FACILITATING PRESERVICE STUDENTS'DEVELOPMENT OF THEMATIC UNITS

Shelby J. BarrentineDepartment of Teaching and Learning, University of North Dakota

AbstractFive faculty members taught elementary education students how tocompose thematic integrated units. Before teaching about thematicintegration, faculty co-constructed a view of thematic teaching, plannedevents to engage students in learning about thematic teaching, anddeveloped an assignment description that supported the students' unitwriting. Unit development involved selecting and studying a theme,selecting learning opportunities and materials, and composing andpresenting the unit. Student and faculty reflection on the unit-development process resulted in the recommendation that faculty andstudents compose a sample unit. Developing a shared view of integratedcurricula was a challenge for the faculty, but the process of deliberationwas rewarding and essential to project success.

Many elementary teachers are turning to various forms of curriculumintegration in an effort to rethink the separate-subject approach thattends to fragment the school day (Willis, 1994). Practices range fromaligning content and processes that overlap between subject fields tototally blending them (Fogarty, 1991; Willis, 1992). Thematicteaching is a common way to accomplish curriculum integration.Elementary teachers are discovering that through thematic teachingthey are able to promote learning as a coherent, connected, andmeaningful enterprise (Lipson, Valencia, Wixson, & Peters, 1993).They are able to develop the relationship between curriculum contentand process, provide both depth and breadth in learning, and usetime more effectively.

Teachers-in-training are intrigued and enthusiastic about theconcept of thematic teaching, but it is an approach to teaching andlearning that is outside their range of school experiences. In spite ofthis, they display a high interest in learning about thematic teaching,particularly when involved in field experiences where teachers areusing some form of curricular integration. They sense the need forintegration and are motivated to engage in planning units of studythat cross disciplinary boundaries.

276

Teacher educators are faced with the responsibility of equippingpreservice teachers with the knowledge and ability to plan andimplement these nontraditional approaches to classroom instruction,but teaching elementary education students about thematic teachingis more challenging than might be expected. I worked with a team offive educators who taught thematic-unit development to preservicestudents during a block of elementary methods courses. In thisarticle, I will share our planning and teaching processes, studentreactions to those efforts, and faculty perceptions regarding thesuccess of the project, and I will offer suggestions for strengtheningstudent units.

Context for the Curriculum ProjectThe journey began when five teacher educators, specialists in

elementary reading, writing, social studies, science, and mathematics,agreed to collaborate on teaching a cohort of students about thematicintegration. The opportunity for us to work together was madefeasible by our program organization. Early in the professionalprogram cohorts of 30 students enroll in a block of five methodscourses, paralleling the faculty's disciplinary orientations. The classesmeet during a four-hour time block Monday through Friday. Usuallytwo classes are held per day. Students stay together as a cohort group,changing classrooms and instructors for the various courses. There isa four-week field experience associated with the methods block, but itwas not a factor in the project. During the project, for one hour eachweek, the five faculty members and students met together in aseminar format to study thematic integration. Except for the one-hour seminar, the methods courses remained separate.

Curriculum integration was not new to the project faculty. Webrought together a range of experiences. Some faculty had experienceteaching thematically in elementary school classrooms. Some hadobserved thematic instruction in schools. Some had independentlyand in team-teaching situations facilitated preservice teachers'learning about thematic unit development. All project faculty hadread professional materials about curriculum integration.

Planning for Student LearningBefore involving methods students in learning about thematic

teaching, project faculty spent a semester exploring integration andplanning for instruction. As faculty read, wrote, and discussed, wegrew to define thematic teaching in the following way:

277

Successful thematic teaching involves planning and implementing cross-disciplinary, developmentally appropriate learning opportunitiesorganized around a content-rich theme that causes children to interact,inquire, experiment, problem solve, read, and write.

Further, we envisioned thematic teaching as an integral part of alldaily learning activity and not as a time set aside for theme study.Using the definition as a touchstone, we developed plans forfacilitating student learning.

