Volume 20 Number 1
May 1981

Susan E. Haase

Those of us involved in curriculum design, and in policy and decision-making, must reassess our approach to the task. In defining an integrated approach, this article will focus on the concepts of interdisciplinary design as well as the whole child for whom the curriculum is intended.

A child’s learning occurs in several domains: cognitive, affective, psychomotor, cultural and linguistic (see Note 1). If learning cannot be segregated, neither then can the curriculum itself. It is theorists, psychologists, politicians and publishers who have decided that learning must be separated into subject areas and levels, according to the ascribed developmental stages of children. If learning is interdisciplinary, the curriculum should, therefore, be designed in such a way that it is not only cross-disciplinary, but cross-cultural. Language, literature, science, mathematics and the arts are interrelated throughout the history of man and curriculum must reflect this phenomenon.

Curriculum has been traditionally defined by theorists and practitioners alike as a planned set of identified educational goals and learning experiences that are organized in a manner to facilitate evaluation of learner outcomes. Curriculum is all those learning experiences designed for children that will ultimately teach them something of "value" for their success in society. Further, as children are categorized, curriculum has been traditionally organized to match those categories regardless of the cultural heritage of the child. Normative theory (what is valued as knowledge by society) is then applied, and the age-old question arises: why is the dominant middle-class value system the well from which knowledge must spring?

The ideas suggested imply not only educational, but political connotations. At the local level, curriculum becomes political when curriculum writers must seek the approval of a bureaucratic administration in an attempt to justify a selection. In our system, it is the bureaucracy which ultimately decides what is "best" for the student. Further, and a curriculum issue, we can define political as the total complex of relations between men and society.

When Tyler first published his syllabus, his intentions were to provide curriculum developers with a guide that would facilitate student success with the educational process. This syllabus was a reflection of the school’s goals and purposes and the manner by which it would accomplish education. It served to emphasize the power of a greater structure in directing the acquisition of knowledge, a contradiction of what we are really about - children (see Note 2). A later study by Tyler (1977) demonstrated a change in attitude and perhaps will result in a more realistic assessment of the needs of culturally unique children. He said, "Some leading curriculum builders are overlooking the fact that learning is a process in which the learner plays an active not a passive role . . . learners must see the way in which things they learn can be used" (see Note 3).

A proponent of Indian education asks: "Are we only providing for the cognitive aspect in our children?" (see Note 4). In deciding what children are to learn, are we as educators only looking at the knowledge they are to attain in relation to the larger context of society? When developing curriculum, far more emphasis needs to be placed on the affective domain - valued knowledge. Knowing and valuing that knowledge results in learning. The implication then, is to include the social environment in the curriculum, the culture and values that each individual brings with him/her that influence the learning process.

What do our children value and how are those values applied to the curriculum prescribed by the educational system, as well as to the textbooks and materials they are required to use? The curriculum writer must be knowledgeable and constantly aware of the values held by the population for which they are developing curriculum. These thoughts only give emphasis to those of others: "Ideally, curriculum reflects the cultural values of the community being served by the schools. Minority communities are not properly represented in commercially developed curriculum. For this reason, most minority groups are beginning to develop curriculum appropriate to their communities and integrating it into schools" (see Note 5). The question ultimately becomes, how can we integrate all of this into the cognitive curriculum?

Practically, we can approach the topic of integrated curriculum by examining existing systems, by exploring the cultural variables that affect those systems, by analyzing our pedagogical approaches, by considering our particular ideologies where they concern the learning processes of children, and, by involving the student as a free and responsible agent, in his/her learning experiences.

This does not mean that the work of knowledgeable researchers and theorists should be ignored. What is implied is that their approaches should be carefully weighed and closely analyzed where children of different cultural backgrounds are concerned, that the cultural variables and value systems as applied to knowledge must be given equal consideration when designing a curriculum that traverses all content areas. It is the quest of many of our societies to restore their languages and thus provide the instrument for the perpetuation of their cultures. It is the responsibility of curriculum writers to place value on the efforts of a viable people, developing curriculum and materials that will serve as a responsive model.

1. Duelfer, Arlene. "The Statement of Goals and Objectives in Bilingual Education." Bilingual Education Teacher Handbook. Martha Montero, Ed., National Assessment and Dissemination Center for Bilingual Bicultural Education. Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1979.

2. Schaffarzick, Jon and Hampion, David H., Eds., Strategies for Curriculum Development. McCutchan Publishing Corporation. Berkeley, California, 1975.

3. Tyler, Ralph W. "Desirable Content for a Curriculum Development Syllabus Today." Curriculum Theory. Alex Molnor and John A. Zahorik, Eds. Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Selected papers from the Milwaukee Curriculum Theory Conference held at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, November 11-14, 1976.

4. Leonard, Deni. Quote from keynote address. Arizona Association for Bilingual Education Conference. Tucson, March 26-28,1981.

5. LaFrance, Joan and Stockman, Neal. Development of Native American Curriculum. United Indians of All Tribes Foundation. Seattle, Washington, 1979.

Susan E. Haase is curriculum development specialist in the Bilingual Education Service Center at Arizona State University. A member of the Wampanoag Tribe, Ms. Haase is a doctoral student at the University of New Mexico and worked in bilingual education in Albuquerque for several years.