease about 

the dissociation of what is taught in school and 

what is experienced in life, their despair at the 

practical difficulties raised by the proliferation of 

knowledge and so on” (Ingram 1979, 20).  

Educational reform movements also 

influenced the move away from separate 

subjects. Harold Alberty (1890-1971), known for 

his work on The Eight-Year Study and general 

education, explains three influences that led to 

breaking down subject matter lines within the 

curriculum (1938). First, the “success of the 

activity movement in elementary education” 

allowed teachers to experiment with broad units 

that cut through subject area distinctions (Alberty 

1938, 223). Second, the push to see school as a 

focus on community life led to curriculum 

focused on home and community problems, 

naturally blurring of subject matter lines (Alberty 

1938). Third, changes within psychology 

influenced the push away from separate subjects 

as focus shifted away from the view that 

“Behavior as being made up of mechanical 

elements, and toward an organismic view. 

According to this conception, not only does the 

learner respond to an organic whole, but he 

responds to the total situation as well” (Alberty 

1938, 223). These educational reforms of the 

activity movement, community and psychology 

helped facilitate the push away from separate 

subjects.  

While problems with the separate subject 

approach exist, educators and administrators 

acknowledge the correlation between separate 

subjects and integrative approaches. A critical 

feature of integration is the relationship between 

subjects and disciplines (Ingram 1979). Ingram 

(1979) described the debate around subject 

matter vs. curriculum integration as an all or 

nothing matter; choose subjects or choose 

integration. This view is problematic because the 

two connect and “dependent upon association 

with each other” (Ingram 1979, 24). There is 

need for further exploration of the relationship 

between discipline specific approaches and 

integrative approaches.  

Integrating curriculum benefits student 

learning because it supports connections made 

across content area lines. According to some 

scholars, integrated curriculum provides students 

with needed skills (Drake & Burns 2004), 

improved learning outcomes (Beane 1995) and 

engagement (Drake 1998). Many scholars find 

students supported through integration as the 

curriculum is more relevant to their needs and 

interests (Jacobs 1989) while also providing real 

world application (Beane 1997). For teachers, 

benefits include support for understanding 

content and support for their teaching community 

(Ingram 1979).  

 

Knowledge Integration  

According to the National Council for the 

Social Studies, “The primary purpose of social 

studies is to help young people make informed 

and reasoned decisions for the public good as 

citizens of a culturally diverse, democratic 

society in an interdependent world” (National 



 

41 

 

 

Council for the Social Studies 1994, 3). If 

developing students into good citizens serves as 

our main goal, we must expose them to a variety 

of topics, issues, themes and ideas. These topics, 

issues, themes and ideas that occur in real life 

transcend content area or disciplinary 

boundaries. As Crowell states, “The more ways 

we tell students that the universe is made up of 

independent fragments, the more their minds will 

conceptualize and reproduce such a world” 

(1989, 61). Ultimately, we want civically 

competent students who use knowledge and 

experiences in the real world (National Council 

for the Social Studies 1994; Beane 1995).  

Across the 20th century we see 

knowledge specialization become more and more 

dominant. All levels of schools are organized 

around disciplinary lines, teachers are certified to 

teach specific subjects, and course requirements 

are built around specific disciplines. Curriculum 

integration emerged as a way to prepare students 

for life. Ward, Suttle and Otto (1960) describe the 

importance of understanding integration within 

the individual prior to understanding integration 

of curriculum. Integration of the individual 

involves “all that makes up that which is called 

an individual” (Ward, Suttle & Otto 1960, 10). 

Integration, involving the idea of self, is the 

process of “correlating parts, seeing 

relationships, making generalizations and 

syntheses” (Ward, Suttle & Otto 1960, 26). The 

role of integration is one of internal and external 

awareness (Ward, Suttle & Otto 1960). 

Ultimately, we want our students to understand 

specific disciplinary skills, objectives, 

philosophies and methods, yet within the context 

of life itself.  

Content integration can take many forms. 

