Cross-curricular alignment is promoted as beneficial for students. For example, Discovery Education highlights a successful program with the DeKalb County School District, which targeted the subject area of science in grades 3-5:
Through the development of this program, science scores rose between five and ten percent over a three year period. The science curriculum was mapped alongside the English-Language Arts curriculum so that science skills were reinforced during literacy instruction.
At the secondary level, however, I believe that cross-curricular alignment is a much more arduous process. When students reach high school, the content in each subject area increases in depth, and not every teacher comes equipment with the ability to teach effectively in multiple contents.
While it’s necessary for disciplines to work together to create cohesive programs of study, I believe that such programs should be developed in a cautionary manner. Through cross-curricular instruction, we attempt to address recurring gaps in our students’ education. In the field of mathematics, one of the most frequently tested areas is slope. In language arts, figurative language tends to become problematic.
Unfortunately, while it’s frequently asked of special educators, not everyone is equipped to teach multiple subjects, and ineffective cross-curricular instruction may just add to the confusion. I can only imagine my high school science teachers explain and evaluate a figurative interpretation of photosynthesis.
No comments:
Post a Comment