The document discusses curriculum integration (CI) in middle school education. It provides context on the history of CI, including that the concept first gained popularity in the early 20th century but was later discarded in favor of more traditional methods. The document defines CI according to the National Middle School Association as organizing curriculum around significant problems and issues without regard for subject area lines. It then discusses advocates of CI and research that shows potential benefits for student engagement and achievement when incorporating CI into middle school curriculum.

1. Fiona B. Griswold
CI 410
August 1, 2010
Curriculum Integration in Middle School Education
Curriculum integration (CI) is not a new idea. In fact, the concept first came into
popularity and practice in the first half of the 20th century, but was soon discarded in favor of
more “traditional” methods of instruction and curriculum development. The curriculum
development model, though, is being explored once again as a better curriculum model for U.S.
schools, particularly middle schools. While it is unlikely that the curriculum integration model
will become the predominant model for curriculum development and instruction in the U.S., the
core ideas of this model, in whatever way they might be incorporated into middle school
teaching, hold the promise of improved student engagement and achievement in the future. This
paper seeks to provide one option of how CI might be incorporated into the future middle school
curriculum.
What is Curriculum Integration?
Giving a definition of CI is not as simple as it might appear on the surface. One reason
for this is that the terms “curriculum integration” or “integrated curriculum” tend to be used by a
number of different individuals and groups to mean a range of approaches to curriculum
development and teaching at various levels, including higher education. Despite these varying
definitions, there are a few common elements that can be found in most of them. In the most
basic description of the curriculum integration model, curriculum is conceptualized as being
organized around a specific topic, theme or problem, the investigation or exploration of which is
guided by a number of “essential questions” drawing from a number of subject or discipline
areas. However, it might be argued that if the definition stops there, the CI model doesn‟t look
that different from an interdisciplinary approach to curriculum development. Since the focus of
this paper is the CI model in the middle school, the appropriate definition of CI would be that
which is promoted by CI advocates and reflected in the September 2002 National Middle School
Association (NMSA) Position Statement on Curriculum Integration:
Curriculum integration is a curriculum design that promotes personal and social
integration through the organization of curriculum around significant problems and
issues, collaboratively identified by educators and young people, without regard for
subject area lines. (Brown & Knowles, 2007 p. 131)

2. The key areas in which this definition differs from and extends beyond the basic one is that there
is a specific focus on the transformative possibilities of CI. The form of CI which is embraced by
the NMSA and other middle school reformers (and is probably most true to that proposed in the
1920s and 30s) emphasizes the social outcomes of CI. By promoting “personal and social
integration” and focusing on “significant problems and issues, collaboratively identified by
educators and young people” [my emphasis] this CI model makes teaching and learning a
democratic process where the decision-making is shared equally by both teacher and student.
Further, the curriculum is intended to focus on what matters to students and to go beyond
academic learning to personal and social growth and integration at a time when students are
beginning the transition to adulthood and acquiring the values and knowledge that will help them
find their place in society.
Brief (and Simplified) History of Curriculum Integration
In Chapter 2 of his book on CI, James Beane (1997), provides a summary of from where
(and from whom) the present-day notion of CI is derived, or as he eloquently puts it “[we] stand
on the shoulders of giants” (p. 20). The following very simplified and somewhat brief look at the
ideas and movements that gave us our current notions about CI have been largely derived and
restated from pages 19-37 of this work.
As stated in the previous section, the idea of CI extends back to the early part of the 20th
century. With the start of the industrial revolution in the U.S., people also began to question the
common mode of education, which, until around 1890 had been largely “a combination of the
high-culture subjects associated with classical humanism and… mental discipline” (Beane, 1997,
p. 20). The industrial revolution caused a questioning of whether this sort of education would
meet the modern needs of the age and led to a number of reform movements. The first of these
was geared towards preparing individuals for their future role in society and differentiated
instruction so that young men were prepared for a life of manual labor, management tasks or a
profession (such as medicine or the law) while young women were provided instruction in
domestic matters as well as a basic education that would include literacy, basic math and so on.
Not surprisingly, this type of curriculum not only met labor needs but also helped to reinforce the
class and race distinctions of the day. Another movement developed out of a new interest by
Griswold 2 Curriculum Integration