Teachers today must attend to the grade level 

content area learning and standards while also 

attending to district or school scope and 

sequences. Historically, integration takes three 

forms, what Wraga (2009) describes as “vertical 

articulation, horizontal articulation and diagonal 

articulation” (91-92). Vertical articulation refers 

to the integration of the same content area across 

grade levels (Wraga, 2009). Horizontal 

articulation refers to integration of different 

content areas within the same grade level 

(Wraga, 2009). Lastly, diagonal articulation 

refers to the integration of different content areas 

across grade levels (Wraga, 2009). The 

remaining analysis of each curriculum approach 

is situated within the horizontal articulation. This 

was chosen because most elementary teachers 

are responsible for more than one subject area. 

Shedding light on the approaches to organizing 

curriculum within the horizontal approach allows 

teachers to see how they can integrate content 

areas within their classroom.

  

 

Table 1  

Example of Single Subject Approach  

  
 Social Studies Math Science ELAR  

S
in

g
le

 

S
u

b
je

ct
 Teacher teaches 

students to use bar 

graphs to show 

population of states 

Teacher teaches 

students to use bar 

graphs to represent 

numbers of items 

Teacher teaches students 

to use bar graphs to 

show numbers of fauna 

in a field collection 

Teacher does not teach bar 

graphs – not in curriculum 

standards; students don’t 

represent data they read about 

 

 Table 1 shows how bar graph skills are 

taught by two of the three teachers. However, the 

teachers fail to connect the use of bar graphs in 

other discipline areas. 

 

Correlation 

Correlated curriculum presents a first step 

away from the separate subject approach on the 

Continuum of Organizational Approaches shown 

in Figure 2. The goals of correlated curriculum 



 

42 

 

 

remain guided by separate subject lines (Hopkins 

1937; Wesley & Adams 1946). Correlated 

curriculum involves relating subject matter when 

possible but with little attempt to change the 

ultimate goals of the learning or the teaching 

methods (Hopkins 1937). Essentially, correlation 

occurs with connections between subjects, while 

not compromising “that which has always been 

recognized as important” (Hopkins 1937, 201). 

Essentially, connections to life and other content 

areas occur yet prove unplanned and not the 

focus. 

Making connections between disciplines 

is often misunderstood as integration, indicating 

issues with teachers utilizing correlation under 

the name of integration. For example, during a 

reading unit on summarization, an elementary 

teacher reads the picture book “Coming to 

America: The Story of Immigration” by Betsy 

Maestro (1996), and tasks students to summarize 

the beginning, middle and end of the book. The 

primary learning skill in focus, summarizing, 

was applied using a social studies themed book. 

While the picture book contains social studies 

topics and themes, the book served as a tool for 

summarizing, not for its social studies content. 

Though connections to life or other disciplines 

may occur, no planned attempt to connect the 

learning standards from multiple curriculums 

exists. Table 2 illustrates how the various 

teachers organizing content in a correlated 

approach address the content skill of bar graphs.  

 

Table 2 

Example of the Correlated Approach 

  
 Social Studies Math Science ELAR  

C
o

rr
el

a
ti

o
n

 –
 t

h
es

e 

ex
p

la
n

a
ti

o
n

s 
a

re
 n

o
t 

co
o

rd
in

a
te

d
 a

n
d

 d
o

 n
o

t 

h
a

p
p

en
 a

t 
th

e 
sa

m
e 

ti
m

e 

in
 t

h
e 

sc
h

o
o

l 
y

ea
r.

 

Social Studies teacher 

teaches students to 

use bar graphs to 

show population of 

states. Social studies 

teacher explains how 

students can use bar 

graphs in math, 

science and reading. 

Math teacher tells 

students that bar graphs 

can be used in math to 

represent numbers of 

items. Math teacher 

tells students bar graphs 

can be used in social 

studies to represent 

populations and 

numbers in science. 

Science teacher tells 

students to use bar 

graphs to show 

numbers of fauna in a 

field collection. 

Science teacher tells 

students bar graphs 

can be used in social 

studies to represent 

populations  

ELAR teacher isn’t 

likely to tell students 

bar graphs can be used 

in social studies to 

represent populations.  

Social studies teacher 

tells students they can 

represent data found in 

literature using bar 

graphs.  

 

 

Table 2 represents an example of bar graph skills 

taught by three of the four teachers. It shows how 

three of the four teachers mention how the topic 

applies in other subjects. However, the ELAR 

teacher, whose curriculum does not focus on bar 

graphs, does not make those connections.  

