The Integrated Planning, Teaching, and Learning Protocol: A

Practitioner-Oriented Approach for Curriculum Integration

Sandra Wildera and Joseph W. Wilderb,*

a
The Ohio Stem Learning Network, Battelle, Columbus OH, USA
b
Department of Mathematics, The University of Akron, Akron OH, USA
*
Corresponding Author

Abstract

Research on curriculum integration indicates strong positive impact on student academic

achievement, cognitive growth, and critical thinking skills. However, while there are
currently numerous models for integration of curricula, more practitioner-oriented,
efficient, yet effective approaches for implementation of this instructional framework are
still scarce. There are numerous factors that may present obstacles to curricular integration
becoming a predominant instructional framework in schools today: time needed for teacher
professional development on curriculum implementation and ongoing support throughout a
school year, adequate content standards coverage and their subsequent high-stakes testing,
and teachers’ current and preferred instructional styles, to name just a few. In response to
some of these challenges, this work introduces the Integrated Planning, Teaching, and
Learning model of curricular integration; a five-step protocol designed for grade-level
teams of secondary teachers who are interested in transforming their classrooms into
integrated teaching and learning environments. The five steps of the protocol are described
in detail to ensure easy implementation. Finally, the authors discuss the necessary
conditions for successful adoption of this instructional framework.

Keywords: curriculum integration; integrated teaching and learning; interdisciplinary

curriculum; integration of curricula
Curriculum Integration
The idea that curriculum integration has a positive impact on student achievement, academic
growth, and the overall learning experience, is anything but novel. However, even after decades
of research on various models of integrated teaching and learning, an effective yet efficient and
sustainable implementation approach of this instructional framework seems to be an area
requiring further development.
While the literature on curriculum integration reveals a myriad of terms (such as
multidisciplinary, fused, and transdisciplinary curriculum, to name just a few), overall, there are
two predominant types of curriculum integration: organization of various curricula to align
around related concepts and ideas, and centering curricula from multiple disciplines around a
common theme or issue (Shriner, Schlee, & Libel, 2010). Although significantly different,
integrated teaching and learning and interdisciplinary teaching and learning are often used
interchangeably, which may cause confusion when deciding on which approach to integration
would be most suitable for a school or teacher teams (Nesin & Lounsbury, 2019). In
interdisciplinary teaching and learning, boundaries between the academic disciplines are clearly
defined and remain visible throughout the integration process which emphasizes common
themes. In integrated teaching and learning, the lines between the disciplines are blurred and
flexible, and as a result, learning experiences within this instructional framework closely
resemble real-life.

Benefits of Curriculum Integration

The benefit of curriculum integration, regardless of the specific framework, is based on the
notion that academic content needs to be placed in meaningful context that spans across multiple
dimensions and areas of life because students (and people in general) have difficulty engaging
with material that they do not find relevant. If implemented effectively, curriculum integration
provides deep meaning for the content of every subject by connecting them to each other using
themes, problems, or situations that students may encounter in real-life.
Many teachers who have engaged in curriculum integration have noted the strengthening
of student critical thinking skills, collaboration, and an increase in engagement with the content,
all of which positively affect student personal agency (Fraser, 2000; Hargreaves & Moore, 2000;
Wall & Leckie, 2017). In his review of the literature on this topic, Vars (2015) emphasizes the
benefits of curriculum integration on students’ sociological, social, and philosophical states,
while Brown and Canniff (2015) describe the positive influence of integration on student
cognitive development. Integrated curriculum is more than just highlighting the connections and
commonalities among various disciplines; it is about bringing the complexity of everyday life
and our society into teaching and using the current events, issues, and themes to engage students
in learning (Magoma, 2016; Vars, 2015). The world we live in is not divided into distinct
discipline-specific compartments. In our daily life we are not aware of specific moments when
we decide to apply mathematical knowledge or physics principles to solve problems we
encounter. We do not typically pause to reflect on how we use language to communicate with
others and how the role of that language changes depending on the topic of our conversation or
the emotion attached to it. Effective integration of curriculum has potential to create this type of
environment in our classrooms, thereby resulting in a more robust learning experience for all
students.