To provide students with a broad understanding of curriculumintegration, we planned numerous events. We selected videos andreadings, invited guest speakers (e.g., teachers who wereimplementing various brands of curriculum integration), andplanned for faculty to engage students in thematic demonstrationlessons in each methods course. Further, faculty members decidedthat the main learning experience would involve having studentswrite thematic integrated units. This decision necessitatedconstructing a shared vision of themes and of the unit-writingprocess.

Understanding ThemesRealizing that meaningful themes are central to content-rich

units, it was essential for faculty to explore the topic of themes. Onthe one hand, we rejected highly popularized themes such asholidays, seasons, and teddy bears. They did not invite the ambitious,content-rich units we wanted students to write. On the other hand,we also questioned the nature of themes such as patterns, change,power, and systems (Shoemaker, 1991). For our aims these themesseemed too broad and abstract. They had potential to serve asumbrella themes for large chunks of curriculum. We wanted studentsto choose themes that were concrete and specific enough to bedeveloped meaningfully in a two- to three-week unit. Further, themeswere to be characterized as motivational to youngsters, provideconsequential content, build upon and integrate the disciplines, beopen to multicultural content and/or perspectives, and capitalize onlocal issues.

What themes satisfy these challenging criteria? Project facultywrestled with identifying sample themes. After perusing multipleresources (e.g., Colorado Middle Level Interdisciplinary EducationCenter, 1992; Pappas, Kiefer, & Levstik, 1995; Shoemaker, 1991;Willis, 1992; Willis 1994; Kellough & Roberts, 1994), we composeda wide ranging list of topical themes that seemed to possess thepotential to meet some or all of our theme criteria. The list included

278

The City, Digging Up the Past, Hunger, Money, Peace, Water, Wherethe Buffalo Roamed, and The Potato.

Developing a Planning ProcessTo develop facility with topical themes and to clarify a process

for unit planning, faculty worked through the basics of a thematicunit. We selected The Humble Potato as a theme and rationalized thechoice. The theme is concrete and interesting because locally it is animportant crop and industry. It possessed the potential to link thedisciplines and explore multicultural content. The theme possessedsociohistorical significance as a food staple of the Incas and later,Europeans—especially the Irish peasantry. Potato blight resulted inthe deaths of over one million Irish people and the immigration tothe United States of another million Irish people. It offeredopportunity for botanical and agricultural study, it linkedmathematically to the local economy, and it offered opportunity forcontent area reading and writing.

As part of our planning process, we conducted a literature searchof resources for teachers and youngsters, and developed abibliography. To discover potential for experiential learning, wesought out local resource people (e.g., potato growers, handlers, andprocessors). We read materials and then wrote a statement ofbackground knowledge on the potato. We mapped out topics forstudy: What is the biology of the potato? What is its nutritionalvalue? What are its historical origins? How are potatoes processed forconsumption? What is the local economic impact of the potato crop?We also identified learning opportunities that demonstrated activelearner engagement: a readers' workshop to gain backgroundknowledge, a science investigation into how potato plants grow, and awriters' workshop to synthesize what has been learned. Additionally,to demonstrate the importance of experiential learning, a facultymember arranged to take our students on a field trip to a local potatoprocessing plant.

Unit-Writing GuideFeeling somewhat secure in a planning process, we decided to

prepare a unit-writing guide for our students. The unit guide offeredan overview of the assignment, the outcomes we intended tofacilitate, a process for planning a unit, specifics about what shouldbe included in the final product (e.g., statement of backgroundinformation, resource lists, unit goals, description of learningopportunities, and lesson plans), and assessment information. The

279

purpose of the guide was to provide expectations and tangiblesupport as students launched into the complex endeavor of unitplanning. In addition to the unit-writing guide, students were given alesson plan format to use and modify as needed.

