Integrated Curriculum: Definition, Benefits,

and Development
Gustave E. Nollmeyer and Ann Van Wig

Abstract
Integrated curriculum is a student-centred, constructivist approach to teaching and
learning. It produces rich connections between disciplinary content and allows
students to develop meaningful understanding of large ideas that transcend any
particular discipline. Students who experience an integrated curriculum often
academically outperform peers from traditional classes. They also experience
social benefits such as motivation to learn, collaborative abilities, and increased
self-efficacy. Many of these benefits occur regardless of the model used in
developing the integrated curricula, and there are many approaches that can be
organised by foundation, continuum, or domain.

Keywords: Meaningful learning; Project-based learning; Real-world application;

Thematic curriculum

An integrated curriculum is an approach to curriculum development that places a strong

emphasis on the students’ understanding of how knowledge and skills from content disciplines
connect with one another and relate to real-world contexts. While it is often thought to be a
product of education movements in the 1980s, the modern history of integration can be traced
back to John Dewey and the progressive movement of the early 1900s (Beane 1997).
The inconsistent use of terms associated with integration (i.e. interdisciplinary, integrated,
integrative, transdisciplinary, blended, fused) and the variety of approaches leave a lack of
consensus about definitions (Applebee, Adler, and Flihan 2007; Harrell 2010). However,
while definitions may be varied, there are at least three common principles for integrated
curricula that can be identified in the literature. When these principles are present together,
research has demonstrated that integration produces several benefits for students. However,
there is not a single best way to plan for integration. Instead, there are a number of ways
educators can go about applying these principles to develop their own integrated curriculum.

1 Definition of integrated curriculum

At the most basic level, integrated curricula connect knowledge and skills from multiple
subject areas into an individual learning experience. However, this statement also oversimplifies
an incredibly dynamic and complex curriculum design. Three principles can help provide

DOI: 10.4324/9780367198459-REPRW180-1
2 Integrated Curriculum: Definition, Benefits, and Development

clarity about curricula that are truly integrated. They have (a) rich connections across the
disciplines, (b) a student-centred focus, and (c) holistic, meaningful learning.
First, integrated curricula should have rich connections across the disciplines. These
connections involve both knowledge and skills (Case 1991). Knowledge can be integrated
because it is correlated, shared, or reconstructed (Adler and Flihan 1997). A theme-based
approach where the different disciplines all address one aspect of a particular topic or theme
is an example of correlated knowledge (Vars 1991). In shared integration, key concepts are
actually shared within and across multiple disciplines (Applebee et al. 2007). For example,
the concept of dynamic systems is important for understanding healthy ecosystems in science
as well as free-market economics in social studies. When knowledge is being reconstructed
by students through experiences of integrated curricula, discipline boundaries are no longer
important (Adler and Flihan 1997). The ideas learned, from multiple disciplines, carry more
meaning because of a ‘synergistic union’ (Huntley 1998, p. 322). When crafting such curricula,
it is recommended to begin with big ideas and the problems and issues of life without regard
for disciplines (Beane 1995, 1997). Here, the rich connections of real-world situations enhance
disciplinary concepts into a whole – reflecting the Gestalt foundations of the interdisciplinary
movement (Mathison and Freeman 1998).
Second, integrated curricula should be student-centred. An integrated curriculum helps
students construct their own understanding regardless of disciplinary boundaries (Gehrke
1998). Therefore, it takes into account the interests and concerns of students (Beane 1991;
Case 1991). As students learn about real issues reflecting their interests and concerns within
an authentic context, they become empowered to take action (Beane 1997). A student-centred
approach also includes students in the process of curricular development as it enhances
interest (Jacobs 1989). Brown (2011) even suggested that the integration is not true without
student direction. In its purest form, curriculum integration is based on student discussion
with limited teacher assistance (Brown 2016). While subject-centred approaches do not
include student involvement in the development of the curriculum (Gehrke 1998), helping
students connect knowledge to real-world situations is paramount in all integrated curricula
(Mathison and Freeman 1998).
Third, integrated curricula are holistic and result in meaningful learning. While learning
in a single discipline may artificially fragment knowledge (an unintended consequence),
integrated curricula show the connections within and between concepts from various disciplines
(Harrell 2010). Harrell also explained that integrated curricula are a response to Gestalt
psychology which suggested a holistic view of the learner and learning. It is not an additive
reality but rather a multifaceted one. Connecting knowledge from multiple disciplines into
larger ideas within meaningful contexts broadens and deepens student understanding (Beane
1997). This characteristic is best seen through integration’s role in project-based learning
(See Project-Based Learning, this volume). Meaning-making is at the heart of learning. To
create meaning is to make connections, identify patterns, and organise these into larger,
integrated ideas (Clark 1997). Therefore, the learning experiences in the classroom should
mimic life and the problems of life where knowledge and skill from different disciplines are
used when and where needed (Beane 1991). This should provide a context in which new
ideas make sense holistically, and the methods of teaching address the needs of the whole
child (Shoemaker 1991).
Three characteristics can help provide clarity in identifying an integrated curriculum. An
integrated curriculum will demonstrate rich connections across disciplines. These connections
may only be correlated; however, they might be concepts shared across disciplines or even be

