In this section I will discuss how teachers’ perceptions of curriculum integration aligned with their practices. I offer some suggestions to explain why they contrasted so greatly at some schools, whereas at others they were more comparable. I conclude this section with a discussion of the importance that all participants placed on separate subject specialism.
It was apparent that while the four schools held much in common with regard to their perceptions of curriculum integration, there was also significant variation. Teachers’ views of the type of curriculum integration used varied both across and within schools, with greater within-school variation in some schools than others. The information gathered indicated that teachers’ perceptions were not always reflected in their practice, which was also a finding of Fraser (1999). In Figure 6.1 I have provided a continuum to compare the perceptions and practices of the type of curriculum integration at all four schools. The continuum highlights the degree of cohesiveness
between the participants’ perceptions at each school, indicated by some versus all, and their position on a trans-disciplinary to inter- and multi-disciplinary continuum.
Figure 6.1 shows that the school with the greatest trans-disciplinary view of curriculum integration was Pakirehua, who were also the only school whose perceptions and practices aligned almost completely. The only differences occurring between their perceptions and practices were due to enforced preparation for common assessment, as outlined in Chapter Five. This could in part be attributed to the size of Pakirehua’s
integrated programme, comprising two classes and two teachers at the time of my research. Warren had been teaching in the programme for longer than Russell, who had no prior experience of integration, and so it is likely that he had assimilated Warren’s perceptions of curriculum integration. Russell practised with a high degree of similarity to Warren, which Russell alluded to with his comment that “spending the first term with Warren has probably taught me more [about integration] than anything else has.”
At Rua High there appeared to be a division amongst staff between both their perceptions and their practice of curriculum integration. Some of the participants at Rua had a strong trans-disciplinary perception, whereas others had a more multi- disciplinary view of integration. Unlike the staff at Pakirehua, Niu, and Awa who showed a general level of collective agreement with each other, the participants at Rua demonstrated less unity in their perceptions and practices. While there was a polarity of perceptions of curriculum integration at Rua between the staff, their own perceptions of integration were reflected in their own practice.
There are several possible reasons for the division of beliefs around curriculum integration at Rua. One could be that the initiative to employ curriculum integration had come from the Principal, which the whole staff were then obliged to utilise following a
PERCEPTIONS
All Pakirehua Some Rua All Niu All Awa Some Rua
All Pakirehua Few Rua All Niu Most Rua
All Awa PRACTICES TRAN S- D IS CIPL IN ARY INTER - & M ULTI - D IS CIPL IN ARY
year-long trial. Minimal whole staff discussion prior to implementation had occurred, with no agreement of a definition or methodology for integration. There also appeared to be great value placed on strong autonomy of teacher philosophy at Rua, which could similarly explain these differences of opinion. Rather than forming a collective identity and pathway toward curriculum integration, it would appear that the teachers at Rua had formed rather individualistic perceptions and practices.
Participants from Niu had a perception of curriculum integration that was partly trans-disciplinary and partly multi-disciplinary. Niu’s perceptions and practices varied minimally, which may be credited to the fact that the curriculum integration programme at Niu was run as a whole school initiative, potentially leading to a more homogenous school culture. The variation between perception and practice at Niu was towards a more multi-disciplinary approach. Integration as a philosophy of the entire school was established from the beginning at Niu, meaning that the perceptions and practices were more aligned right from the start.
Awa’s participants showed mixed perceptions of curriculum integration that sat somewhere between the two poles. Awa was the school that showed the greatest variation between perception and practice. Awa’s teachers’ perceptions varied between multi-disciplinary to trans-disciplinary during the focus group, whereas the practice of integration across the school was more inter-disciplinary. It appeared that their initial perceptions reflected what they thought their practice was like, and then they formed a new collective viewpoint upon further discussion. As a group they were united in both their perceptions of integration and their practice.
The difference between Awa’s participants’ perceptions and practices could be attributed to a number of tensions within the school. The teachers voiced that they did not feel completely supported from senior management, which prevented them from practising as they wished, as outlined in Chapter Five. The perceived resistance to integration from heads of department at Awa, which according to a number of teachers had placed barriers in the way of some of their key integrating practices, may also have contributed to this disengagement. Additionally, having begun integration over 12 years ago, with little evolution, many teachers at Awa may have disengaged with the practice of integration.