 

Fusion  

Fusion provides problems to be solved in 

which a variety of disciplinary learning is 

included (Hopkins 1937). As Park and 

Stephenson (1940) wrote, fusion is the 

organization of learning units that do not take 

account of specific subject boundaries. Hopkins 

(1937) and Wesley and Adams (1946) explain 

how this approach looks in social studies, where 

the separate subjects of geography, history, 

civics, economics and others no longer exist, but 

instead included a general course of social 

studies.  

Fusion was particularly popular in the 

elementary social studies classroom in the 1940’s 

(Halvorsen 2013). In her work on the history of 

social studies, Halvorsen (2013) described the 

elementary social studies fusion curriculum as 

“structured around topics, issues, geographic 

areas, or time periods” (78). According to 

Halvorsen (2013), during the 1940’s, aspects of 



 

43 

 

 

separate subjects remained, however fusion 

remained most popular. 

The fusion approach does not apply only 

to the social studies. Fusion applies to courses or 

units of study where multiple disciplines come 

together. For example, this occurs when reading 

teachers focus on a particular genre and cover 

reading, writing, listening and speaking skills in 

the unit. Table 3 shows another example of the 

fusion approach.

  

 

Table 3 

Example of the Fusion Approach  

 
 Social Studies Math Science ELAR  

F
u

si
o

n
 –

 t
ea

ch
er

s 
in

 

o
th

er
 s

u
b

je
c
ts

 a
re

 n
o

t 

in
cl

u
d

e
d

 i
n

 i
n

st
ru

ct
io

n
 Content knowledge is not 

focus – teacher engages 

students in exploration of 

change in population over 

time - social studies 

teacher makes connection 

to knowledge and skills 

from other subjects. 

No participation  

 

SS teacher uses line 

graph knowledge 

taught in math to 

represent change 

over time. 

No Participation 

 

SS teacher has 

students calculate 

change in food 

availability and 

relation to 

population growth. 

No participation 

 

SS teacher has 

students read and 

write reports that 

tell about 

population growth 

and contributors to 

growth. 

 

Table 3 highlights one example of fusion 

where only the social studies teacher connects the 

topic of population change to other content areas. 

The social studies teacher has students explore 

population change in ways that require other 

content area knowledge to make sense of the 

topic. Topics and skills taken from math, science 

and ELAR, (line graphs, food availability, and 

reports) may not comprise the topics and skills 

covered in the math, science and ELAR 

curriculum at that time.  

 

Multidisciplinary  

The multidisciplinary approach brings 

together subjects around a central unit or theme 

(Beane 1997; Harden 2000). While subjects 

come together in multidisciplinary approaches, 

the lens remains focused on the separate subjects. 

According to Gibbons (1979), “if the concepts 

and propositions about the same object were 

allowed to lie side by side without any attempt to 

synthesize, this would be called multidisciplinary 

study; alternatively, in attempting synthesis, one 

is attempting integration” (323). Additionally, 

Harden (2000) points out that “the characteristic 

of multidisciplinary integration is that, whatever 

the nature of the theme, it is viewed through the 

lens of subjects or disciplines” (554).  

Robin Fogarty highlights several 

multidisciplinary approaches within her book 

“How to Integrate the Curricula” (2009). She 

highlights 10 ways of integrating curriculum, 

five of which fall under the multidisciplinary 

organization. These five approaches include 

sequenced, shared, webbed, threaded and 

integrated (Fogarty 2009). Fogarty provides 

practical descriptions utilizing graphics and 

diagrams to represent the approaches. The 

multidisciplinary approach differs from fusion in 

that fusion makes a new topic based on the 

integrative parts, while the multidisciplinary 

approach brings integrative parts together but 

still identifies them as separate. The 

representation shown in Table 4 provides an 

example of the multidisciplinary approach as 

applied to state populations.  

In practice, multidisciplinary curriculum 

takes on a variety of formats. For example, in a 

self-contained elementary classroom, it is 

popular for teachers to organize curriculum into 



 

44 

 

 

thematic units. A first-grade class might study 

weather as a unit. This allows the teacher to cover 

science and social studies concepts regarding 

weather patterns and how they affect the 

environment. This weather unit also provides 

opportunities to expose students to a variety of 

texts involving weather and how humans interact 

with weather.