DOI: 10.4324/9780367198459-REPRW180-1
Integrated Curriculum: Definition, Benefits, and Development 3

reconstructed ideas that transcend the disciplines. Another indicator of an integrated

curriculum is that it should be student-centred. Since the students are doing the constructing
of knowledge, they need to play a key role throughout the learning. Finally, an integrated
curriculum produces meaningful learning because it provides holistic understanding of real-
world issues.

2 Benefits of integrated curriculum

Students who experience integrated curricula perform at least as well as those in traditional
classrooms. However, an integrated curriculum can produce benefits for students in both
academic achievement and social development. These positive results are reported by
teachers (McBee 2000) and confirmed empirically regardless of which integrated curriculum
model had been employed (Mathison and Freeman 1998).
Vars (1997) reviewed over 100 studies on integration and concluded that students from
classrooms with integrated curricula did not underperform but rather often had greater
academic success than peers in traditional classes. One set of studies, which focused on the
integration of science and literacy, demonstrated greater gains for integrated curriculum
treatment groups in K–2 students (Romance and Vitale 2011; Vitale and Romance 2010,
2011) and 3–5 students (Romance and Vitale 2001, 2008; Vitale and Romance 2010). In
these longitudinal studies, the researchers discovered that the gains were compounded over
time. Romance and Vitale (2008, 2011) reported that middle-school students who participated
in an integrated curriculum during their elementary years outperformed their peers. This has
been demonstrated before in both elementary and high school students (Vars 1997). At the
other end of the spectrum, Fantuzzo, Gadsden, and McDermott (2011) found that with Head
Start students, integrated curricula produced significant effects over the standard curriculum
for both listening comprehension and mathematics.
Integrated curricula have demonstrated social benefits as well. Students in integrated
classrooms are more motivated to learn (Adler and Flihan 1997; Applebee et al. 2007;
Mathison and Freeman 1998). This is because the students play a role in decision-making
(Beane, 1997; Brown 2011) and understand the purpose of the knowledge and skills being
taught (McBee 2000). Integrated experiences also lead to higher self-efficacy in at-risk
students (MacMath et al. 2010) and promote cooperative learning and better attitudes in all
students (Mathison and Freeman 1998).
There are both academic and social benefits for students who experience integrated
curricula. While there are times that students in these classes perform similar to peers from
traditional classes, integrated classrooms tend to produce greater academic gains. This has
been demonstrated regardless of the methods used in developing the curricula. Students who
experience integrated curricula also benefit from a number of social advantages. These
include greater motivation and improved abilities in cooperative learning.

3 Development of an integrated curriculum

A number of models and recommendations exist for developing an integrated curriculum.
Because of the lack of consistent use of terms in the field of integration, it can be difficult to
distinguish between approaches without lengthy study. While there are various ways to view
models for integration, some of the most common lenses are foundations, continuum, and
domain.

DOI: 10.4324/9780367198459-REPRW180-1
4 Integrated Curriculum: Definition, Benefits, and Development

3.1 Foundations
One way to view approaches to integrated curricula is to consider the foundations for the
integration. Kain (1993) and Shriner, Schlee, and Libler (2010) suggested two foundations:
Beane’s (1992) student-centred approach and Jacob’s (1989) subject-centred approach. In the
student-centred approach, an integrated curriculum is developed with the students in mind.
This model for integration purports that the discovery of self and social meaning is at the
heart of integration (Beane 1995). The curriculum is developed around life issues about
which students care (Beane 1991, 1995; Brown 2011). The experiences of the learner then
become more important than the disciplines of knowledge (Gehrke 1998); therefore, students
play a role in developing the curriculum (Springer 2006). In fact, it should be their
curriculum, developed from their own questions (Brown 2011; Springer 2006). A second
foundation is the content- or the subject-centred approach. Instead of focusing on students
and what they are interested in, these approaches focus on developing curriculum from the
disciplines (Gehrke 1998). When constructing curricula from a subject-centred approach,
many intentional decisions are made about how the involved disciplines interact, blend or
blur, and complement each other. Subject-centred approaches are commonly displayed along
a continuum or within a multidimensional domain.

