Interdisciplinary curriculum: An abandoned concept?

Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice

Volumn 18, Issue 3, 2012, Pages 381-393

  Brand, Brenda R ^a   Triplett, Cheri F ^b  

^a VIRGINIA POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTE AND STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b RADFORD UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

cross curricular connections; elementary teachers; interdisciplinary curriculum; learning theory; literacy; relevancy; science education

Indexed keywords

EID: 84862099989     PISSN: 13540602     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/13540602.2012.629847     Document Type: Review

References (20)

1. Barksdale-Ladd, M.A., & Thomas, K.F. (2000). What's at stake in high stakes testing: Teachers and parents speak out. Journal of Teacher Education, 51, 384-397.
2. Beane, J.A. (1995). Curriculum integration and the disciplines of knowledge. Phi Delta Kap-pan., 76(8), 616-622.
3. Bransford, J.D. (1994). Schema activation and schema acquisition: Comments on Richard C. Anderson's remarks. In R.B. Ruddell, M.R. Ruddell, & H. Singer (Eds.), Theoretical models and processes of reading (4th ed., pp. 483-495). Newark Delaware: International Reading.
4. Bransford, J.D., Brown, A.L., & Cocking, R.R. (Eds.). (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
5. Bransford, J.D., & Johnson, M.K. (1973). Considerations of some problems of comprehension. In W. Chase (Ed.), Visual information processing. New York, NY: Academic.
6. Chi, M.T.H., Feltovich, P.J., & Glaser, R. (1981). Categorization and representation of physics problems by experts and novices. Cognitive Science, 5, 121-152.
7. Donovan, S.M., Bransford, J.D., & Pelligrino, J.W. (Eds.). (1999). How people learn: Bridging research and practise. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
8. Duran, E., Ballone Duran, L., & Worch, E.A. (2009). Papier-Mache animals: An integrating theme for elementary classrooms. Science Education Review, 8(1), 19-29.
9. Gordon, S., & Reese, M. (1997). High-stakes testing: Worth the price? Journal of School Leadership, 7, 345-368.
10. Hayes, D. (2010). The seductive charms of a cross-curricular approach. Education 3-13, 38 (4), 381-387.
11. Hoffman, J., Assaf, L., & Paris, S. (2001). High-stakes testing in reading: Today in Texas, tomorrow? The Reading Teacher, 54, 482-492.
12. Matthews, M.W., & Rainer, J.D. (2001). The Quandaries of teachers and teacher educators in integrating literacy and mathematics. Language Arts, 78(4), 357-364.
13. Mercier, S., & Ostlund, K. (1996). Rising to the challenge: The national science education standards-The processes of inquiry. Fresno, CA: S & K Associates.
14. National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
15. Patton, M.Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods (2nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
16. Sabers, D.S., Cushing, K.S., & Berliner, D.C. (1991). Differences among teachers in a task characterized by simultaneity, multidimensionality, and immediacy. American Educational Research Journal, 28, 63-88.
17. Spivey, N. (1997). The Constructivist Metaphor. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
18. Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
19. Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
20. Wiggins, G., & McTighe, J. (1998). Understanding by design. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.