Curriculum Integration: Meaningful Learning Based on Students’ Questions Free

Adolescents often visualize themselves as adults realizing that they will soon be old enough to make significant and critical decisions about their lives. Middle and high school students are ready to engage in conversations and debates on topics associated with personal identity concerns, health issues, ethnicity, the environment, ethics, sexuality, gender issues, their futures, relationships, and monetary concerns. What aspects of traditional curricula permit middle and high school students to explore life in these realms as it affects them? Shultz and Cook-Sather (2001) summarized the results of numerous interviews with high school students in stating,

It is not uncommon for middle level teachers to feel a need to get students ready for high school. The ready comment can have many different meanings, but it often applies to the idea that students must be rigorously prepared via infusion of hundreds of content standards to ensure academic success in high school. What if instead of filling students with content, young adolescents developed their critical and creative thinking processes; became seasoned researchers; improved their problem solving skills; became skilled at asking questions rather than waiting for teachers to ask them questions; and, developed advanced presentation abilities through frequent class debates? Curriculum integration classes are designed to promote cognitive growth for students—not feed them content to be regurgitated on demand.

Often teachers and administrators believe that when students are responsible for choosing curricula that they will miss essential content that will negatively affect their future academic success. The fallacy of that perspective is a belief that curricula are finite—that every grade level and every content-area teacher must deliver a specific base of knowledge before the student can progress to the next level is a major flaw as a belief system. The unlimited access to knowledge available to everyone today makes the theory of finite curricula and a spiral delivery of curriculum obsolete. Curricula are infinite—they always have been and always will be. Suggestions from anyone on specific content for “what every eighth grader should know” demonstrate an ignorance of how infinite curricula are.

An example of the variations in curriculum in one content area is the literature that high school English teachers choose for their students. Curious about my senior-level college students’ high school literature curricular emphases, I asked which books they had all read since my students are all from the same geographic region. I expected that the majority of students had read the same books—the canon necessary for college academic success. Fewer than 6 of a class of 28 students had read similar books in their high school careers. Each new semester reveals similar diversity of curricular emphases in high school literature. The variation of novels selected by their teachers reveals the diversity of opinions on which books are necessary for future academic success and general knowledge.

Content standardization is a futile attempt to deny adolescents the engaged learning they receive when they determine what they’ll learn. Beane (2004) recognized this faulty thinking about content standards:

An alternative curricular delivery system is available and exists in the form of true curriculum integration (CI).

The reasons for providing student-directed learning through CI are many and provide opportunities for students to

• engage in leaning ideas that are meaningful to their lives;

• make significant connections between ideas they study and their lives;

• learn concepts and principles at a developmentally appropriate level;

• participate in democratic decision making that affects daily classroom events;

• be exposed to social equity issues that are on young adolescents’ minds;

• establish personal academic goals;

• determine methods of presenting their growth to others; and

• design assessment and evaluation criteria that ensure cognitive growth.

This list describes the intent of all schooling; yet, traditional curricular design seldom provides students with the level of personalized responsible learning that accompanies true CI.

Nine years following the implementation of No Child Left Behind (NCLB, 2002) many classrooms have become less progressive in their curricular design than in previous decades (Beane, 2004; Springer, 2006). Despite the pressure on educators to improve test scores, the National Middle School Association (NMSA) released its latest edition of This We Believe in which the authors continued to advocate for curriculum that is “challenging, exploratory, integrative, and relevant” (NMSA, 2010, p. 17). The NMSA authors provide more specifics:

Interpretations of CI are many, with few educators understanding the design of true CI. Beane (2004) described students’ roles in true CI by asking whether educators’ curricular designs provide opportunities for students to explore questions of self and integrate learning experiences that reflect students’ interests at this time of their lives.

Brown and Knowles (2007) clarified the differences among what educators call multidisciplinary, interdisciplinary, and studentdesigned (true CI) curriculum. Studentdesigned is true CI as defined by ultimate curricular decision making by students. Multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary curricular models are limited in their design by the decisions about what students study arbitrarily established by teachers rather than students. It is common for middle schools to implement multidisciplinary or interdisciplinary curricula, but these models fall far short of meeting the developmental and personal learning needs of young adolescents.

