How our ICP uses and integrates ideas based on theories of literacy and learning:

Throughout the course of designing our ICP, we have attempted to draw on multiple
theories of multimodal literacy and new literacies, as well as to incorporate some of the best
practices for interdisciplinary planning. The first question we discussed before we began
planning any of our activities or assessments was how to use the unique facets of science and
English class designs to work together to answer one of our essential questions: what is the role
that ethics plays in the advancement of science, with specific regard to genetic modification? In
order to best approach this question from both sides of the argument equally well, we chose to
use texts that highlight both the achievements and the perils of the advancement of modern
science. A Brave New World, our central text in English, depicts a beautiful new society in which
everyone is free of disease and content to live a carefree existence, working for the good of the
communal society. On the other hand, sacrifices to personal liberty and identity must be made to
ensure that the new society prospers. In science, we chose to use articles, readings, and
multimedia that look at how advancements in science allow for innovations such as improved
artificial limb design, but also question the morals behind creating so-called test-tube or
designer babies. Throughout the unit, students are asked to relate what they learn in science to
the study of the text in English, and vice versa, culminating in their presentation based on their
learning in the two subjects during the final debate. Campbell and Henning discuss a
binoculars approach to interdisciplinary planning, a term coined by Foggarty in 1991, in which
the learning that occurs in two separate classes comes together to focus on shared content and
skills between the two. Our focus on the big idea or essential question of ethics and genetic
modification unites the two content areas and allows students to view the theme of the unit from

multiple perspectives: the humanities and hard science; pros and cons; moral and immoral; and
advancement and stasis.
However, we realize these are multifaceted questions that one cannot arrive at the answer
so easily. For this reason, care was taken to ensure that the structure of the unit would give
students the supports required to grapple with these themes. We chose to use literature circles in
English, a popular, social learning technique in which students interact with each other on a
semi-daily basis to report and discuss their analyses of the text being studied. In science, class
discussions based on the content are planned to take place. Meanwhile, throughout the two areas,
preparations for the final debate are scheduled, and students are placed in groups to aid in the
discussion and research of the answer to a simplified version of our big question: is genetic
modification ethical? Structured research time given during both classes will help groups to
defend one side of this argument, as will access to online forums where they can discuss with
their group members in a semi-formal, semi-structured digital space to help them prepare for the
debate. Using internet forums allows the students access to yet another way to interact with the
content and, more importantly, each other, while monitoring of the forums by the teachers allows
for speedy intervention and modification should one group be on the wrong track (Grisham and
Wolsey, 2006).Combined with the use of multimedia such as articles, editorials, personal
accounts, YouTube videos, websites, and labs in class, students are exposed to multiple veins
through which to approach the same problem, are given autonomy in their learning, have chances
to collaborate with one another, and become broadly knowledgeable on a given topic, all of
which are key skills identified by Kalantzis et al. (2003) and cited by Jacobs (2013) as skills
which are vital for students to succeed in an information-driven society. And although
information and evidence are slated to serve as the basis for students arguments during the final

debate, that is not to say that personal interpretation and analysis count for nothing. Autonomy
and identity go hand in hand, and therefore it is vital that through independent, guided, and group
practice in both of the core subjects, whether through the completion of labs, discussion of
literature, or critique of other media, students come to see themselves as knowledgeable
scientists and literary critics. This identity development is at the heart of new literacy theory
(Lankshear & Knobel, 2006; Gee 1990), and it is something that we seek to instill in our students
by building up their confidence in themselves with the dispersal of structured knowledge
throughout the unit, progressing from more general (i.e., introduction to genetics with notes and
teacher-led activities) to more specific, self-directed, expert-level activities (the final debate,
where students are the ones who disperse knowledge). We believe we have shown this through
the careful planning of each of our activities and assessments.

References
Campbell, C., & Henning, M. (2010). Planning, Teaching, and Assessing Elementary Education
Interdisciplinary Curriculum. International Journal Of Teaching And Learning In Higher
Education, 22(2), 179-186.
Fogarty, R. (1991). How to integrate the curricula. Palatine, IL: IRI/Skylight.
Gee, J. P. (1990). Social linguistics and literacies: Ideology in discourses. London, UK: Falmer
Press.
Grisham, D. L., & Wolsey, T. D. (2006). Recentering the middle school classroom as a vibrant
learning community: Students, literacy, and technology intersect. Journal of
Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 49(8), 648-660.
Jacobs, G. E. (2013). Designing assessments: A multiliteracies approach. Journal of Adolescent
& Adult Literacy, 56(8), 623-626.
Kalantzis, M., Cope, B., & Harvey, A. (2003). Assessing multiliteracies and the new basics.
Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 10(1), 1526.

Lankshear, C., & Knobel, M. (2006). New literacies: Everyday practices and classroom
learning. New York: Open University Press.