Project ImplementationWith more questions than answers, project faculty moved ahead

to engage students in learning about this approach to teaching andlearning. During the first week of the semester the unit guide wasdistributed to the students, and faculty began to assist students withunit development. We explained that they would first select andstudy a theme, map preliminary unit ideas, and identify some of theunit goals. Mid-semester they would select learning opportunities,develop lesson plans, and further articulate the unit goals. At the endof the semester they would submit the unit product to all five facultymembers for assessment.

Getting StartedTo help students choose a theme, we displayed the list of themes

we generated while planning. Each faculty member worked with asmall group of students to engage them in the type of thinkingrequired to explore the potential of a topical theme. We provided thefollowing questions to help students filter through and generate othertheme ideas: Does the theme lead to significant content?... tointeresting content? Does the theme build on the disciplines? Does itallow students to address multicultural perspectives? FollowingHarste's (1993) thinking, we helped students "rotate a theme throughthe disciplines" by asking: (a) What would an historian want us toknow about this topic? and (b) What would a mathematician,biologist, writer, anthropologist, musician, artist want us to know?Afterwards, we briefly presented our theme and unit map on TheHumble Potato to demonstrate content potential.

Faculty continued to interact with students as they selectedthemes for unit development. For example, a student chose"Roadways" as a theme. During class sessions and in writing, facultymembers interacted with this student to explore and focus unitcontent. Examples of other themes selected by students includeWater, Winter on the Prairie, Newspapers, Chocolate, Electricity,Volcanos, and Tornados. Although faculty valued certain themesmore than others (e.g., Winter on the Prairie), unless a theme wasvery weak and obviously did not meet criteria standards (e.g., TeddyBears) or was overly broad (e.g., Patterns), student theme choiceswere honored.

280

Identifying learning goals is often difficult for students, so wedemonstrated how to articulate interdisciplinary unit goals. Forexample, we shared the following statement to demonstrate active,interdisciplinary learning: Learners gather (organize, publish)information about the social significance of the "humble" potato. Weencouraged students to compose learning goals as they gainedbackground knowledge on their themes and as they selected learningopportunities. We also reminded students to consider that in the "realworld" of the classroom, many learning goals are generated byyoungsters during teaching.

To document early progress on their units, students submitteddrafts of their statements of relevant background knowledge, andthree to five learning goals. In the statement of backgroundknowledge, students addressed, in two or three pages, the generalcontent that would be covered in the thematic unit. At least twofaculty members reviewed and commented on each student's work.We requested that students consult with the appropriate facultymember if a discipline seemed unrepresented or inappropriatelyaddressed.

Mid-semester DevelopmentAt mid-semester, selecting learning opportunities and materials

that addressed unit content and goals became the main focus of unitdevelopment. To support this segment, we shared ideas from ourwork with The Humble Potato: we engaged students in a readers'workshop, visited a potato processing plant, and conducted a long-term science investigation in which a potato's growing conditionswere manipulated. We distributed copies of our planning web andseveral written lesson plans on the potato. Additionally, facultygenerated demonstration materials such as a written description of anintegrated day based on the theme of survival. We made availablesample thematic units from the Colorado Middle LevelInterdisciplinary Education Center (1992). We also providedexamples of planning webs in professional materials (e.g., Pappas,Kiefer, & Levstik, 1995).

Students generated their own webs, maps, matrices, or othergraphic organizers as they structured unit content into meaningfullearning opportunities for youngsters. To document progress, facultyasked students to submit for review a graphic organizer that specifiedthe theme, revealed unit content and learning opportunities, andindicated possible integrated lessons within each learningopportunity. Ideally, the graphic organizer made evident the

281

interdisciplinary nature of the learning opportunities and clearlyshowed how they connected to the theme.

CulminationIn the last weeks of the semester students composed a complete

draft of their units. Before the work was due, we arranged forstudents to interact with faculty and peers so that they could receivesuggestions from each other on the unit drafts.