Beane (1993) noted that appropriate CI design originates from the intersection of students’ personal questions and social issues that affect their lives. Brazee (1995) added that middle school curricula should be responsive to the developmental needs of young adolescents, and believes that CI is the most meaningful process to accomplish this outcome.

Springer (2006) explained the process of engaging students in planning curriculum in a true CI class. Each student in a CI class develops a set of questions individually that he or she has about himself/herself and about the world. These questions are then shared among an entire class. Similarities among the class’s entire set of questions are then noted, and the list of questions is shortened to represent the themes that emerge from the original questions. The list of common themes is shortened to a set of three or four major themes through consensus among the class. Springer (2006) explained this process of student consensus building and eventual establishment of a short set of prioritized themes to study throughout the year. These student-developed themes become the year’s curricula.

Students choose a specific area of each theme to investigate through planned research and eventually present to fellow students, parents, and other community members throughout the year (Brown, 2002). State content standards are reviewed by students, and decisions are made regarding how to incorporate these standards into the student-chosen themes.

Few teachers implement true CI that reflects the thinking of theorists and some practitioners who use this progressive curricular experience (Anfara & Kirby, 2000; Gross, 2002; Jackson & Davis, 2000; Jackson, 2009). O’Steen, Cuper, Spires, Beal, and Pope (2002) noted that “In fact, teachers approximate but rarely achieve full curriculum integration” (p. 1). Several classrooms exist throughout the United States in which students are given control over curricular decisions (often referred to as student-designed curriculum) (Brown & Knowles, 2007).

The pressures of NCLB policies and further development of state and national content standards create a climate of curriculum narrowing perhaps unparalleled in U. S. public education. Beane (2004) noted:

In lieu of such limiting curricular influences, it is essential to reveal the possibilities for students who participate in student-designed curriculum. O’Steen et al. (2002) encouraged research into the advantages of student-driven curriculum, and Vars (2001) wanted researchers to examine the effects of student-designed curriculum on students’ thinking processes. Powell and Van Zandt Allen (2001) urged research on CI from students’ perspectives to determine its effects on their lives during and following a CI experience.

Two qualitative studies were conducted with a total of 26 young adolescents who participated in separate student-designed curricular experiences to determine their perceptions of this learning opportunity. The students were from two groups: one from a multiage seventh and eighth grade classroom in central California, and the other from an eighth grade classroom in southeast Pennsylvania. The California study is a replication of one conducted previously with eighth grade students in Pennsylvania.

The primary purpose of the studies was to determine students’ perspectives on:

1. the comparison between learning in a student-designed curricular classroom versus a traditional curricular classroom;

2. the effects of student-chosen curricula on their performance in traditional subjects (literacy, social studies, science, and mathematics); and

3. the effects of a student-driven curricular experience on their growth in thinking processes (e.g., creative thinking, critical thinking, decision making).

The data collected and reported herein from the Soundings CI program in Pennsylvania were reported as a paper presentation delivered at the 2003 American Educational Research Association meeting.

Hamburg (1993) described the primary purpose of CI:

These essential cognitive traits and thinking processes are not likely developed when curricula are delivered in traditional formats. When middle level teachers are asked which skills and strategies are necessary for students in order to be successful after high school, teachers usually respond with traits such as,

1. Critical thinking skills;

2. Problem solving strategies and effective decision-making skills;

3. Creative thinking processes;

4. Effective oral and written communication skills;

5. Basic reading, mathematics, and writing abilities;

6. Knowledge of when and how to use research to solve problems; and

7. Effective interpersonal skills (Brown, 2006, p. 778).

Parents often agree with this list of skills, as do employers seeking qualified candidates for many jobs throughout the United States. If this list is so critical, then CI may be the most effective curricular design to lead students along this path to meaningful academic growth.

