An Integrated Approach to Curriculum at Foundation Level

Abstract

If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information. About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.comEmerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services.Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation. AbstractThe prospect of state funding for foundation programmes has heralded a new interest in such programmes in the Higher Education sector. Already the proposed funding frameworks appear to be influencing the nature of foundation curricula. Against this background Peninsula Technikon is currently implementing pilot foundation programmes in Mechanical and Civil Engineering. This pilot draws on an integrated, extended curriculum model emerging in the Engineering faculty, which uses a focus subject from the mainstream programme around which to build the foundation curriculum. This paper presents a multi-level analysis of policy articulation regarding foundation programmes, from a mode 2 (Gibbons 1994) perspective which emphasises the need for learning to be applied in reallife, problem-solving contexts which transcend disciplinary boundaries and reflect issues of importance to society. It examines this policy and responses to it, at the macro level of state and the Higher Education (HE) sector, as well as the micro level of an individual HE institution and two academic departments. Finally suggestions are made as to why and how articulation from the micro to the macro level could enhance policy implementation.

Differential effects of subject‐based and integrated curriculum approaches on students' learning outcomes: A review of reviews

“…With over 900 citations, 1 Fogarty's classification is particularly well known and often used to describe different approaches to integration. The classification introduced by Gresnigt et al (2014) brings together various earlier classifications (e.g., Burns, 1995;Drake, 2007;Fogarty, 1991;Harden, 2000;Jacobs, 1989;Van Boxtel, 2009, as cited in Gresnigt et al, 2014) and thus seems fairly comprehensive. In addition, it uses terminology that seems to be frequently used within and outside the academic literature to refer to integration, such as 'interdisciplinary ' and 'multidisciplinary' approaches.…”

“…This brief overview of classifications already highlights the complex conceptual nature of curriculum integration and the at times confusing use of terminology. This is not at all a new problem; Jacobs (1989) problematised the issue of varying interpretations of curriculum terminology already more than 30 years ago. Importantly, even the authors of these classifications tend to stress that integration occurs on a continuum and that the line between different approaches is blurred.…”

“…CI can prevent this by forcing teachers to teach outside their field of specialisation (for a review, see Badley, 2009;Hopkin, 2012) • CI leads to a reduction of teaching time in subjects other than English, mathematics and science, such as history and geography (Hopkin, 2012) • There is insufficient empirical evidence for the effectiveness of CI for students' learning experiences and outcomes (for a review, see Badley, 2009). This will be further discussed in the next section • Subjects can be sources of identity for teachers and students, which can increase their interest to further the subject as well as challenge their boundaries (Hopkin, 2012;Young, 2013) • CI helps students develop metacognitive skills such as self-appraisal and selfmanagement (Ivanitskaya et al, 2002) • CI facilitates students' epistemological development (Ivanitskaya et al, 2002) • CI encourages depth and breadth in learning (Lipson et al, 1993) • CI helps students identify both the distinctive qualities and the related elements of the key learning areas (Jacobs, 1989;Shoemaker, 1989 as cited in Magoma, 2016) • CI helps students to develop a more integrated knowledge base (Lipson et al, 1993) • CI helps students to make connections more easily between the content they learn in school and their out-of-school experiences (Jacobs, 1989;Shoemaker, 1989…”

“…Faunce & Bossing (1958) 3 curriculum models: Correlation, fusion and broad fields Bernstein (1975) 2 types of curricula: Collection and integrated curriculum Ost (1975) 6 curriculum approaches: The interdisciplinary, unified, integrated, correlated, coordinated and comprehensive problem solving approach Vars (1987) 3 curriculum models: Correlation, fusion and core Jacobs (1989) 6 content design options: Discipline-based content design, parallel discipline design, complementary/multidisciplinary units or courses, interdisciplinary units or courses, integrated day models and complete programmes Fogarty (1991) 10 models for organising the curriculum: The fragmented, connected, nested, sequenced, shared, webbed, threaded, integrated, immersed and networked model Schumacher (1995) 5 levels of curriculum integration: Departmentalised, reinforcement, complementary or shared units, webbed and integrated themes/learning Gresnigt et al (2014) 6 approaches to integration: The isolated/cellular/fragmented, connected/ aware, nested/fused, multidisciplinary, interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary approach Drake & Reid (2018, 2020 5 ways of integration: Intradisciplinary curriculum, fusion, multidisciplinary curriculum, interdisciplinary curriculum and transdisciplinary curriculum in language lessons and designing models in industrial arts. The threaded model uses a meta curricular approach which 'threads thinking skills, social skills, study skills, graphic organizers, technology, and a multiple intelligences approach to learning throughout all disciplines' (p. 63).…”

“…All of this requires substantial effort and resources • Educators may resist integration because they have been socialised into their respective discipline community, highly identify with their discipline and may to some extent lose that identity when participating in integrated education (for a review, see Badley, 2009;Bernstein, 1975) • Most educators are used to a subject-based curriculum and changing their ways of viewing relations between disciplines might be difficult (Stevenson & Carr, 1993) • Scheduling the timetable is much more difficult for integrated curricula and teachers need more planning time (Stevenson & Carr, 1993) • Student assessment is more difficult for integrated curricula because jurisdictions, rather than schools themselves, develop the assessments (see Badley, 2009) • Curricula need to be revised less frequently if they focus on the essential elements of subjects (compared to those including highly contextualised content). This brings advantages such as the supply of high-quality textbooks and support materials (Oates, 2011) • CI reduces schedule fragmentation and increases flexibility (Jacobs, 1989; for a review see Mathison & Freeman, 1998;Ost, 1975). In subject-based curricula, lessons need to be planned to fit within short time blocks, which can lead to the fragmentation of content and prevent prolonged, in-depth examination of an issue • Integrated curricula help teachers better utilise instructional time and avoid curriculum overload (for reviews, see Magoma, 2016 andMathison &Freeman, 1998).…”