3. notables like Rousseau and G. Stanley Hall in children as individual beings, separate and
different from adults who required a special curriculum geared toward their interests, a “child-
centered” curriculum. A third reform movement was concerned about education as a social force
that could be used to promote democracy and remedy some of the inequalities in wealth and
class that were becoming more pronounced with the second wave of immigration in the last half
of the 19th century and U.S. transformation from a more agrarian society to an industrial one. In
this reform, curriculum was designed to use social problems as learning opportunities and to
encourage more involvement between school and community. Though all three of these
movements came to see CI as a means to their ends, it is largely these last two movements, as
well as the work of John Dewey and, later, the contributions of William Kilpatrick, Meredith
Smith and L. Thomas Hopkins that came to form what we view as CI today.
The educational writings of John Dewey published between 1900 and 1930, and his work
at the University of Chicago Laboratory School, are fundamental to much current educational
thought, particularly its social aspects and effects. Dewey‟s contributions toward the model of CI
being promoted for use in the middle school came from both his ideas of education as key to a
fully-formed democracy and in his idea that classroom instruction is most effective when it is
experiential and interactive and when students play an active role in shaping their own learning.
Many models of teaching that are related to CI, such as inquiry-based learning, hands-on
learning or project-based learning, owe much of their theories to Dewey‟s work.
Another important figure in the creation of the CI model is a teacher named Meredith
Smith. Informed by Dewey‟s theories about the importance of children‟s interactions with their
environment (i.e., their school, the larger community and society as a whole) in the learning
process, Smith decided to test these ideas. In her experiment, she had a group of first-grade
students begin a community project in which they built themselves small houses which were
grouped together and small dolls were given to the children to represent the residents of their
“pretend community.” What Smith observed was that the children, without prompting from
teachers or other adults, proceeded to create all the other structures, roles and responsibilities that
would be required of a real-life, functional community. In addition, their interactions, over the 5-
year span of the experiment, became more sophisticated and they began to tackle complex social
and economic issues. Smith concluded from this experiment that the children had, on their own,
had more effectively learned about the needs of a community and the concept of democracy and
Griswold 3 Curriculum Integration

4. that the children were not only willing participants in their learning, but that they were actively
seeking more information and knowledge. Smith‟s ultimate conclusion about education based on
her observations was that the traditional form of instruction, in which students were largely
passive recipients of knowledge, was inadequate. Instead, children should be given the
opportunity to engage with an act upon their environments, developing skills (such as math and
literacy) and gaining knowledge as they became increasingly informed about their roles in and
relationships with others in their society.
Following on the publication of Smith‟s doctoral dissertation, Education and the
Integration of Behavior in 1927, the term “integration” came into common usage when referring
to the ways that education was meant to serve both the needs of the individual as well as those of
the individual in society. In the 1930s, one of the most important theorists of the integration
movement was L. Thomas Hopkins from Teachers College, Columbia University. In his
writings, Hopkins consistently promoted integration as involving both the personal and social
and insisted that curriculum must be problem- and experience-centered created through a
collaboration between teachers and students. Hopkins also criticized others in the education field
for misusing the term “integration” when their projects were really multi-disciplinary in nature
and more concerned with acquisition of subject-matter knowledge.
The 1940s saw the publication of the results of the Eight Year Study which had been
conducted by the Progressive Education Association. This study compared the social and
academic success of graduates of non-traditional high schools that followed some sort of
integrative curriculum model (in that they shied away from the traditional separate-subject means
of instruction) with graduates from traditional subject-focused high schools. The graduates of
non-traditional high schools did better than the traditional students in all measures, and graduates
of the six schools that were most like the integrated curriculum model performed best on all the
measures. The results of the Eight Year Study had an impact in the curricula used at both
elementary and secondary schools in the 1940s, but the most obvious influence of the study can
be seen in the development of “core” programs for teaching general education requirements in
middle and high schools. In its most progressive form, the “core” curriculum was to be
collaboratively planned, problem-based and free from subject matter distinctions, and “core”
scheduling consisted of large blocks of time and, sometimes, multiple years of teachers and
Griswold 4 Curriculum Integration