Mee (1997) interviewed over 2,000 young adolescents and noted from those interviews, “I am convinced that young adolescents … like inquiry. They like to question. They have profound thoughts and like to share their thoughts and develop new ones” (p. 38). CI then meets students’ needs for meaningful learning experiences while at school. Hargreaves and Moore (2000) reported that when students have opportunities to connect curricula to their experiences it improves recall of prior knowledge and increases students’ retention of recently learned concepts. High and Andrews (2009) described how engaging students in relevant and meaningful learning opportunities increases students’ motivation.

Perhaps the greatest challenge of teaching middle school is helping young adolescents move from Piaget’s (1977) concrete operational thought into formal operational thought—the highest level of cognition according to Piaget. Helping students reach greater cognitive processing is unlikely to occur with merely direct instructional processes such as lectures, fill-in-the-blank homework assignments, multiple choice tests, and workbooks—common practices often associated with high stakes testing. Academic verbal exchanges, however, between and among students are almost constant in a CI classroom as students share ideas, debate positions, challenge dogma, and present their findings to others. These conversations lead to intellectual growth as Rice and Dolgin (2005) noted, “The highest levels of reasoning are attained when individuals are given the chance discuss, argue, and debate with people whose views are different from their own” (p. 137).

Brown and Canniff (2007) reported the following benefits of CI to students:

• Extended learning time needed for cognitive processing;

• Confidence and teacher guidance to build on their developing knowledge;

• A risk-free environment that encourages examination of their questions about themselves and life;

• The flexibility needed to study topics with the amount of depth required for meaningful learning;

• The independence required to strengthen students’ self-confidence as learners;

• Content studied in the context of the connections students make to it and in the naturally cognitive way in which students interconnect concepts and principles (p. 23).

Time is the most critical factor in most circumstances that defines the challenges of moving students into the next stage of cognitive development. Teachers complain of not having enough time to meet the needs of challenging students, wanting additional time to fully and clearly explain confusing principles, desiring extra minutes to conduct hands-on activities, or designing a more flexible schedule to provide them with time to meet the varying needs of a diverse academic population (Brown, 2001). CI, as it is designed in schools that implement it, provides teachers with opportunities to meet learners’ needs due to extended class periods of closer to 2 to 3 hours rather than traditional limited time slots of 35-45 minutes. Additional time provides students with opportunities to manipulate ideas, concepts, principles, opinions, and viewpoints in a manner that leads to greater cognitive processing.

Perhaps what matters most to young adolescents are the opportunities of choice that are prevalent in CI. In CI classrooms, students make decisions concerning

• rules, policies, and procedures of the classroom;

• whom to work with in studying topics;

• major themes to study throughout the year;

• personal academic goals for the year;

• methods of evaluating their growth;

• strategies for presenting the findings of their studies; and

• procedures for researching their chosen topics.

Choices matter to young adolescents who prior to this age didn’t have the need for decision-making authority over such significant events. Beane (2004) described the value of student decision making for young adolescents that include curricular choices, determining class governing structures, and participating in student-led conferences.

Bishop, Allen-Malley, and Brinegar (2007) reported the value middle level students placed on decision-making responsibilities in describing the Alpha CI program in Vermont. Students revealed their satisfaction in having opportunities to choose curriculum, decide how they would learn it, and “Having responsibility for their own time management” (p. 103). These decision-making opportunities are a critical component of CI—an opportunity for students to engage in meaningful democratic processes. Brown (2006) noted, “Curriculum integration involves students in genuine democratic activities that can yield solutions to practical problems they experience in their classrooms. What better method could there be for learning about democracy than living it in a classroom” (p. 781)? Beane (1997) stressed that understanding democracy is one of the central purposes of engaging students in CI.

Many educators, researchers, and parents want to known whether a CI experience will deliver better student test scores and ensure future academic success. Vars (1997) was the first to summarize a number of studies on the testing question. He reported that students who participate in CI classes, “Almost without exception … do as well as and often better than, students in a conventional departmentalized program” (p. 181). Vars (2001) believes that CI classrooms can address state content standards within the context of studying their chosen topics. Springer (2006) described how the students in his CI Soundings program interlace state content standards into their chosen curricular themes throughout the year.

