LAS REDES COMO RECURSO DIDÁCTICO

The general theory of the multidisciplinary model has changed l ittle over the last century.

It is directly descended from the nineteenth century Herbartian idea of the correlation o f

subj ect areaslO3 and the subject-centred curriculum designs discussed i n Chapter 3 . The only notion of integration entailed within the multidiscip linary model is 'horizontal integration' (Tyler, 1 949) which is synonymous with the correlation o f subject areas.

The multidiscip linary model represents an attempt to reposition subj ect matter more efficiently than the single-subj ect approach. However, its first p riority is to protect the

102 _{As noted in Chapter I, the analysis is confined to the American context where curriculum integration} has been implemented widely at the middle level.

103 According to Beane ( 1 997), the Herbartian notion of correlation has also been referred to as 'an

integrity o f the single-subject approach by retaining discrete subject areas within highly recognisable 'building blocks' (Gehrke, 1 998). The correlation of subject areas involves the identification of overlaps which are eliminated when connections between subj ect areas are made. Subject areas are then organised around central themes found in one or more of the dominant subject areas. When overlaps between two or more subject areas are frequent, subj ect areas are sometimes 'fused ' . For instance: algebra, calculus and geometry might be combined or fused to form general mathematics.

Jacobs' m u ltidisciplinary model

Heidi Hayes Jacobs ( l 989a) popularised the multidisciplinary model however she added little to the theory of integration, other than extending the notions of 'scope ' and

' sequencc ' . Nonetheless, her contribution gained attention from subject-centred

advocates because it gave teachers and administrators increased control over the content of the classroom curriculum. Jacobs based her multidiscip linary model on the apparent

needs of gifted and talented students (Jacobs & Borland, 1 986). Extrapolating this earlier

work, Jacobs c laimed that the main 'advantage' of her mode l was that it provided a, "more relevant, less fragmented and stimulating experience for students" ( 1 989b: 1 0). Although Jacobs did not attempt to justify this statement or indicate what she was

comparing her multidisciplinary model with l04, others offered varying degrees of support. Vars asserted that correlation has, "obvious benefits in reinforcing leamings and showing students how various subjects relate" ( 1 993 :2 1 ). Tanner stated :

Integration 1 05 concerns the horizontal relationships of leaming activities . . . (its purpose) is to provide students with a unified view and, in so doing, o ffer a more effective curriculum ( 1 997 :5 6).

Beane ( l 993b & 1 997) also offered qualified support for Jacobs ' c laim. He agreed that research evidence offered support for the idea o f repositioning knowledge within contexts or themes but he added the all-important caveat that learning contexts must be relevant and personally meaningful to students.

1 04 Although she did not make the point explicit, the context of her writing strongly suggested Jacobs was

comparing her multidisciplinary model with the single-subject approach ( 1 989b:9-1 0).

Although Jacobs did not refer to the long history of multidisciplinary curriculum in the USA, it is evident that her work was situated within this tradition. Her curriculum design was based on the Herbartian notion of correlation. It also replicated aspects o f Caswell 's VCP work and adopted the subject-area component o f Tyler's ( 1 949) curriculum

' rationale ' . 1 06 Tyler had sought to ensure that the subj ect matter implied by curriculum designs would be worthwhile and meaningful. He stated, "in order for educational experiences to produce a cumulative effect, they must be organised as to reinforce each other" ( 1 949 :83). He endorsed the VCP design ( 1 949 :20) and approved, "the use of a two-dimensional chart" to define the ' scope' and 'sequence' of leaming ( 1 949:48). Tyler, who played a key role in the Eight-Year Study, also focused on individual and social needs but Jacobs ( 1 989a) was apparently unaware of this aspect o f his rationale.

Jacobs did not develop a complete theory o f integration as such. In particular, she seemed to be unaware of Dewey's understanding that when people learn, they do their own integrating. As quoted earlier, Dewey described the basis for personal integration:

The mentally active . . . (learner's) mind roams far and wide. All (subject matter) is grist that comes to (their) mill . . . yet the mind does not merely roam abroad. It returns with what is found, and there is constant j udgment to detect relations, relevancies (and) bearings on the central theme. The outcome is a continuously growing intellectual integration . . . within the limits set by capacity and experience this . . . is the process oflearning ( 1 93 1 :424).

Jacobs ( l 989a, 1 997a) developed a model which reduced the notion of 'integration ' to a mechanical process conducted by teachers and administrators beyond the c lassroom, thus her model explicitly prevented students from participating in any aspect of integration.

According to Schubert's ( 1 995 ) analysis outlined in Chapter 3, Jacobs emphasised the factor of subject matter but ignored the factors o f child and society. Her model ­ essentially a 'one-legged stool ' - lacked any semblance of 'balance' between the three factors. Jacobs' only priority was subject matter, which meant that she extended the notions of ' scope' and 'sequence' to an extreme.