5. students working within the same group (as opposed to the traditional annual move from one
classroom and teacher to another).
Unfortunately, the fairly widespread adoption of the “core” curriculum along with other
progressive education movements were not destined to last. With the launch of the Sputnik
rocket by the USSR in 1954 and the fear of Communism and the Cold War, progressive
education movements were linked to communism and a threat against the U.S. by conservatives
trying to preserve the status quo and protect traditional institutions and systems within U.S.
society. For much of the 1950s through the early 1980s there was the occasional publication
discussing CI, but very little implementation of the practice in schools. Then, most recently,
beginning in the late 1980s and early 90s, the term “curriculum integration” once again appeared
in writings about early childhood education, whole-language elementary instruction, gifted
programs and outcomes-based instruction. Also, research from the 1980s and 90s on how the
brain organizes information leant support to organizing curriculum around central themes and
learning theorists reported that knowledge is more likely to be retained if it is presented in the
context of previous experience and as whole ideas rather than isolated pieces of information.
The resurgence of interest in CI is subject to some of the same problems that were faced
in the past. In particular, Hopkins complaint about the mislabeling of any sort of
multidisciplinary curriculum model as “integrative” continues to be an issue today, as evidenced
by the range of definitions and models that can be found in current literature on curriculum. One
interesting difference, identified by Beane (1997), between discussions of CI from 75 years ago
and current (as of the late 1990s) discussions is the link between CI and a bigger social agenda.
Most often, articles about CI are focused on the individual and not on the true integration of
individual learning with that of society. In some ways, the lack of the social (or some may say,
“progressive”) aspect of CI has likely made the appeal of the model more palatable to
conservative interests. However, a quick review of some of the more recent publications about
CI shows that the social, progressive benefits of CI are again receiving attention, resulting in
criticisms from conservatives that are nervous about the “social agenda” of CI proponents (see
1996 opinion piece in Education Digest by Paul George).
Griswold 5 Curriculum Integration

6. Why Curriculum Integration?
Implementing the CI model in the nation‟s middle schools would require an enormous
reorganization of the way these schools currently function as well a major shift in thinking about
the way curriculum is developed and implemented, instructional methods, classroom
organization and the role of students in determining their own curriculum. Given the extreme
change that would need to happen before CI could be implemented, then why do some
individuals or organizations advocate so strongly for this model? A simplistic answer would be,
“because it works” or “because the interactions and learning observed in students immersed in
this sort of curriculum model are so compelling and inspiring,” These responses would be true,
but are not sufficient to convert the skeptic or to explain to a veteran teacher why you would like
them to completely retool their curriculum and way of teaching. In fact, this sort of simplistic
answer may be one of the reason why CI frequently comes under scrutiny or criticism. While it is
true that there are studies (which we will examine later) that show that students from schools that
use the CI model frequently do better on standard measures of academic and social achievement,
much of the most compelling evidence of the advantages of CI comes from first-person
narratives by teachers and students that have experienced this curriculum model or from outside
observers who have had the opportunity to witness the benefits of such a program. In addition,
some of the research that is offered to support the assertion that CI is the best model for the
middle school is not able to show that CI is the sole or major causal factor in the high levels of
achievement.
The major reason put forth by CI advocates as to why the CI model is the most
appropriate one for middle school is that it meets all the essential attributes of an effective
middle school as detailed by NMSA. The CI model is developmentally appropriate in meeting
the young adolescent‟s desire to explore and learn about themselves and the world around them.
It‟s challenging because it meets students‟ instructional needs on every level--students who are
ahead of grade level have the ability to take their inquiry and learning to the next level while
students who may be struggling are able to contribute their particular strengths and to be
challenged by the higher achieving students with whom they are collaborating. The CI model is
empowering because it includes students in all aspects of the decision-making process and is
designed to focus on their interests and questions about their world. Finally, it‟s equitable
because everyone participates, every student has access to the same instruction and the same
Griswold 6 Curriculum Integration