The challenge of preparing students for the future, both academically and as adult citizens, is one that teachers embrace as critical to their success as educators. Researchers who study progressive learning believe that students exposed to CI opportunities are more motivated as learners, better prepared for their future lives, and actually learn more than students who experience traditional curricular delivery (Beane, 1997; Brazee, 1997; Brown, 2006; Springer, 2006; Stevenson, 2001; Vars, 1969). Springer described the value of immersing young adolescents in more advanced cognitive processing rather than merely preparing students for tests via content standards:

Vars (2001) summarized the value of CI noting that students benefit by receiving, “Love of learning, concern for other people, critical thinking, self-confidence, commitment to democratic group processes, and a whole host of other so-called ‘intangibles’ ” (p. 9).

Blumer’s (1969) theoretical perspective of symbolic interactionism is the prevailing philosophy guiding the research design. Symbolic interactionism is a theory researchers use to explain human behavior in terms of the meanings that people attach to the events in their lives (LeCompte & Preissle, 1993). The true value of curriculum integration may best be determined by obtaining students’ views— those who are most influenced and affected by the opportunity to participate in CI. These two qualitative studies were devised to understand the meaning that students attach to their experiences in a student-designed curriculum experience.

Students in CI are responsible for making the decisions about the content they learn, how they learn it, and how they will present their learning to others. Through symbolic interactionism, the researcher gathers students’ beliefs about CI learning experiences, students’ perceived effects of CI on their thinking processes, and the value of CI to their growth in specific content areas compared to traditional classroom experiences. Symbolic interactionism provides a rationale for “seeing” how CI affects students from their perspectives rather than using arbitrary assessment measures to compare students experiencing diverse curricular experiences.

A qualitative study was conducted with 13 middle level students from a central California school who participated in student-designed curriculum class, titled Eclectic Segments (ESC). ESC is a multiage classroom with 12 seventh graders and 17 eighth graders taught by one teacher. Data collected in this report were combined with those from an earlier study using the same interview instrument conducted with 13 students from the Soundings CI program in southeast Pennsylvania. Seven of those respondents were eighth graders in the program, three were former students from the 1999-2000 Soundings integration class, and three were from the original Soundings class of 1998-1999.

The intent of the study was to determine students’ perspectives on the value of a curriculum integration experience on their growth in typical content areas—reading, writing, mathematics, science, and social studies—compared to a traditional separate-subject approach to curriculum. Students' perceptions were also collected on their beliefs about their growth in ESC and Soundings versus traditional curricular experiences in several thinking processes such as critical and creative thinking, decision-making, problem solving, and research skills.

A nonscheduled, interview guide was developed to gather students’ perceptions concerning this unique curricular experience (LeCompte & Preissle, 1993). Participants were interviewed using a 22-question openended interview instrument. The same questionnaire was used in both studies. Interviews were conducted via skype with the California students during the school day, and each lasted approximately 25-40 minutes. The California ESC interviews were conducted over a 6-month period from December to May of the 2009-2010 academic year. Four of the Soundings students were interviewed at the school site, while the other nine were interviewed via phone after school hours during the month of May and June in 2002.

The California classroom was selected based on knowledge that the teacher implemented student-designed curriculum. All 39 students in the ESC program were invited to participate in the study. Participation was voluntary, and 13 returned consent forms agreeing to participate. The students’ families’ socioeconomic backgrounds were generally middle-to-upper middle class. Among the respondents, eight were eighth graders and five were seventh graders. Five respondents were female and eight male; of those respondents, four were Hispanic American, one Chinese American, and the remaining were European American.

The Soundings students were randomly selected from a list of 120 who participated in the program from 1998-2002. Thirteen volunteered to participate from a total of 20 who were invited. Nine of the Soundings participants were male and four were female. All were European American and from middle-to-upper middle class socioeconomically. Seven of the Soundings students were eighth graders in the program at the time of the interview. Three of the respondents in tenth grade at the time of the interview were former members of the 1999-2000 Soundings class; and, the remaining three were in 11th grade and were in the first Soundings class of 1998-1999.