3.2 Continuum
Another lens that can help plan in developing an integrated curriculum is to see various levels
of integration according to a continuum. A number of continuums have been proposed. Adler
and Flihan (1997) suggested a continuum with three levels – moving from correlated
knowledge to shared knowledge, to reconstructed knowledge. At the correlated level,
complementary or related ideas from separate subject areas are taught side by side. The
disciplines are distinct from each other. The middle stage, shared knowledge, begins to blur
the lines between disciplines. Here, concepts that find application in multiple disciplines are
taught. Students still see and understand how the content contributes to an individual
discipline, but they also learn the relationships between the disciplines. Finally, with
reconstructed knowledge, at the far end of the continuum, subject areas have disappeared
completely. Learning is built around a problem or concept and uses relevant knowledge and
skill from any needed discipline.
Huntley’s (1998) continuum is designed to demonstrate integration for only two
disciplines. Intradisciplinary curriculum, the absence of integration, is represented at either
end of the continuum where each discipline sits in isolation. For example, mathematics could
be at one end and science at the other. The disciplines lose their distinction as you move
towards the centre of the continuum. Partway towards the middle, on the mathematics side,
science is integrated into mathematics for the purpose of enhancing the mathematics lesson.
On the other side, it is mathematics being used in science to better the science lesson. At the
centre, the two are fully integrated, each enhancing the learning of the other.
Mathison and Freeman (1998) referred to their continuum as ‘levels of integration’ (p. 8);
they broke the continuum model down into five levels. The first stage, like Huntley’s, is
called intradisciplinary. Here the only integration is done between concepts within the same
discipline. Next, the cross-disciplinary level is identified by working to connect themes and
skills within different disciplines. The third level is the interdisciplinary level, where the
concepts, themes, and skills naturally relate to various disciplines. Mathison and Freeman

DOI: 10.4324/9780367198459-REPRW180-1
Integrated Curriculum: Definition, Benefits, and Development 5

then identify the integrated level. It is here that the disciplines fade into the background in
favour of issue- or inquiry-oriented learning. Finally, at the integrative level, students have
taken on more of the decision-making about the issues and inquiries being studied.

3.3 Domain
Finally, the domain lens could be used to identify the type of approach desired when
developing an integrated curriculum. Unlike the continuum lens, which suggests a linear
relationship, the domain lens distinguishes models without a linear perspective. Instead, the
domain of integration is multidimensional. Using this lens, approaches to integration include
many options that do not necessarily require a better or worse label. Shoemaker (1991)
identified eight different models for developing integrated curricula. Four of the models
(Infusion, Topics-within-disciplines, Interdisciplinary, and Thematic) can be identified as
discipline-based models and share similarities with others described in the continuum lens.
After these discipline-based models, Shoemaker presents a student-centred model called
holistic, and two brain-based models called mind/body function and integrative brainwork.
Finally, the eighth model is a combination of the other seven and is aptly named combined.
Without directly stating it, Shoemaker’s eight models indicate multiple dimensions in the
domain of integration.
Nissani (1995) is more direct, as he attributed the difficulty in discretely defining integrated
models to a fluid multidimensional continuum. He suggested four dimensions. The first is the
number of subjects involved in the integration. The second dimension is distance; here, he
argued that some disciplines lie closer naturally. Next, he identified the dimension of novelty
and creativity in the integration. Finally, the fourth dimension is the degree of integration.
Similarly, Nollmeyer, Kelting-Gibson, and Graves (2016) suggested a multidimensional
model for the domain of integration. They also identified four variables or dimensions:
subject areas in the integration, frequency of the integration, delivery of the integration, and
depth of the integration. There is some overlap of variables between the models. Both models
reference the number of subjects in the integration. Also, Nissani’s degree of integration can
be likened to Nollmeyer et al.’s depth of integration dimension. However, each model also
has two variables not shared by the other.
There are many ways to develop an integrated curriculum. Considering the options by
viewing them through different lenses can help provide clarity in the process. One way to
view the development of an integrated curriculum is to consider foundations. Curricula can
be developed from a student-centred foundation or a subject-centred foundation. Another way
to view options with integration is to look at them on a continuum. These continuums allow a
curriculum planner to make decisions in planning for more or less integration. A final way to
view models for integration is through the domain lens. This lens suggests multiple dimensions.
With this lens, curricula can be developed with each of these dimensions in mind.