7. products of learning and nobody is tracked or labeled as “high” or “low” achievers. Those who
have participated in CI as teachers or learners report greater motivation and engagement (by
teachers and students), a better understanding of the ideals of democracy, the ability to think
critically, increased intellectual curiosity and, the gold standard in the era of No Child Left
Behind (NCLB), improved scores on achievement tests.
What the Research Says
Despite some deficiencies in the supportive research about CI implementation, there
exists some compelling research to bolster its use in the middle school environment. Though it
was difficult to find current, original studies, one of the more interesting and useful resources
was a meta-analysis found in the unpublished doctoral dissertation of Deborah Hartzler (2000) of
thirty studies on the effects of integrated curriculum programs on student achievement. This
dissertation is useful for several reasons. First, it confirms the difficulty that a researcher faces in
determining a suitable definition for CI on which to base research. For her meta-analysis,
Hartzler (2000) first had to arrive at a definition for integrated curriculum, then identify studies
of programs that conformed to this definition. After an examination of a number of historical
definitions of CI and a presentation of the various models for CI (many of which would not
satisfy Beane‟s definition as they did not include student collaboration or emphasize both
personal and social integration), Hartzler was left with the following, “In general, all the
definitions involve a curriculum design that combines the skills and/or content from the
disciplines that have traditionally been taught separately.” (p. 40) Using this definition of CI and
several other factors, such as the use of a control group, thirty studies were included in the final
analysis. After a statistical analysis of the results of the included studies, Hartzler (2000) reached
the following conclusions: 1) programs using a CI model were effective in raising academic
achievement, 2) they were most effective when science and language arts were combined with
other subject areas, 3) students from the “middle class” and those who were achieving below
grade level at the start of the integration showed the greatest gains, and 4) students participating
in integrated programs showed significant gains in standardized test scores (p. 153). In addition,
the analysis showed that “none of the categories assessed resulted in negative effect sizes… the
overall outcomes were positive. Regardless of the type of program, the grade levels involved, the
Griswold 7 Curriculum Integration

8. training and support provided, or the assessment instruments used, integrated programs have
consistently demonstrated that these programs work” (p. 156).
The “classic” study that supported the effectiveness of CI is, of course, the Eight-Year
Study, the results of which were published in 1942 in a five-volume collection titled, Adventure
in American Education. The first volume of this publication, The Story of the Eight-Year Study,
has recently been republished online by staff and students from the University of Maine,
Farmington, with support from the Maine Association for Middle-Level Learning. According to
the introduction to the Web project, the Eight-Year Study (1942), which followed the graduates
of thirty experimental high schools during the 1930s is “considered by many educational
researchers to be one of the best program evaluation studies ever conducted.” (Project
Introduction section, para. 1) As mentioned earlier in this paper, this study is of particular
importance to the CI movement because the results showed that “the traditional separate-subject
approach appeared to be the least effective for preparing students, even for things that we‟d
always assumed it was best for” (Eight Year Study, Project Introduction section, para. 1).
Furthermore, the schools that were most effective employed a CI model for organizing
curriculum, which, at that time, was called “Core Curriculum.” Though researchers found only
modest increases in academic achievement in the experimental high school graduates, they found
that these students made much greater gains in other areas and did as well as or better at college
than there traditional high school counterparts. From the thirty participating schools themselves
came the conclusions that current, lifeless subject matter should be replaced by content that is
“alive and pertinent to the problems of youth and modern civilization.” In fact, much of what
was concluded by the authors of the Eight-Year Study about the role of the school vis-à-vis the
academic, social and wellness needs of the student has found its way into the current NMSA
vision for the middle school, This We Believe.
There have been some other, more recent studies that touch on the effectiveness of the
CI model in middle or other schools, but the difficulty with interpreting these results is that,
usually, CI is just one aspect being examine in a larger context that may include other middle
school curricular reforms such as teaming, small-group instruction and authentic instruction and
assessment. In addition the form of CI being examined in many of these studies often does not
meet the standard of the definition put forth by Beane (1997), and repeated by Brown and
Knowles (2007) and the NMSA. One such article, “Middle School Practices Improve Student
Griswold 8 Curriculum Integration