Each interview was numerically coded and each participant assigned a pseudonym for the purpose of insuring anonymity. Common themes were derived from the data using the constant comparative method of reviewing written notes and noting the most frequently given responses to each question (Glaser & Strauss, 1999). Findings from this study are not generalizable to other middle level students who may have participated in another type of curriculum integration experience. Both groups of students in each study were in true CI programs in which they selected the topics of study for the entire year based on their questions. Results are presented in both quantitative raw data form and qualitatively with comments from respondents that represent a majority viewpoint.

Students from both of these CI experiences chose the topics they studied throughout the year. This significant decision-making opportunity is particularly meaningful because students participate in a form of democracy perhaps never before experienced.

Bella (all names are pseudonyms), a seventh grader in the ESC program, revealed how motivating it was to make such significant decisions: “I enjoy having more choice about what we’re doing, especially in choosing writing topics and what we read. We get to explore, excel, and it’s inspirational. Others don’t get to make as many decisions as we do.”

When Soundings students were asked about the most enjoyable aspects of the program the majority of the respondents mentioned “selecting topics to learn.” Jimmy, from Soundings, noted, “Because of this responsibility for choosing what to learn about, nobody was dragging their (sic) feet. Everyone wanted to participate.” Another Soundings student replied, “Some curriculum (sic) is pretty dull in regular classes. Learning what you want to learn is motivating. Everyday I wanted to come to class.”

Motivating adolescents is a concern that middle and high school educators grapple with constantly. More decision-making opportunities for students is one solution to increasing motivation. An example of the motivation came in a comment from Alexandra, an ESC eighth grader, who when asked what she enjoyed the most replied, “There are no restrictions; no limitations to how much we learn or how we do it in here.” Corona, an eighth grader in ESC, valued what many students in traditional programs might never realize when she revealed, “I think I’d get annoyed if I had to learn the same things as everyone else did— that’s robotic and weird.” Corona’s comment exposes the absurdity of content standards from an adolescent’s perspective—one from which adults can learn. Ted, from ESC, added, “It would be a relief for my friends to come here. You’re trapped at other schools.”

I asked respondents to compare their learning in traditional subject areas as a result of being in a CI class versus that of having been in traditional curricular classrooms using the following prompt: “Do you believe that this curriculum integration program improved your skills in _______ more than a traditional classroom may have? Why do you believe this?” I filled the blank with the subjects of writing, reading, science, and social studies. Students in both programs did not have choice in their mathematics curricula and were taught instead in a traditional format—therefore, information about a change in mathematics learning was not collected. I combined the total number of participants (26) from both studies in reporting the data.

In describing their beliefs about improvements in writing, 21 of the 26 respondents believed that curriculum integration created more improvement than a traditional classroom would. A Soundings student noted,

Another Soundings student, Jack, stated, “My writing improved more because of the advanced topics we studied. This was a more deciding factor in improving my writing skills.”

Of students’ responses to the reading prompt, 18 of 26 believed that they improved reading abilities more than they would have in a traditional class. Both states’ (California and Pennsylvania) standards for reading included a requirement to read 25 books during eighth grade. Students were able to choose most of the 25 books that they read. Ten of the 13 Soundings students provided the following reasons for an advantage to CI in reading: the books were much more challenging than books their fellow students in traditional classes were reading; and, some of the books they chose to read were associated with their research projects, so they were reading books that they were highly interested in.

Ellen from Soundings noted, “I became more careful with my reading since I was using the information for my presentations to the class.” Allison admitted, “We read certain books I never would have read in a regular classroom, and we critiqued it to the last dot on the page.” Corona from ESC believed that she improved in reading more than if she had been in a traditional classroom because of the lengthy discussions held within literature circles about the books they read. Three students mentioned that they were pleased with the opportunity to read often during class and that they also had more time to read at home in their CI classrooms.

The Soundings students were not asked about science or social studies curricula, so the responses in these two areas only represent the ESC students. A total of 4 of the 13 participants believed that their social studies knowledge and skills improved in the ESC classroom. Most of the respondents did not have a clear understanding of how social studies was addressed or what social studies curriculum might include when asked this question.