4 Summary
Integration is one method of developing curricula that aligns with constructivist theories.
Integrated curricula weave knowledge and skills from multiple disciplines into meaningful,
unified learning experiences that are both holistic and student-centred. Students taught
through integrated curricula often outperform peers receiving traditional instruction. Also,
students tend to struggle with fewer social problems and have higher levels of self-efficacy.

DOI: 10.4324/9780367198459-REPRW180-1
6 Integrated Curriculum: Definition, Benefits, and Development

While there are many different ways teachers go about planning an integrated curriculum,
options can be further understood using three lenses. First, viewing integration through the
foundations lens focuses attention on whether the curriculum is built more with subject-area
disciplines in mind or student-driven ideas. Second, viewing integration through the continuum
lens enables a comparison of the degree to which discipline lines have been blurred. Moving
along the continuum, from less to more, subject-area disciplines become less distinct –
usually, this is seen as better or stronger integration. Finally, employing the domain lens,
approaches to integration are viewed on more of a multidimensional map where a number of
variables can be considered at one time. Regardless of the lens used to view or plan integrated
curricula, at their heart, these student-centred curricula should produce rich, holistic,
meaningful learning experiences that bring clarity to the purpose and value of disciplinary
content and skills.

References
Adler, M., & Flihan, S. (1997) The Interdisciplinary Continuum: Reconciling Theory, Research and Practice:
Report Series 2.36, Albany, NY: National Research Center on English Learning and Achievement, https://
files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED414602.pdf.
Applebee, A.N., Adler, M., & Flihan, S. (2007) ‘Interdisciplinary curricula in Middle and High School
Classrooms: Case Studies of Approaches to Curriculum and Instruction’, American Educational Research
Journal 44: 1002–1039. doi:10.3102/0002831207308219.
Beane, J.A. (1991) ‘The Middle School: The Natural Home of Integrated Curriculum’, Educational Leadership
49: 9–13.
Beane, J.A. (1992) ‘Creating an Integrative Curriculum: Making the Connections’, NASSP Bulletin 76: 46–54.
Beane, J.A. (1995) ‘Curriculum Integration and the Disciplines of Knowledge’, Phi Delta Kappan 76: 616–622.
Beane, J.A. (1997) Curriculum Integration: Designing the Core of Democratic Education, New York, NY:
Teachers College Press.
Brown, D.F. (2011) ‘Curriculum Integration: Meaningful Learning Based on Students’ Questions’, Middle
Grades Research Journal 6(4): 193–206.
Brown, D.F. (2016) ‘Curriculum Integration’, in Mertens, S.B., Caskey, M.M., & Flowers, N. eds., The
Encyclopedia of Middle Grades Education, 2nd edn., Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing, pp. 122–124.
Case, R. (1991) ‘The Anatomy of Curricular Integration’, Canadian Journal of Education 16: 215–224.
Clark, E.T. (1997) Designing and Implementing an Integrated Curriculum: A Student-Centered Approach,
Brandon, VT: Holistic Education Press.
Fantuzzo, J.W., Gadsden, V.L., & McDermott, P.A. (2011) ‘An Integrated Curriculum to Improve Mathematics,
Language, and Literacy for Head Start Children’, American Educational Research Journal 48(3): 763–793.
doi:10.3102/0002831210385446.
Fogarty, R. (1991) ‘Ten Ways to Integrate Curriculum’, Educational Leadership 49: 61–65.
Gehrke, N.J. (1998) ‘A Look at Curriculum Integration from the Bridge’, Curriculum Journal 9: 247–260.
doi:10.1080/0958517970090209.
Harrell, P.E. (2010) ‘Teaching an Integrated Science Curriculum: Linking Teacher Knowledge and Teaching
Assignments’, Issues in Teacher Education 19: 145–165.
Huntley, M.A. (1998) ‘Design and Implementation of a Framework for Defining Integrated Mathematics and
Science Education’, School Science and Mathematics 98: 320–327.
Jacobs, H.H. (1989) Interdisciplinary Curriculum: Design and Implementation, Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
Kain, D.L. (1993) ‘Cabbages and Kings: Research Directions in Integrated/Interdisciplinary Curriculum’,
Journal of Educational Thought 27: 312–331.
MacMath, S., Roberts, J., Wallace, J., & Chi, X. (2010) ‘Curriculum Integration and At-Risk Students: A
Canadian Case Study Examining Student Learning and Motivation’, British Journal of Special Education 37:
87–94.
Mathison, S., & Freeman, M. (1998) The Logic of Interdisciplinary Studies: Report Series 2.33, Albany, NY:
National Research Center on English Learning and Achievement, https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED418434.