At both Awa and Rua there was a sense that the programmes had diminished in enthusiasm and effectiveness over time. Wallace et al. (2007) found that “when reform does make a difference in individual classrooms, the impact erodes over time ... with participants often reverting to traditional teaching ways” (p. 30). This highlights the need to constantly reflect on practice, both at a classroom and system level, to ensure that all of the necessary and essential contributing conditions for integration are adequately maintained. Such reflective practice was not evident at Awa and Rua, but was at Niu and to some extent at Pakirehua.
While I had chosen the four schools for their commitment to curriculum integration, one quite unanticipated finding was that nearly all participants at each of the secondary schools placed great value on the separate subjects when discussing curriculum integration, as discussed in chapter Five. It would be natural to expect that a group of committed curriculum integration teachers may be lesser advocates of the separate subjects, but this was not the case. The nature of this endorsement differed between schools. Awa and Pakirehua felt that access to specialist subject knowledge was required, but that the content did not necessarily need to be taught in subject compartments by subject specialists. Rua and Niu had trialled teaching across multiple subjects and decided that at Years Nine and Ten it was necessary to deliver content through subject specialists.
It appears that in New Zealand secondary schools, the value placed on the subject specialist is still a prevailing theme (Begg, 2008), which could be attributed to a number of reasons, including subject status and high-stakes testing. Beane (1995) and Dowden (2012) both raise the notion that teachers’ professional identities are built around and tied to subject area status. Heidi Hayes-Jacobs (in Brandt, 1991) describes how “in secondary schools ... teachers become identified with their subject to such a degree that it’s hard for them to look over the fence” (p. 24). This has parallels with the issue raised by participants at Awa, of the agenda of heads of department reluctant to allow teachers to teach across disciplines. Wallace et al. (2007) reported that a participant of their study felt that there was a “perception that it was more prestigious to teach in the senior school” (p. 40).
There was also a strong link between the need for subject specialism and NCEA assessment raised at each school, particularly by the Principals. High academic results are a parameter by which secondary schools are (increasingly) judged and curriculum
integration is often perceived as a threat to such results, despite evidence to the contrary (Beane, 1997). The restriction imposed on teachers by assessments in general is also an important consideration in secondary schools, which has a trickle-down effect on the junior school, as described at Pakirehua College. Au (2011) describes how high- stakes testing has forced the educational process to be driven by pre-determined objectives to the point that not even the subjects are the central focus of the curriculum. Au asserts that teachers have been disempowered as a result and are adopting more teacher-centered pedagogies to meet the demands of testing, which is at odds with constructivist, student-centered best practises, such as curriculum integration. Apple (1995) believes that a focus on standardised testing removes the need for skills such as “curriculum deliberation and planning, designing teaching and curricular strategies for specific groups and individuals based on intimate knowledge of these people” (p. 132) which are all features of curriculum integration.
The common support for subject specialism across all participating schools could also be due to the nature of secondary schools and that nearly all of the participants come from the mostly white, upper-middle class backgrounds that Apple (2007) and Beane (1995) assert to be favoured by teaching and learning through separate subjects. Additionally, it could be that as many New Zealand secondary schools represent this socioeconomic group, there is less favour for Beane’s trans-disciplinary democratic model of curriculum integration. Apple, Beane, and others surmise that the separate subjects are terrains fashioned by, and for, the interest of academics or elitists in society, providing them with a factory for high-status knowledge that can be used as their cultural capital, while marginalising non-privileged and non-dominant cultures. Au (2011) describes how fragments of the US New Middle Class are conflicted by the perceived benefit to their children of the separate subjects and standardised testing, and the fact that schooling constructed around such testing does not adequately prepare their children for life in the globalised economy.
Subject specialists’ lack of knowledge in other learning areas could also be responsible for this affiliation to the separate disciplines. A discomfort when negotiating curriculum with students was found to be in part due to teachers feeling overwhelmed with the knowledge base required in certain topics by Fraser (1999). Julia Atkin (2011) discusses this challenge for secondary educators when talking about the implementation of the New Zealand Curriculum, describing how they think of themselves as teachers of
subjects such as Science, Maths, or English, rather than a teacher of the person. Many of the participants of this study showed a willingness to learn what was necessary to integrate across learning areas as the need arose, whereas other teachers were less prepared to cross the subject boundaries.