  

 

Table 4 

Example of the Multidisciplinary Approach  

  
 Social Studies Math Science ELAR  

M
u

lt
id

is
ci

p
li

n
a

ry
 -

 

th
es

e 
ex

p
la

n
a

ti
o

n
s 

a
re

 c
o

o
rd

in
a

te
d

 

a
n

d
 h

a
p

p
en

 a
t 

th
e 

sa
m

e 
ti

m
e 

in
 t

h
e 

sc
h

o
o

l 
y

ea
r.

 

Teacher teaches 

students to use bar 

graphs to show 

population of states.   

Math teacher 

teaches students 

about how to 

construct and 

analyze bar graphs 

as a way of 

representing data.   

Science teacher 

teaches students to 

represent data from 

experiments in bar 

graphs.  

ELAR teacher 

teaches students to 

analyze text features 

from expository 

texts which include 

a variety of graphs 

and charts including 

bar graphs. 

 

In Table 4, notice that each teacher 

provides opportunities for students to apply 

knowledge and skills around the topic of bar 

graphs. The teachers collaborate to ensure that 

they each apply the focus topic or skill at the 

same time.  

 

Broad Fields  

Broad fields curriculum is made up of 

several large fields of study (Hopkins & Hammer 

1937). The social studies form a broad field 

because it is made up of the fields of government, 

civics, cultural studies, geography, history and 

economics. The broad fields curriculum is 

present in the elementary schools, with general 

subjects such as social studies, language arts, 

science and math (Hopkins & Hammer 1937). In 

fact, all subject areas listed previously fall under 

the broad fields classification as they pull 

together numerous aspects of a discipline to 

make up the curriculum.  

Hopkins and Hammer (1937) describe 

how broad fields approaches vary depending on 

the philosophy guiding the curriculum, either the 

experience curriculum or the subject philosophy. 

In experience guided broad field curriculum, 

specific situations avoid the meticulous planning 

as seen in the subject guided curriculum 

(Hopkins & Hammer 1937). The learning is also 

much more restrictive in the subject guided broad 

fields curriculum approach, although much less 

so than the traditional separate subject approach 

(Hopkins & Hammer 1937). The term “broad” 

fits this method well, as it encompasses a broad 

range subjects and applicability.  

While similar to fusion, the broad fields 

approach is different because it focuses on 

integrating knowledge across an entire 

disciplinary field, where fusion is focused on 

bringing together a few disciplines to create a 

new course or curriculum. The organization of 

elementary content area standards in Texas is an 

example of the broad fields method. For 

example, in all elementary math classes, the 

content area standards include specific learning 

expectations in numbers and operations, 

algebraic reasoning, geometry and measurement, 

data analysis, personal financial literacy and 

problem solving. As students’ progress through 

their educational careers, each of these areas 

become more and more specialized with their 

own courses and curriculum.

  



 

45 

 

 

Table 5 

Example of the Broad Fields Approach  

 
 Social Studies Math Science ELAR  

     

B
ro

a
d

 F
ie

ld
s 
–

 t
h

es
e 

ex
p

la
n

a
ti

o
n

s 
a

re
 n

o
t 

co
o

rd
in

a
te

d
 a

n
d

 d
o

 n
o

t 

h
a

p
p

en
 a

t 
th

e 
sa

m
e 

ti
m

e 
in

 t
h

e 
sc

h
o

o
l 

y
ea

r.
 Modern history 

course which brings 

together history, 

civics, culture, 

government, 

economics and 

geography but 

applied to 20th 

century. 

Precalculus course 

where students apply 

concepts and connect 

ideas in geometry, 

probability, statistics, 

trigonometry, and 

calculus to model 

physical situations. 

 

Integrated Physics 

and Chemistry 

(IPC) course that 

brings together 

knowledge of both 

physics and 

chemistry and how 

they work together.  

Teacher teaches a 

unit on expository 

text where 

students reading, 

listen to, speak 

about and write 

expository texts.  

 

Table 5 illustrates how the broad fields approach 

emphasizes building connections within the 

discipline. A new course of study or unit forms 

around a disciplinary field, pulling together 

several specific areas. The new course of study 

or unit includes its own specific goals and, 

because there exist connections with other 

disciplines, those goals are included.  