DOI: 10.4324/9780367198459-REPRW180-1
Integrated Curriculum: Definition, Benefits, and Development 7

McBee, R.H. (2000) ‘Why Teachers Integrate’, Educational Forum 64: 254–260. doi:10.1080/00131720008984762.
Nissani, M. (1995) ‘Fruits, salads, and Smoothies: A Working Definition of Interdisciplinarity’, Journal of
Educational Thought 29: 121–128.
Nollmeyer, G.E., Kelting-Gibson, L., & Graves, C.J. (2016) ‘Mapping the Domain of Subject Area Integration:
Elementary Educators’ Descriptions and Practices’, International Journal of Learning, Teaching and
Educational Research 15(9): 1–27. www.ijlter.org/index.php/ijlter/index.
Romance, N.R., & Vitale, M.R. (2001) ‘Implementing an In-Depth Expanded Science Model in Elementary
Schools: Multi-Year Findings, Research Issues, and Policy Implications’, International Journal of Science
Education 23(4): 373–404.
Romance, N.R., & Vitale, M.R. (2008) Perspectives for Improving and Learning: An Interdisciplinary Model
for Integrating Science and Reading in Grades K-5 , paper presented at the Committee on Education
Workshop on Education Lecture Series, Chicago, IL, www.scienceideas.org/pubs-pres/articles-instructionalm
odel/ImprovingSchool-Learning-Instruction.pdf.
Romance, N.R., & Vitale, M.R. (2011) An Integrated Interdisciplinary Model for Accelerating Student
Achievement in Science and Reading Comprehension Across Grades 3–8: Implications for Research and
Practice , paper presented at the Society for Research on Educational Effectiveness, Washington, DC.
Shoemaker, B.J.E. (1991) ‘Education 2000 Integrated Curriculum’, The Phi Delta Kappan 72: 793–797, www.
jstor.org/stable/20404539.
Shriner, M., Schlee, B.M., & Libler, R. (2010) ‘Teachers’ Perceptions, Attitudes and Beliefs Regarding
Curriculum Integration’, Australian Educational Researcher 37: 51–62.
Springer, M. (2006) Soundings: A Democratic Student-Centered Education, Westerville, OH: National Middle
School Association.
Vars, G.F. (1991) ‘Integrated Curriculum in Historical Perspective’, Educational Leadership 49: 14, https://sea
rch.proquest.com/docview/1290185373.
Vars, G.F. (1997) ‘Effects of Integrative Curriculum and Instruction’, in Irving, J.L. ed., What Current Research
Says to the Middle Level Practitioner, Columbus, OH: National Middle School Association, pp. 179–186.
Vitale, M.R., & Romance, N.R. (2010) Toward a Curricular Policy for Advancing School Reform by
Integrating Reading Comprehension within Time-Expanded Science Instruction in Grades K-5 , paper
presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching,
Philadelphia, PA.
Vitale, M.R., & Romance, N.R. (2011) ‘Adaptation of a Knowledge-Based Instructional Intervention to
Accelerate Student Learning in Science and Early Literacy in Grades 1 and 2’, Journal of Curriculum and
Instruction 5(2): 79–93. doi:10.3776/joci.2011.v5n2p79-93.

Further reading
Applebee, A.N., Adler, M., & Flihan, S. (2007) ‘Interdisciplinary Curricula in Middle and High School
Classrooms: Case Studies of Approaches to Curriculum and Instruction’, American Educational Research
Journal 44: 1002–1039. doi:10.3102/0002831207308219.
Brown, D.F. (2011) ‘Curriculum Integration: Meaningful Learning Based on Students’ Questions’, Middle
Grades Research Journal 6(4): 193–206.
Romance, N.R., & Vitale, M.R. (2001) ‘Implementing an In-Depth Expanded Science Model in Elementary
Schools: Multi-Year Findings, Research Issues, and Policy Implications’, International Journal of Science
Education 23(4): 373–404.

DOI: 10.4324/9780367198459-REPRW180-1