9. Achievement in High Poverty Schools,” authored by Steven B. Mertens and Nancy Flowers
(2003) looked at data from the School Improvement Self-Study collected from 121 middle
schools in Arkansas, Louisiana and Mississippi during the 1998-99 and 2000-01 academic years.
In analyzing the data, the authors looked at practices related to CI, such as “curriculum
coordination and integration,” which was defined as “team members work together to coordinate
learning activities and integrate curriculum” (p. 35); but this was just one of many team and
classroom practices included in this study. Some of the authors‟ conclusions about CI as a result
of their analysis are 1) “schools with 60% or more students from low-income families also have
the highest levels of curriculum coordination and integration practices [author‟s emphasis] as
compared to schools serving more affluent populations” (p. 39); 2) the highest level of
association between team and classroom practice was found to be that of team “curriculum
coordination & integration” and classroom “integration and interdisciplinary practices,” (p. 37).
In other words, as the amount of time or frequency the teaching team meets to plan and
coordinate curriculum, the more integrated or interdisciplinary content is delivered in the
classroom. However, when the authors performed an analysis of how the study factors affect
achievement, particularly in low-income schools, the results were not so positive. Achievement
scores from low-poverty schools far exceeded those of high-poverty ones, though, schools in the
high-poverty group that had the most time spent in teaming practices, such as curriculum
coordination and integration, had the highest reading scores (Mertens & Flowers, 2003, p. 41).
However, a weakness of this study, at least in terms of its relation to implementation of the CI
model put forth by the NMSA, is that the author‟s definition of integration does not meet the
collaborative planning condition and there is no way of knowing what sort of integration,
specifically, was occurring at any of the study‟s schools.
Barriers and Opposition to Curriculum Integration
Thus far, this paper has focused primarily on the positive aspects and benefits of the CI
model and the support it has received from various associations, research bodies and educators.
Despite a good amount of support and documented benefits, however, the CI model is not a
“simple fix” and has its share of critics.
Even for those who might feel the CI model is, in essence, the best choice for middle
schools, the changes required to implement this model may feel overwhelming. James Beane
Griswold 9 Curriculum Integration

10. (1997) reports what must be a fairly common feeling about CI. A journal editor, after reviewing
an article about CI written by Beane, commented, “I know you‟re right about this idea, but it
terrifies me. So much would have to change” (p. 95). Most of the barriers to CI lie in the ways in
which it represents a complete shift in curricular thinking from what has always been the
traditional way of teaching in middle schools. Teachers may feel uncomfortable with their new
role as collaborator rather than authority and may struggle with the lack of certainty in course
direction inherent in the CI planning process. School and district administrators may feel at a loss
about all the changes, from how the day is scheduled to how state standards are considered or
met, that CI implementation would require. Parents may be worried about a departure from the
traditional curriculum that they likely experienced as middle school students and worry as to
whether their children will be sufficiently prepared for high school and for university or other
endeavors that lie beyond. Finally, the use of the CI model in U.S. middle schools would require
a radical reimaging of the curriculum of our system of public education, which hasn‟t changed
much in the last century, despite the enormous changes that have occurred in U.S. society during
this same period.
Also, while the CI model has some very vocal supporters, it also has attracted equally
vocal detractors. One highly-visible critic of CI is Paul George, an education professor at the
University of Florida and well-known scholar of middle school education. In a 1996 opinion
piece published in Education Digest, George listed 36 reasons why he believes that “many
current claims for integrated curriculum are unfounded, unsubstantiated, or both” (p. 16). In
particular, George argues that, while there are some studies and testimonies that support the
effectiveness of CI, proponents have failed to make their case for broad implementation of CI
and have not shown evidence that it holds any advantage over a well-developed traditional
curriculum delivered by experienced, dedicated teachers.
While George‟s 1996 piece might be a bit overdramatic, he does make some valid
arguments. While it is clear that many U.S. middle schools are struggling and that achievement
scores for their students have generally fallen or remained flat in recent years, these problems
cannot be generalized to every traditional middle school. In fact, there are likely any number of
examples of highly successful middle schools which by combining a traditional, subject-centered
approach with excellent enthusiastic teachers and a supportive and nurturing school environment,
are showing great gains in achievement even in student populations that have historically been at
Griswold 10 Curriculum Integration