  

Interdisciplinary  

Interdisciplinary refers to the type of 

curriculum that occurs when disciplines or sub-

disciplines come together around a common 

theme. This occurs by bringing together different 

disciplines, such a math and science to study 

measurement. Jacobs (1989) describes 

interdisciplinary as “a knowledge view and 

curriculum approach that consciously applies 

methodology and language from more than one 

discipline to examine a central theme, issue, 

problem, topic or experience” (8). However, 

Jacobs (1989) argues against the use of 

interdisciplinary methods for the sake of using 

them. Like any other instructional method, 

interdisciplinary methods are best utilized when 

the unit of study and expectations for student 

learning are the central focus.  

While interdisciplinary curriculum 

sounds similar to multidisciplinary curriculum, 

the two differ. Interdisciplinary curriculum pays 

“no reference to individual disciplines or 

subjects, and subjects are not identified as much 

in the timetable” (Harden 2000, 555). Instead of 

focusing on the separate subjects, emphasis rests 

on the themes of study and the commonalities 

shared among the disciplines as they relate to the 

theme of study (Harden 2000). In “How to 

Integrate the Curricula” (2009) Fogarty 

highlights three approaches within the 

interdisciplinary approach. These include 

cellular, connected and nested (Fogarty 2009). 

By focusing on the theme of study, separate 

subjects become secondary, brought in based on 

needs, and allow for in depth analysis. While 

organized around real-world questions in a way 

that removes content area segmentation, 

interdisciplinary curriculum strives to meet 

specific curriculum goals.  

In practice, interdisciplinary curriculum 

takes a variety of forms. For example, an 

elementary class that completes a project-based 

learning unit around recycling, allows students to 

apply science and social studies concepts such as 

natural resources and conservation. Student 

activities include creating recycling plans for 

their school, inclusion of media and financial 

literacy topics to determine how to raise money 

and buy materials for their recycling goal serve 

as a few examples. Table 6 provides a picture of 

the interdisciplinary approach as it applies to 

conservation.  

 



 

46 

 

 

 

Table 6 

Example of the Interdisciplinary Approach  

 
 Social Studies Math Science ELAR  

     

In
te

rd
is

c
ip

li
n

a
ry

 -
 

th
es

e 
ex

p
la

n
a

ti
o

n
s 

a
re

 c
o

o
rd

in
a

te
d

 

a
n

d
 h

a
p

p
en

 a
t 

th
e 

sa
m

e 
ti

m
e 

in
 t

h
e 

sc
h

o
o

l 
y

ea
r.

 

Teacher teaches unit 

on conservation and 

students solve 

conservation 

problems using 

social studies 

knowledge and 

skills.   

Teacher teaches unit 

on conservation and 

students solve 

conservation 

problems using 

math knowledge 

and skills.   

Teacher teaches unit 

on conservation and 

students solve 

conservation 

problems using 

science knowledge 

and skills.   

Teacher teaches unit 

on conservation and 

students solve 

conservation 

problems using 

ELAR knowledge 

and skills.   

  

Table 6 also highlights how the 

interdisciplinary approach primary focus on the 

topic or theme, applied within a variety of 

content areas. Each of the content areas cover the 

topic or theme at the same time, whether by one 

or multiple teachers.  

 

Transdisciplinary  

Transdisciplinary integration, 

“transcends the individual disciplines” with a 

focus “not a theme or topic selected for this 

purpose, but the field of knowledge as 

exemplified in the real world” (Harden 2000, 

555). The idea of transdisciplinary integration 

stems from the work of Alfred North Whitehead 

(1929) and his push for education based on life 

experiences rather than separate subjects. The 

transdisciplinary approach allows for life 

problems to become areas of study within the 

classroom.  

The transdisciplinary approach answers 

real life problems and brings relevance to student 

learning. The transdisciplinary approach is 

predominantly built around student raised 

concerns or questions (Drake & Burns 2004; 

Beane 1997). Transdisciplinary curriculum also 

includes negotiation, where teachers and students 

negotiate the curriculum, teaching methods and 

assessments based on their own interests and 

questions (Drake & Burns 2004). As with all 

other approaches, a variety of applications exists 

when putting the approach into practice. Fogarty, 

in How to Integrate the Curricula (2009) 

provides two approaches to integration utilizing 

the transdisciplinary approach, immersed and 

networked. With the transdisciplinary approach, 

students play a vital role in both the material 

taught and how they learn it.  