When the drafts were submitted to faculty members, eachreviewed about half of the units and provided written feedback.Students received feedback from at least two faculty members. If wehad questions about how a discipline was represented in a learningopportunity or lesson plan, we asked the student to meet with thefaculty member who was responsible for that discipline. Studentsconsidered the feedback and recommendations and composed theirfinal unit plans.

As a celebration of accomplishment, on the last day of class,students presented their individual units to their peers and thefaculty. They communicated an overview of their units and usedartifacts to demonstrate the kind of active learning that youngsterswould experience during their units.

Assessment ProcessThroughout the semester students were reminded to use the

unit-writing guide to support their planning because it was the mainsource for assessment criteria. For continuity in grading, facultydeveloped a heuristic that offered a portrait of a well-done unit.Criteria were noted from the unit-writing guide and then dividedunder two subheadings: completeness/stylistic considerations andunit content/teaching methodology. The heuristic was not used as arubric but as tool for bringing unit criteria into focus and as a holisticview of what a successful unit might look like.

Students submitted copies of the final units to the faculty forevaluation. The faculty individually and jointly reviewed each unit.Individually, faculty members evaluated all of the units but alsoconcentrated on the lesson plans most closely related to theirparticular subject matter. For evaluation, we used the two evaluationcategories (i.e., completeness/stylistic considerations and unitcontent/teaching methodology) presented in the heuristic tostructure our written comments and assign a tentative letter grade.The faculty then met as a group to discuss the merits of each unitand reach consensus on the final grades. There were few cases in

282

which there were extreme differences in the grades. In these and allcases, however, we justified the assigned grades with our writtencomments and with direct references to the student's unit. Reachingconsensus was not difficult.

A student's unit that closely reflected the guidelines andresembled the unit description in the heuristic used the topical theme"Winter on the Prairie" to teach reading, writing, social studies,science, and mathematics. The developer provided a substantial andorganized orientation to the unit content through a statement ofbackground knowledge. Unit goals were clearly established, and sheprovided lists of teacher and student resources. In alignment with thethree major areas addressed in the background statement, the studentidentified three learning opportunities and several lesson plans foreach. The lesson plans were doable and thoroughly completed withobjectives, procedures, and assessment plans. Multicultural contentwas integral to the unit and at one point focused on play, a topic thatresists cultural stereotyping and highlights the universal need for play.

Students' Reactions to the Unit-Writing ExperienceIn a class session at the end of the semester we asked students for

written, anonymous feedback about the unit-writing experience. Ananalysis of the feedback suggested that these students believed theywere involved in a useful, meaningful experience, but they were awareof several challenges associated with thematic integration.Representative comments about the importance of knowing aboutcurricular integration included the following:

I think it's important to know that subjects don't have to [be] taught inisolation. None of the subjects are completely separate from each otherand should be taught the way they connect naturally.

I think it is of high importance because I feel it's a good teaching practice.On the other hand, many schools make it difficult to do.It's important because I feel a whole-language classroom involvesintegration of all the subjects. I feel integration is "best practice."Before doing this unit, I was unaware of how to integrate differentsubjects into one unit. I now have a better understanding of integration.I think integration is important, but no teacher has the amount of time toput together a unit as we did.

Two students commented that they felt it was important to knowabout thematic integration but that composing a unit was notnecessary to learn the process. One of these students elaborated,stating that reading about thematic teaching would have been a

283

sufficient learning experience. Only one out of the cohort indicatedthat learning about thematic teaching was of limited value. Thestudent stated that on a scale of 1 (low) to 10 (high), the experiencewas valued at a level of 3.

When asked to comment on the support they received fromfaculty, comments were mixed. About half of the students madestatements suggesting that faculty offered conflicting information onthematic teaching or on unit expectations. Several students wantedfaculty to provide a complete model unit on the potato. Otherslonged to write group units rather than only support each other withgroup interaction. Some comments focused on the burden ofengaging in a semester-long endeavor. Comments follow:

I would liked to have seen a model unit before trying to write my ownunit.Be much more precise about what you want us to do.It seemed that every instructor had a different idea of what they wanted.Don't have the assignment stretch out the whole semester. There wasalways that stress in the back of my mind. I'd rather have daily work dueat the beginning of the semester and have the unit done at midterm.

