Skip to main navigation menu Skip to main content Skip to site footer

LESSON STRUCTURE IN THE PROCESS OF INTERDISCIPLINARY INTEGRATION: AN AUTHORIAL SIX-STAGE MODEL FOR CURRICULUM PLANNING

Abstract

Interdisciplinary integration is one of the significant directions in contemporary curriculum planning because educational problems and real-life situations often require learners to combine knowledge from several academic disciplines. This article examines how lessons can be structured in the process of interdisciplinary integration and proposes an authorial practical model entitled the Six-Stage Interdisciplinary Lesson Structure. The study is based on a conceptual analysis of scientific literature on integrated curriculum, interdisciplinary learning, backward design, and constructive alignment. The article draws on the theoretical works of Fogarty, Jacobs, Drake and Burns, Biggs, Wiggins and McTighe, Boix Mansilla, and other scholars. The analysis shows that interdisciplinary integration should not be understood as a mechanical combination of subjects. Rather, it should be planned as a gradual pedagogical process in which students move from a meaningful problem to disciplinary inquiry, then to synthesis, product creation, and reflective assessment. The proposed six-stage model includes problem orientation, activation of prior knowledge, disciplinary exploration, interdisciplinary connection, integrative production, and reflective assessment. The article argues that this model can help teachers organize integrated lessons without weakening disciplinary depth. The findings also indicate that effective interdisciplinary curriculum planning requires clear learning outcomes, coordinated assessment criteria, teacher collaboration, and meaningful links between school knowledge and real-life contexts.

Keywords

interdisciplinary integration, integrated curriculum, lesson structure, curriculum planning, constructive alignment, backward design, interdisciplinary learning

PDF

References

  1. Biggs, J. (1996). Enhancing teaching through constructive alignment. Higher Education, 32(3), 347–364.
  2. Biggs, J. (2014). Constructive alignment in university teaching. HERDSA Review of Higher Education, 1, 5–22.
  3. Boix Mansilla, V., & Duraisingh, E. D. (2007). Targeted assessment of students’ interdisciplinary work: An empirically grounded framework proposed. The Journal of Higher Education, 78(2), 215–237.
  4. Drake, S. M., & Burns, R. C. (2004). Meeting standards through integrated curriculum. Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
  5. Drake, S. M., & Reid, J. L. (2020). 21st century competencies in light of the history of integrated curriculum. Frontiers in Education, 5, 122.
  6. Fogarty, R. (1991). Ten ways to integrate curriculum. Educational Leadership, 49(2), 61–65.
  7. Jacobs, H. H. (1989). Interdisciplinary curriculum: Design and implementation. Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
  8. Klein, J. T. (1990). Interdisciplinarity: History, theory, and practice. Wayne State University Press.
  9. Lam, C. C., Alviar-Martin, T., Adler, S. A., & Sim, J. B.-Y. (2013). Curriculum integration in Singapore: Teachers’ perspectives and practice. Teaching and Teacher Education, 31, 23–34.
  10. Le, H. C., Nguyen, V. H., & Nguyen, T. L. (2023). Integrated STEM approaches and associated outcomes of K–12 student learning: A systematic review. Education Sciences, 13(3), 297.
  11. OECD. (2019). OECD Future of Education and Skills 2030: Conceptual learning framework. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.
  12. Wiggins, G., & McTighe, J. (2005). Understanding by design (2nd ed.). Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.