1 06 Bullough and Kridel pointed out that while Tyler's rationale emphasized, "individual needs and social

Jacobs ( 1 989b) identified two weaknesses in her model. She called the first weakness the 'potpourri problem' where a unit was spread too thinly, so that it consisted of 'samples ' of knowledge dutifully collected from each subject area. Ackerman 107 asserted that the potpourri problem could be overcome by guiding students to see how subjects formed, "a coherent view", however he did not explain how this complex process could be

accomplished or assured ( 1 989:26). Jacobs called the second weakness the 'polarity problem' where one subject area dominates other subject areas. Ackerman also

expressed concern about the 'polarity problem ' in teacher teaming where, "weak

advocates for their discip lines may lose some turf' ( 1 989:36). These two weaknesses in the multidisciplinary model - which have also been identified as traditional weaknesses in the notion of correlation - have been described by others (for instance: Aikin, 1 942 ; Alleman & Brophy, 1 993 ; Beane, 1 997; Panaritis, 1 995). Ellis and Stuen ( 1 998) echoed Dewey's concern that multidisciplinary connections could become increasingly artificial. They remarked on a, "siren call of superficiality" in the design of most multidisciplinary units ( 1 99 8 : 1 1 ). Beane ( 1 997) also asserted that teachers often adopted ill-considered

unit themes. In such instances he suggested that the multidisciplinary model amounted to

little more that the pursuit of, "collecting more and more trivial information . . . (for) themes such as teddy bears, dinosaurs and apples" ( 1 997 :69). According to Bemstein 's ( 1 97 1 ) framework outlined in Chapter 4, the multidisciplinary model is a 'collection code' curriculum where the theme is subordinate to the subj ect areas, thus it is unsurprising that many themes have been perceived to be trivial or contrived.

Jacobs deve loped a way to ameliorate the 'potpourri ' and 'polarity' problems which gave administrators increased control over the curriculum and reduced teacher autonomy. She asserted that, "curriculum developers . . . must develop a content scope and sequence for any (mu ltidisciplinary) unit" ( 1 989b :2 ). Later Jacobs ( 1 997a) extended this idea by stating that multidisc iplinary p lanning should inc lude the use of an elaborate matrix where subject areas are cross-referenced in an exercise of, "curriculum mapping"

(English, 1 9 80:558) to ensure that the subject-areas are e fficiently 'covered'. In a recent interview with Perkins-Gough, Jacobs stated that, "the key to mapping is that each 1 07 _{As discussed below, Jacobs ( 1 989a) relied heavily on Ackerman for justification of her model.}

teacher enters the data (about what is taught) electronically" (Perkins-Gough, 2004: 1 2). Presumably, the ensuing computerised record gives administrators the means to check up on teachers in real time and ensure that they adhere to the official curriculum. Jacobs also stated that the curriculum should be ' mapped ' ahead for years at a time (Brandt,

1 99 1 ; Jacobs, 1 997 a). Although J acobs' strategy of curriculum mapping is likely to minimise the 'potpourri' and 'polarity' problems, it has certain drawbacks. First, the drive to eliminate 'overlaps' in the curriculum can stop richer meanings from emerging where two or more disciplinary viewpoints could otherwise be used to examine one idea (Siskin, 2000). Second, discip lines and subjects do not remain static over time - least of all in the twentieth-first century when new knowledge is being p roduced at a faster rate than ever before - thus a 'mapped' curriculum is soon rendered obsolete. Third, mapping marginalises the problems and interests of students. Accordingly, an intensively mapped multidisciplin ary unit is not inclusive because it is not relevant to all students.

Ackerman's 'criteria for excellence'

Jacobs ( 1 989a) justified her curriculum model with sole reference to the work of

Ackerman ( 1 989). 108 She claimed that Ackerman had established, "criteria for excellence (for her multidisciplinary model)", thus his work is examined here in some detail (Jacobs,

1 989b : 1 0). Ackerman asserted that teachers should use four, "intellectual criteria" to

assess the quality of a multidisciplinary unit ( 1 989 :27-30). His first criterion, validity

within the disciplines required teachers to verify that concepts were important to 'their' subj ect, thus it aimed to reduce the inc idenc e of trivial connections. Ackerman's second

criterion, validity for the disciplines required teachers to veri fy that the theme enhanced

the learning o f, "discipline-based concepts", thus it aimed to minimise the likelihood of trivial themes. While Ackerman conveyed his first two criteria as explicit directives, his last two criteria were expressed in a more tentative - even speculative - tone. His third

criterion, validity beyond the diSCiplines asked teachers to consider whether cross­

curricular connections might offer, "a metaconceptual bonus - a 'powerful idea', a cross­ cutting idea, a perspective on perspective taking, a direction of experience - that may be