I really feel the faculty approached this is in the best way possible; therewere a few areas of confusion, but all in all, it went well.

Other prompts on the feedback form revealed that students weresomewhat frustrated about the availability or currency of resources;their most useful resources were children's books on their topics.When asked to relate what they would change about their own unit-writing process, students disclosed that they procrastinated on theassignment. Representative comments about what they would dodifferently included:

I would not procrastinate quite as much.I would keep up instead of putting off the work. Also, I would choose adifferent topic.I would concentrate more on the unit development throughout thesemester, but other demands and projects took priority. I think the waywe were required to hand in portions periodically helped a great deal innot allowing us to leave it all until the end.

I would communicate with the professors more.I hoped to find more children's books on the subject and also, I wouldhave asked for more help when I was stuck.I would put more thought into choosing a topic.

284

Faculty PerceptionsAfter the project culminated in student presentations, unit

evaluation (i.e., grading), and student evaluation of the project,faculty met to discuss the student feedback and our perceptions ofthe success of the project.

Best PracticeOpinion differed on whether the units demonstrated that most

students possessed the knowledge to plan and implement thematicteaching successfully. We all agreed that students knew more aboutthe approach than at the beginning of the semester, but some facultymembers believed that only a few of the student units werepotentially better than the traditional, separate subject, textbook-based curriculum of which many educators are critical. Of equalconcern was students' failure to incorporate important curriculumcomponents that are basic to best practice in certain disciplines. Forexample, readers' workshop, a structured reading program approachthat provides for book choice and sustained, self-paced, and strategicreading in classrooms (Hagerty, 1992), appeared in only one unit.Reading-oriented lesson plans indicated children would experienceteacher read alouds rather than engage in independent reading.Writers' workshop, the fundamental curricular approach for processwriting and basic to best practice in teaching writing, did not appearin a single unit. Rather, lessons indicated learners would be engagedin product-oriented, report-type writing without supporting lessonsin the basics of how to write reports. Graphing became an all toofamiliar lesson plan for integrating mathematics.

Model UnitInitially, faculty were surprised by the number of students who

(anonymously) admitted to procrastinating. Upon reflection weconcluded that procrastination was, in part, linked to students'frustration with the overall task. Their feedback about wanting amodel unit, for example, suggests that, in the absence of an audiencefor the actual unit, a model might have motivated them to moveforward more quickly and deliberately with their own planning.

Early in the project, however, faculty debated about providing afully-developed model unit. After discussing the issue several times,we reasoned that in our courses we did not usually provide models ofassignments but explanations of expected products. We worried thata model unit could easily be construed as a blueprint and wouldreduce students' creative thinking. Students had access to many

285

sample units, but none were composed in alignment with ourguidelines. Despite our philosophical stance and sample units,students perceived the lack of a model unit as unsupportive.

Seeking FormNormally, students do not demand precise models to proceed on

an assignment. Further insight into why students felt they needed amodel unit was revealed in their units. When getting their unitsdown on paper, they struggled to successfully communicate theirgood ideas. For example, during unit evaluation it became apparentto faculty that the completed units varied widely in the amount ofdetail communicated in the description of learning opportunities. Acloser look revealed that some units only generally communicatedunit content and lacked an overall routine. Others were highlydetailed and related down-to-the-minute daily routines. The formertype of unit failed to convey the richness of the students' ideas andunderstanding of some instructional practices. The latter seemedcumbersome and impractical.

We concluded that some of the difference in detail was related tothe difficulty of inventing a format to communicate the unit learningopportunities. For students to personally innovate a successful unitformat was more challenging than we expected. Their expresseddesire for a model unit was probably related to their need forinformation on viable formats for writing up their units.