With the transdisciplinary approach, 

teachers include concepts as they apply to the 

questions raised and the negotiated curriculum. 

For example, a second-grade class poses a 

question ‘How do we want to help our world?’ 

The class works together to determine how to 

help people meet their basic needs. Content area 

instruction emerges as students plan projects that 

answer the posed question. Specialized content 

instruction is given to each student or group. 

Therefore, the teacher works with students and 

groups individually to ensure project success. 

Table 7 displays another example of the 

transdisciplinary approach. Table 7 shows how 

knowledge from each discipline forms around 

the relevance of the topic as well as individual 

student needs. After posing a question, the 

students work to answer the question, applying 

knowledge and skills as needed.  

 

 



 

47 

 

 

Table 7 

Example of the Transdisciplinary Approach  

  
 Social Studies Math Science ELAR  

T
ra

n
sd

is
ci

p
li

n
a

ry
 –

 

n
o

 s
ep

a
ra

ti
o

n
 o

f 

co
n

te
n

t 
a

re
a

s 
o

r 

in
st

ru
ct

io
n

a
l 

ti
m

e
 

The teacher and students generated a question to study: “How can human behavior change 

the environment?” The students worked in groups to determine answer this question and 

design a project that displays their findings. One team wanted to represent numerical data 

and the teacher worked with the students on displaying data in a variety of ways, including 

bar graphs  

 

 

 

While not all the groups needed to know 

about displaying data, the students that did were 

able to gain the necessary skills to display their 

findings.   

The previous sections included 

explanations of seven different models of 

organizing content. For each, the examples 

provided show how a similar content topic, bar 

graphs, appear in the disciplinary teachers’ 

instructional activities. The last two approaches, 

interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary, include 

the goal of integrating knowledge within the 

students. The interdisciplinary approach adheres 

to disciplinary areas but integrates the learning, 

thereby ensuring all content is covered. The 

transdisciplinary approach ignores specified 

content areas and focuses on issues important to 

the learner, incorporating only the disciplinary 

knowledge needed to address the questions.  

 

The Disciplinary Scale 

The Disciplinary Scale was created as a 

way to provide information about the major types 

of curriculum organization approaches. Due to 

the organization of schools around subject 

disciplines, as well as the major curriculum goals 

students need to achieve in separate subjects, 

most school environments cannot utilize a 100% 

integrated approach. When determining what 

curriculum approach to utilize, it is essential to 

understand how the approach is structured. The 

Disciplinary Scale acts as a crosswalk that 

provides information to aid in understanding the 

variety of organizational approaches to subject 

area learning. Figure 1 includes a list of each 

category within the Disciplinary Scale.  

 

 

 
Figure 1 Disciplinary Scale Categories 

 

Justification for Disciplinary Scale 

The first category, Disciplinary 

Knowledge indicates a primary emphasis on 

disciplinary knowledge and skills. This category 

involves teaching subject areas independent of 

other subjects with no emphasis on connecting 

learning together. Approaches primarily focused 

on Disciplinary Knowledge tend to be teacher, 

fact and benchmark driven. The second category 

on the scale is Connections within the Discipline. 

These approaches focus on curriculum goals and 

objectives while also building connections within 

the disciplinary field of study. For example, in a 

geometry lesson, links to other math disciplines, 

such as algebra or trigonometry, may exist.  

Connections across Disciplines is the 

third category, indicating an approach is focused 

on building connections across disciplines. 

• Disciplinary Knowledge

• Connections within the Disciplines 

• Connections across Disciplines 

• Real World Problems 

• Separate Instructional Time 



 

48 

 

 

Connections are made across disciplines and 

include subjects a teacher teaches, previously 

learned content from former grades or units, or 

future learning at upcoming grades or units. 

When utilizing an approach that makes 

Connections across Disciplines, it is critical the 

teacher has knowledge of curriculum goals and 

objectives in other content area.  

Real World Problems is the fourth 

category on the scale, indicating an approach 

focused on real world problems and issues. This 

includes building connections to real world 

situations, solving real world problems, and 

allowing student input in the learning process. 