Student comments about social studies revolved around the idea that the topics they chose to study were researched in-depth. Corona noted, “We probably know a lot about Shakespeare and World War II, but we don’t cover as many subjects as other schools do. We do go deeper into topics we study.” Interestingly, some of the returning ESC students had attended the inauguration of President Obama as a class, yet didn’t note the association between this event and social studies curriculum. Most students were concerned that in social studies they had not completed study of enough topics to justify greater growth than what they may have received in a traditional class.

Six of the 13 ESC students reported that they believed that as a result of participating in CI they made more improvement than they would have in a traditional science class. Sophia noted, “We’re doing a lot of experiments and we got to choose how we were going to do them.” Those who believed that their science learning was superior to traditional classrooms mentioned the hands-on nature of learning in the ESC and how that helped them to better understand the material being presented.

Respondents from both CI programs overwhelmingly expressed greater growth as a result of being in student-designed curriculum over traditional settings in all of the thinking process questions. Twenty-four of the 26 respondents (including all of the Soundings students) stated that they believed that they improved their creative thinking more in the CI than they might have in a traditional program. Soundings students mentioned the creative opportunities for determining how to present their research findings, and enjoying the creative aspect of sharing ideas with other students in their study groups. Kathy from Soundings commented, “We made a city with our last project. We made actual rooms and hallways and we needed to think more—to come up with ideas; to be more creative. You couldn’t slack off.” Dan an eighth grader from ESC replied, “It’s a more forgiving environment in here; so, you can think out of the box.”

The two classes had a combined total of 24 respondents who stated that their critical thinking abilities were much more improved than they would have been in a traditional classroom. Chuck from ESC mentioned, “Every time we have decision to make we have to persuade others—we have to consider others’ points of view. If we don’t see it from their point of view, we have to find a way to get them to our side.” Ted, an ESC seventh grader, also spoke about the challenge of reaching consensus when speaking of critical thinking processes. The Soundings students mentioned the challenges of evaluating one another, frequent self-evaluation, and considering the constructive feedback they received from classmates as essential components that helped them to improve their critical thinking skills.

Twenty-one respondents noted their belief that their decision-making skills were more improved as a result of CI. Students from both classes communicated that on a daily basis they were responsible for

• making more explicit decisions to fine-tune their research ideas;

• discovering better sources of information for their topics;

• choosing possible “experts” to interview; and

• determining the most appropriate strategies for presenting their findings.

Alexandra (ESC) described the extent of decision making in her class: “We learn more about thinking for ourselves. When we walk into the room we aren’t told where to sit down. All throughout the day we have to make good decisions.” Joe from ESC replied, “You learn that you have to make better decisions—not take the easy way out.”

All but 1 of the 26 students believed that the CI experience improved their research skills better than a traditional classroom would. Students cited their constant group and individual research processes that they engaged in regularly each week. Some students noted their search for people to interview for their chosen themes; others mentioned how they learned to gather many sources of information to prepare for their presentations. Ted from ESC stated, “I’ve done countless essays; so I’ve done tons of research in writing those essays”; and, Alexandra added, “I’ve learned so much about things—more than I thought I would learn.” The CI experience is defined by constant student research. Students work collaboratively while conducting most of their research, exchanging thoughts on how to improve their research processes.

Twenty-four of the 26 respondents agreed that the CI class was better than a traditional class for developing problem solving abilities. The Soundings students mentioned the constant responsibility for presenting their research to the rest of the class as key to improving problem solving skills. Unexpected difficulties created some last minute solutions to make things work.

Corona (ESC) noted, “You can’t just not get along with everyone. There’s [sic] more problems to solve because we have to know each other to get things done.” Ted also referred to the frequent group work with this comment: “If there’s a problem here, we solve it. We do consensus and—boom—it’s done right away!” Ellen from Soundings made the comment, “The problem was ‘What to do?’ That was the challenge. We were almost always in groups. That was genuine problem solving also.” Other problem solving skills were mentioned by a few of the ESC students who noted their responsibilities for planning field trips. The ESC teacher gave her students all the jobs in planning the field trips—from contacting all the businesses, purchasing tickets, controlling the budget, and arranging transportation.