108 _{Ackerman's ( 1 989) work was Chapter 3 in lacobs' ( 1 989a) book. Incidentally, he consistently used the}

of great value". Accordingly he asked teachers to look out for the exceptional which might be implied by certain synergies within integration. Ackerman's fourth criterion,

contribution to broader outcomes recognised that schooling consisted o f more than the transmission of subject matter. It asked teachers to consider whether or not students were likely to learn certain skills . Ackerman suggested that:

(Students who are taught using mUltidisciplinary curriculum) may become more skilled at and comfortable with flexible thinking and with adopting multiple points of view . . . they may become more adept at generating analogies and metaphors, may comprehend them better and may better understand their limitations ( 1 989:3 0).

Ackerman' s repeated use of 'may' as a qualifier suggests that he doubted these outcomes would occur for many, or even a minority, of students. Perhaps he realised that the multidisciplinary model did not recognise individual student needs and differences. In one instance he implied that advocates of the multidisciplinary model should be more mindful that each young individual has unique ab ilities and aptitudes and that a cohort of learners - like early adolescents - exhibit unique developmental needs. Ackerman stated: In deliberating over whether to adopt a (multidisciplinary) program it is legitimate to assess its potential contribution to the development of desirable intellectual dispositions, and more broadly, to the development of the person ( 1 989:30, emphasis added).

Ackerman ' s argument lacked sufficient rigour to lend authority to Jacobs ' work. He did not define Jacobs ' multidisciplinary model. In common with Jacobs, Ackerman ' s

approach was ahistoric and h e ignored the literature of curriculum integration . Moreover, Ackerman 's analysis rested on unwarranted assumptions. He assumed that all teachers would be subject specialists and that teacher teaming would be used. He also assumed that the single-subj ect approach and Jacobs' multidisciplin ary model were the only existing curriculum designs. His assumptions therefore conveniently disqualified other designs for curriculum integration from his analysis.

C ritiques of subj ect-centred curricula

Subject-centred curricula, which include the multidisciplin ary model, are broadly

founded on the assumption that it is in the best interest of society - and by extension, the individual - to transmit to each child the bundle of knowledge deemed to be vital.

Chapters 7 and 8 explain that while th is assumption is the logical outcome of a neo liberal ideology, it is not in the best interests of every young person. The traditional curriculum takes the form of several carefully selected portions of subject matter drawn from the respective disciplines which are then presented as discrete parcels of knowledge or ' subjects ' . However due to their arti ficial subject boundaries and arbitrarily defined subj ec t matter, subject-centred curricula generally lack coherency and meaning to early adolescents. Dewey ( 1 938) argued that subject-centred schoolin g was closely attuned to the needs of the industrial revolution thus it aimed to inculcate tightly prescribed subject matter and patterns of behaviour which were directly applicable to the fac tory floor. He stated:

Since the subject matter as well as standards of proper conduct is handed down from the past, the attitude of students must, upon the whole, be one of docility, receptivity and obedience ( 1 93 8 : 1 8).

Moreover, Bemstein ( 1 97 1 ) explained that 'collection code' curricula could only meet the needs of small minorities of students who go beyond the 'novitiate' stage in any given subj ec t area. He asserted that subject-centred curricula nearly always infl ict a sizable proportion of students with 'wounding' or 'meaningless' c lassroom experiences. In the context of contemporary post-industrial America, the objections to subjec t-centred curricula raised by Dewey and Bemstein are especially compelling. For instance, Ladson-Billings emphasised that curricula without relevance or coherence lack the capacity to, "transform and empower students to be active, critically aware participants in a democratic and highly technological soc iety" ( 1 99 5 : 1 62 ).

Vars s ingled out Jacobs' multidisciplinary model for criticism, commenting that i t paid, "insufficient attention to the needs, problems, and concerns of students" (2000:79-80). B razee and Cap elluti also stated that Jacobs ' multidiscip1inary model was a, "shot-gun approach . . . (indicative of) insufficient knowledge of both young adolescents and curriculum improvement" ( 1 995 :2 7). Lauritzen and Jaeger ( 1 997) explained that themes and linkages used by practitioners of the multidisciplinary mode l were s imilar to those used in single subjects. They stated that such themes are , "synthetic, arbitrary and really no better than traditional organisation by separate subject areas" ( 1 997 :xiii). Beane

( 1 993a) aptly summarised the situation by arguing that subject-centred curricula are, ' only tenuously' justified on an educational basis but - as also argued in Chapter 7 - they are 'more easily' explained by referring to the dominant political agenda.