The last category on the scale, Separate 

Instructional Time, indicates how teachers 

organizes the learning experiences for students. 

Some approaches keep the school day organized 

around traditional content areas while other 

approaches organize the day around problems or 

projects, making the separate subject topics less 

identifiable.  

 

Analysis of Curriculum Organization 

Approaches 

While many organizational and 

disciplinary approaches to curriculum exist, the 

most popular approaches in the 20th century 

include correlation, fusion, multidisciplinary, 

broad fields, interdisciplinary, and 

transdisciplinary. These approaches vary in how 

they view disciplinary knowledge. Figure 2 

illustrates the continuum of curriculum 

organization approaches.

  

 

Figure 2 Continuum of Curriculum Organization Approaches  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Each approach represents a unique view 

on how discipline knowledge organization. 

While each approach did not intend to integrate 

student knowledge, each approach did intend to 

bring disciplinary knowledge together in a 

unique way. In the following section, I describe 

each of the organizational approaches, and 

analyze each approach based on the categories 

outlined in the Disciplinary Scale, described 

above. See Table 8 for the complete analysis of 

all approaches. As district administrations urge 

campus administrators and teachers to utilize 

curriculum integration in their elementary 

classrooms, these descriptions and the 

Disciplinary Scale helps them determine the best 

approach for their environment. The Disciplinary 

Scale also helps administrators and teachers 

understand connections between theories and 

practices that differentiate these approaches. 

Table 8 shows an example of how a teacher 

following the correlation model emphasizes 

disciplinary knowledge and separate 

instructional time for the subject. On occasion, 

when appropriate, teachers utilizing correlation 

make connections within the discipline or across 

disciplines. With correlation, there is no 

emphasis on relating discipline to real world 

problems or questions.

 

Separate 

Subjects 

Correlation 

Fusion 

Multidisciplinary 

Broad 

Fields 

Interdisciplinary 

Transdisciplinary 



 

49 

 

 

Table 8  

Analysis of Curriculum Organization Approaches using the Disciplinary Scale 

  

 
Disciplinary 

Knowledge 

Connection 

within the 

Discipline 

Connection 

across 

Disciplines 

Real 

World 

Problems 

Separate 

Instructional 

Time  

Single subject + - - - + 

Correlation  + 0 0 - + 

Fusion + 0 - - + 

Multidisciplinary  + 0 0 0 + 

Broad Fields  + + - 0 + 

Interdisciplinary 0 + + 0 - 

Transdisciplinary  0 0 0 + - 

      

Key       

+ = Primary Focus      

0 = There when Needed      

- = Totally Ignored      

 

 Notice disciplinary knowledge is the 

primary focus for most of the approaches shown 

in Table 1. Only the interdisciplinary approach 

maintains the primary focus of building 

connections within and across disciplines. None 

of the approaches focus on both disciplinary 

knowledge and answering real world questions. 

The approaches that separate instructional time 

make it difficult to connect across disciplines, 

either from a lack of teachers’ content area 

knowledge or a lack of opportunities to 

collaborate. When utilizing approaches such as 

correlation or multidisciplinary approaches, 

opportunities to collaborate with other content 

area experts, to form authentic connections, are 

essential. 

 

Conclusions 

While bringing subject areas together 

seems like the best way for elementary teachers 

to include social studies in their classroom, while 

simultaneously meeting the demands of testing 

and accountability; the truth is, little knowledge 

exists related to the effects of integration on 

student learning. Though the term integration is 

used in elementary schools when joining subjects 

like social studies and reading, little support or 

professional development occurs on the types of 

integration. We know that young students must 

understand specific disciplinary knowledge and 

skills, yet how it relates to the world outside of 

schools is also of importance. We need to 

approach integration as one method to meet the 

needs of students. At the present time, integration 

is primarily seen as an organizational method that 

merely provides an accidental way to include 

content areas, such as social studies, when there 

is not enough time, support or knowledge to 

teach them adequately. Within each of the 

approaches discussed, correlation, fusion, 

multidisciplinary, broad fields, interdisciplinary 

and transdisciplinary, there exist more specific 

models and explanations for implementation 

within the classroom. The Disciplinary Scale 

allows teachers and administrators access to 

integration by serving as an instructional tool, a 

tool to help determine which approach best meets 

their curriculum needs and school environment. 