Learning While LeadingFaculty also reasoned that students' desire for a model unit was

related to a larger issue—faculty disequilibrium. Though weattempted to build a shared understanding of thematic teaching,faculty members were continually working throughout the project tocrystalize our own interpretations. Mason (1996) pointed out that tocommunicate and make informed instructional decisions aboutthematic teaching, educators must work through a maze ofcurriculum definitions. Thematic, interdisciplinary, intradisciplinary,and theme cycles are only a few in the constellation of terms thatrepresent a variety of conceptions of integrated curriculum. Althoughwe spent many hours together planning, discussing, and sharingideas, because of the complexity of the task our individualinterpretations did not evolve into one fully shared understanding ofthematic integration.

In hindsight, we realize that we were naive about the extensiveamount of time and persistent communication efforts that would be

286

required to wrestle with these conceptions to build a shared meaning.Our naïveté was evident when project faculty came together for aninitial meeting. Our intent was to begin immediately to plan forteaching about curriculum integration. After our first twenty minutestogether, however, we began to realize our initial step was not to planbut to deliberate about what we knew; about our views, experiences,and expectations; and about how to proceed. In truth, the need fordeliberation came as a surprise. It was a surprise to discover the extentto which we did not grasp each others points of view. It was asurprise that we didn't connect with each other's terminology. It was asurprise that it required lengthy verbal interactions to interpret eachothers ideas. Each of us viewed "the world" from the perspective ofour specific disciplines and, naturally, we each had constructed ourindividual interpretations of basic terms such as integratedcurriculum, thematic teaching, learning goals, learning activities,learning opportunities. We found that in the process of deliberationwe had to listen, talk, read, compromise, and take risks. We had toresist the temptation to plan before we developed a shared vision ofcurriculum integration. Yet we had to move ahead and compose ateaching plan despite a desire for a clearer shared vision.

Addressing ConcernsOther teacher educators who have attempted to teach about

curriculum integration have probably experienced somedisenchantment (for example, see Roth, 1994). The common senseappeal has come into conflict with the actual complexities of learningto create rich and relevant curriculum (Mason, 1996). Most teachereducators, however, like our project faculty members, are unwillingto abandon the notion of integration since it possesses greaterpotential for rich student learning and for greater teacher ownershipof curriculum than traditional textbook-based curricula.

Our dissatisfaction inspired the project faculty to experimentwith ways to improve unit products (e.g., integrating fewer subjectareas, having students compose group units, and increased modelingof unit composition and organization). For example, after thiscurriculum project, I began experimenting with demonstrating howto write intra- and interdisciplinary units in my courses. Now,whenever I teach about composing integrated curricula in a teachereducation course, I lead the whole class in jointly planning a thematicunit. Together we choose a theme, identify thematic questions andcontent, and plan learning opportunities. I model how to organize

287

learning opportunities around four phases of curriculumimplementation: theme introduction, theme exploration, themesynthesis, and theme sharing. We brainstorm possible learningopportunities for each unit phase, and students keep track of theirfavorite ideas throughout the session. We all write brief explanationsof learning opportunities that could take place. I take the lead anddemonstrate how to include programmatic practices that representbest practice in the various curricular areas. For example, I explainhow to include student-selected, self-paced reading and processwriting as learning opportunities in the gathering information phase.I explain how they might include science simulation in theinformation gathering phase or use computer technology in theorganizing information and sharing phases. As we identify learningopportunities, we discuss important considerations such as groupingand possible time routines.

Teaching students to use phases of curriculum implementation asan organizational format for the unit has been highly successful. Thefour phases provide a planning framework but are open-endedenough to allow for wide interpretation by students. As a result ofengagement and demonstration, students are better equipped toincorporate practices such as readers' workshops, assign activelearning roles to youngsters, and include of multicultural content andperspectives. With this introduction, students feel sufficiently secureto proceed with developing their own units.