11. risk for academic failure. On the other hand, there are some great examples or case studies of
highly effective middle schools that have moved to the CI model, and the personal stories and
accounts from teachers and students in these schools are frequently quite compelling. Yet, can
this relatively small number of case studies be generalized to the entire population of U.S.
middle schools to the extent that it is time to throw away the traditional models and adopt the CI
model?
Conclusion
After reviewing all of the sources mentioned in this article and some additional general
reading, one thing has become clear in the debate over curriculum integration in the middle
school--it is unlikely that this debate will ever be resolved in favor of one model or another and
probable that, far into the future, U.S. middle schools will continue to draw from a number of
curricular models in developing and delivering instruction. While both extremes of this debate,
those who believe CI is the only means of curriculum development for the middle school and
those who are unreservedly opposed to it, are likely to be dissatisfied with this outcome, for the
rest of us, what is right and what is comfortable lies somewhere in the middle, along the
spectrum of integration that is disliked by Beane but probably more realistic for the majority of
stakeholders in middle grades education. There is no doubt, based on countless studies of all
levels of education, that some level of integration in curriculum and instruction generally
improves both academic outcomes (as measured by typical means of assessment such as
standardized tests) and student outcomes such as improved motivation and engagement in the
classroom. Therefore, integration of curriculum and collaboration, both among teachers and
between teachers and students, should be encouraged to the extent that any school is able to
accomplish with the hope that integration might continue to develop and deepen over time as
more teachers and students experience this model of curriculum.
To adopt an “all or none” approach to integration is not only unrealistic but also
undermines any real hope for middle school improvement along these lines. Despite the strong
rhetoric used by the proponents of the CI model in some of their writings, I believe that, in the
end, the majority of them have accepted this reality. James Beane, in the final chapter of
Curriculum Integration, admits that while he will continue to take a unwavering stand on what
he feels to be the meaning of CI, goes on to say “curriculum integration does not involve a recipe
Griswold 11 Curriculum Integration

12. or packaged program. In the end it is not an „ideal state‟ to be achieved but rather an idea that is
constantly struggled over by those who work with it” (p. 101). Therefore, the CI model is, for
me, something to work toward and should continue to be the subject of research, development
and refinement to be implemented as one is able in whatever way will best meet the needs of the
students for which the curriculum is intended.
Griswold 12 Curriculum Integration

13. References
Beane, J. A. (1997). Curriculum integration: Designing the core of democratic education. New
York: Teachers College Press. Retrieved from:
www.netlibrary.com.proxy2.library.uiuc.edu/Details.aspx.
Eight Year Study. (1942). Adventures in American Education, vol. I. Retrieved from
www.8yearstudy.org.
George, P. (1996). Arguing integrated curriculum. Education Digest, 62(3), 16.
Hartzler, D. S. (2000). A meta-analysis of studies conducted on integrated curriculum programs
and their effects on student achievement. Retrieved from ProQuest Digital Dissertations.
(AAT 9967119)
Knowles, T., & Brown, D. F. (2007). What every middle school teacher should know.
Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Mertens, S. B., & Flowers, N. (2003). Middle school practices improve student achievement in
high poverty schools. Middle School Journal, 35, 33-43.
NMSA (2002) Position statement on curriculum integration. Retrieved from:
www.nmsa.org/AboutNMSA/PositionStatements/CurriculumIntegration/tabid/282/Defau
lt.aspx.
Griswold 13 Curriculum Integration