 

 



 

50 

 

 

References 

 

Alberty, H. 1938. Development of core 

curriculums. Educational Research Bulletin, 

17, no.8: 222–230. 

Beane, J. A. 1995. Curriculum integration and 

the disciplines of knowledge. Phi Delta 

Kappan, 76, no. 8: 616–622. 

https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203817568.ch2

0 

Beane, J. A. 1997. Curriculum integration: 

Designing the core of democratic education. 

New York, NY: Teachers College Press. 

Crowell, S. 1989. A new way of thinking: The 

challenge of the future. Educational 

Leadership, 7, no. 1: 60–63. 

Dewey, J. 1916. Democracy and education: An 

introduction to the philosophy of education. 

New York, NY: Macmillan 

Dewey, J. 1938. Experience and education. New 

York, NY: MacMillan. 

Drake, S. M. 1998. Creating integrated 

curriculum: Proven ways to increase student 

learning. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. 

Drake, S. M., and Burns, R. C. 2004. Meeting 

standards through integrated curriculum. 

Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision 

and Curriculum Development. 

Evans, R. W. 2004. The social studies wars: 

What should we teach the children? New 

York, NY: Teachers College Press. 

Fogarty, R. 2009. How to integrate the curricula. 

Corwin Press 

Gibbons, J. A. 1979. Curriculum integration. 

Curriculum Inquiry, 9, no. 4: 321–332. 

Gutek, G. 1995. A history of the western 

educational experience. Prospect Heights, 

IL: Waveland Press, Inc. 

Halvorsen, A. L. 2013. A history of elementary 

social studies: Romance and reality. New 

York, NY: Peter Lang. 

Harden, R. M. 2000. The integration ladder: A 

tool for curriculum planning and evaluation. 

Medical Education, 34, no. 7: 551–557. 

https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-

2923.2000.00697.x 

Hopkins, L. T. 1937. Integration: Its meaning 

and application. New York, NY: D. 

Appleton-Century 

Hopkins, L.T., and Hammer, I. A. 1937. The 

broad fields curriculum. In Integration: It’s 

meaning and application, edited by L.T. 

Hopkins, 210-233. D. Appleton-Century 

Ingram, J. B. 1979. Curriculum integration and 

lifelong education: A contribution to the 

improvement of school curricula. New York, 

NY: Pergamon Press Inc. 

Jacobs, H. H. 1989. Interdisciplinary 

curriculum: Design and implementation. 

Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision 

and Curriculum Development. 

Maestro, B. 1996. Coming to America: The story 

of immigration. New York: Scholastic Press. 

McMurry, F.M. 1927. Some recollections of the 

past forty years of education. Peabody 

Journal of Education, 4, no. 6: 325-332.  

National Council for the Social Studies. 1994. 

Expectations of excellence: Curriculum 

standards for social studies. National 

Council for the Social Studies. 

National Education Agency. 1895. Report of the 

committee of fifteen. Boston, MA: The New 

England Publishing Company.  

Park, J., and Stephenson, O. W. 1940. Clarifying 

social studies terms. Social Education, 4: 

311–316. 

Piaget, J. (1972). The epistemology of 

interdisciplinary relationships. In 

Interdisciplinarity: Problems of Teaching 

and Research in Universities, edited by L. 

Apostel, et. al., 127–139. Organization for 

Economic Co-operation and Development. 

Tanner, D., and Tanner, L. 1995. Curriculum 

development: Theory into practice. Prentice 

Hall. 

Ward, J. M., Suttle, J. E., and Otto, H. J. 1960. 

The Curriculum integration concept applied 

in the elementary school. Austin, TX: The 

University of Texas Press. 

https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2923.2000.00697.x
https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2923.2000.00697.x


 

51 

 

 

Wesley, E. B., and Adams, M. A. 1946. Teaching 

social studies in elementary schools. Boston, 

MA: D. C. Heath and Company. 

Whitehead, A. N. 1929. The aims of education 

and other essays. New York, NY: 

Macmillan. 

Wraga, W. 2009. Toward a connected core 

curriculum. Educational Horizons, 87, no. 2; 

88-96.  