All 13 of the Soundings students and 12 of the ESC students reported better improvement in social skills and working with others as a result of the CI experience. The respondents were most enthusiastic about this question. Soundings students noted that for the first time in their lives they were forced to work with others and consider their points of view. ESC students noted in response to several questions how important it was to them to engage in collaborative learning. Students enjoyed the shared responsibility and the opportunities to work with fellow classmates.

The most revealing comments emanated from responses to the question, “Do you believe that a student-driven curricular experience prepares you for adulthood better than a traditional education would? If so, how?” I only asked this question of the ESC students, and all 13 respondents agreed that ESC better prepared them for adulthood than a traditional curricular experience would. Comments included the following: “In adult life you have to learn how to agree and disagree and how to make good choices if you want to survive, just as we do in here” (from Isabel, eighth grader); “I’ve learned a lot about teamwork and compromise, things you’ll need for adult life” (Chuck, seventh grader). An eighth grade ESC student who chose the pseudonym, Slivermaster, replied bluntly, “This school prepares you for adulthood because you actually have to do something.” I believe he was referring to what another student described as “initiative” and its value in succeeding in the CI classroom and in becoming a successful adult.

Six of the Soundings respondents were already in high school when I asked, “Did you believe that you were prepared for high school following a year in Soundings?” All six responded with a “Yes,” noting that they believed they possessed better writing skills than others, advanced discussion skills, and strong capabilities to conduct research comprehensively. Jack remarked,

Anthony, another Soundings “graduate” who was in high school at the time of the interview added, “I may have been better prepared because of writing and research skills. Soundings also helped me to be self-motivated— something you need in high school.”

The responses from this study reveal a distinct advantage for students who experience student-designed curriculum compared to the traditional curricular designed classroom. Respondents overwhelmingly believed that their literacy skills were better improved than they would have been in a traditional setting. Although questions existed among a few respondents regarding academic growth in the comparisons of social studies and science with typical curricular design, the lines between and among subject areas are meant to be blurred in a true CI classroom which may have confused respondents.

The advantages of CI are rarely recognized by schools that implement it. It often becomes an alternative program in which some parents agree to have their children participate; but, is not replicated by other grade levels within the middle or high school. A need exists for CI teachers and educational researchers to conduct more studies and to publicize the findings among the community so that teachers, administrators, and policy makers recognize the superiority of CI learning to traditionally delivered curricula. The recent call for improved public schools should also encourage the initiation and publication of further CI research studies.

Educators have a responsibility to prepare students for the challenges of future learning and for adulthood. It is unlikely that the current focus in many schools on assessment and accompanying content standards-based curricula are providing students with a level of sufficient future cognitive processing skills required for successful adult lives.

The responses from the clients of our educational practice—these students—reveal the power of learning in a true CI class:

1. Student voice and choice in curricular decisions has a significant impact on students’ motivation and the type of learning that is essential to their future lives;

2. Students are capable of making critical decisions about their learning that match their curiosity and development needs during young adolescence;

3. The thinking processes—creative and critical thinking, problem solving, research abilities, and socialization skills—are more fully developed, according to these students, as a result of experiencing true CI as opposed to being in traditional curricular designed classes; and

4. The development and maturation of students’ self-assessment skills occur, thus improving their attitudes, efforts, and general metacognitive abilities.

Reporting these findings provides the rationale and motivation for other middle level and high school educators to adopt a CI design that positively affects genuine learning. The middle school years are a critical time period to address all the developmental needs of young adolescents, particularly their intensely growing unique cognitive abilities.

A traditional approach to curricular delivery not only ignores the needs of young adolescents, but should also be considered “educational neglect” by middle and high school educators. Curriculum integration theory, and as these studies demonstrate, the practical implementation of true CI within classrooms are educational strategies that match the new information age we live in and the need for effectively educating adolescents.