Co-constructing a whole class unit has potential benefitsespecially when multiple faculty members are working together forthe first time on a unit project with a group of students. Faculty fromeach discipline can help integrate content with other disciplines; theycan establish connections among curricular concepts anddemonstrate the intellectual demands of connecting abstract ideas.Furthermore, faculty can demonstrate how to include and integratebest practice from their specialized fields. Hence, students can beopenly exposed to the ambiguities of composing curriculum asfaculty interact and exchange ideas with each other and students.

Concluding Remarks

Co-constructing a whole class unit using a four-phase curriculumframework is a strategy that addresses most of the student and facultyconcerns that emerged from our curriculum project. The challenge offaculty working to find common ground in a constellation ofcurricular conceptions is another matter. Educators who plan to work

288

together and intend to offer students a unified understanding ofthematic teaching should prepare for a journey and aim for acommon destination point. Currently, the literature on integratedcurriculum encompasses a wide variety of curricular conceptions,terms, and planning prescriptions. Classroom practice is equallyvaried. When multiple faculty members are involved in a jointproject, they need to wade through the information and develop ashared understanding through reading, discussion, diligence, time,effort to communicate, and respect for each other's ideas. The pointof the journey is not to find the "right" approach to integration, butrather, to find enough common ground to teach students responsiblythe best way to compose curriculum that will be appropriatelyeducative.

Unless we adequately equip students in our teacher preparationprograms to compose powerful, coherent, educative curricula, wemay be undermining the success of schooling in this country. As ourstudents move into teaching positions, if they are ill equipped, theymay compose trivial and unimaginative curricula that runs "the riskof leaving wide gaps in students' understanding of importantconcepts and subject matter" (Mason, 1996, p. 263). Or they mayabandon notions of integration and return to textbook-basedcurricula—which is commonly viewed as an inadequate anduninspired approach to teaching and learning. So, when teachingabout integration, faculty should proceed with commitment and highexpectations for themselves and for students. We have theopportunity to make a fundamental difference in the nature ofeducation if we educate our students well about this complex andnon-traditional approach to curriculum.

ReferencesColorado Middle Level Interdisciplinary Education Center. (1992).

Collection of interdisciplinary units. Greeley, CO: University of NorthernColorado Laboratory School.

Fogarty, R. (1991). The mindful school: Integrate the curricula. Palatine, IL:IRI/Skylight

Hagerty, P. (1992). Readers' workshop: Real reading. Ontario: ScholasticCanada.

Harste, J. C. (1993, April). Inquiry-based instruction. Primary Voices K-6,Premier Issue, 2-5 .

Kellough, R. D., & Roberts, P. L. (1994). A resource guide for elementaryschool teaching: Planning for competence (3rd ed.). New York: Macmillan.

289

Lipson, M. J., Valencia, S. W., Wixson, K. K., & Peters, C. W. (1993).Integration and thematic teaching: Integration to improve teaching andlearning. Language Arts, 70(4), 252-263.

Mason, T. C. (1996). Integrated curricula: Potential and problems. Journalof Teacher Education, 47(4), 263-270.

Pappas, C. C., Kiefer, B. Z., & Levstik, L. S. (1995). An integratedlanguage perspective in the elementary school: Theory into action (2nd ed.). WhitePlains, NY: Longman.

Roth, K. J. (1994). Second thoughts about interdisciplinary studies.American Educator, 18(1), 44-48.

Shoemaker, B. J. (1991). Education 2000: Integrated curriculum. PhiDelta Kappan, 72(10), 793-797.

Willis, S. (1994, December). Teaching across the disciplines. Association forSupervision and Curriculum Development: Update, 36(10), 1-4.

Willis, S. (1992, November). Interdisciplinary Learning: Movement to linkthe disciplines gains momentum. Association for Supervision and CurriculumDevelopment: Curriculum Update, 1-8.

Author's Note

Preparation of this article was supported in part by a grant from the KnightFoundation. I am grateful for the comments of Mark Guy on earlier versions ofthis article.

290