Challenges of Curriculum Integration

The strain that successful preparation and implementation of curriculum integration may put on
schools’ financial and human assets may deter some schools and teachers away from this highly
impactful instructional framework. While there is an abundance of research on the impact of
various types of curriculum integration on different aspects of student academic and personal
growth and achievement (Loepp, 1999; Nesin & Lounsbury, 2019; Wall & Leckie, 2017), there
is also a notable lack of literature on effective approaches to implementation of curriculum
integration and recommendations for overcoming challenges related to adopting this instructional
framework. Curriculum integration is a complex process that requires actionable, practitioner-
oriented guidelines for planning, collaboration, and implementation, which at this time are rather
scarce and may favor one discipline or group of disciplines over the others (National Academy
of Engineering and National Research Council, 2014; Senn et al., 2019).
One of the challenges of the existing integration models is that they do not easily lend
themselves to encompassing multiple standards across different subject areas, often resulting in
integration themes that may seem contrived for some of the integrated disciplines. In addition,
one of the reasons shared by teachers for not adopting this instructional framework is the threat
of perceived loss of time to integrate curricula (McPhail, 2018). Overcoming this perception
requires the integration of curricula to be organic and interwoven into daily instruction, rather
than seen as a separate instructional component. When implemented successfully, curriculum
integration should complement the mandated state or local standards-based curriculum and
ultimately lead to an increase in student achievement, not compromise the coverage of the
content standards (Brophy & Alleman, 1991; Hinde, 2005; Nesin & Lounsbury, 2019, Vars,
2015, Wilder, 2015).
To achieve the full impact of curriculum integration, schools and teachers need to ensure
that they have proper systems and conditions in place to transform their current instructional
model into the integrated framework. If the conditions for integration are not established,
especially the ones related to teacher professional development and ongoing support throughout
a school year, the schools should refrain from implementing curriculum integration. Without the
adequate conditions, even if the curriculum integration is adopted by the teachers, it may not be
sustainable long term and may be abandoned in favor of the previously used instructional
frameworks (Weilbacher, 2001). In addition, most of the current integration models include
modifying teacher roles from a more traditional, giver of knowledge, to a facilitator and
supporter of learning experiences (Nesin & Lounsbury, 2019). Coupled with a novel idea of
curriculum integration and abandoning teaching in isolation for engagement in high levels of
collaboration with colleagues from different disciplines, teachers may find themselves outside of
their comfort zones during the early stages of the curriculum integration process. This may result
in difficulty in obtaining a necessary teachers’ emotional investment in this process, which is
integral for the paradigm shift toward the integration of teaching and learning.
Successful implementation of a curriculum integration model starts with challenging
current teacher beliefs regarding teaching approaches in their disciplines and the importance of
other subjects (Loepp, 1999). Teachers must view their particular subject as a piece of a large
body of knowledge that encompasses all academic disciplines rather than a single subject that
students need to focus on. As this instructional approach is likely to be different than many
teaching methodologies, and given that integration of teaching and learning requires strong
collaboration among teachers, professional development focusing on the principles of integration
and process of implementation of this teaching framework is critical. While the design process of
integration can be addressed in a workshop training model, the actual implementation needs to
be supported via ongoing teacher collaboration and job-embedded coaching. It is also important
to keep in mind that teacher preparation programs may not have addressed curriculum
integration as one of the recommended instructional frameworks. There is also a very low
likelihood that many teachers have experienced curriculum integration themselves as learners,
which could increase teachers’ hesitancy to adopt curriculum integration in their practice (Vars,
2015). Many of these concerns and hesitancy factors should be reduced by having a clearly
defined, efficient and sustainable implementation approach based on such an instructional
framework.

Framework for integrated planning, teaching, and learning

For the purpose of this work, we define integrated teaching and learning as an instructional
framework for creating cross-disciplinary connections which can be used as anchors for learning
grade-level and standards-based content.
The new framework, referred to as the Integrated Planning, Teaching, and Learning
(from here on referred to as IPTL), proposes an alternative approach for grade-level integration
that preserves the integrity of each discipline and of the teaching approaches most suitable for
those disciplines and grade level. IPTL acknowledges and takes into account the importance of
specific content standards, the autonomy of teachers as content and pedagogy experts, and
provides a pathway for teachers and students to experience authentic problems through the lens
of various academic disciplines. Due to its design, the model guarantees that the content
standards for each discipline remain in the forefront of daily teaching. Through the use of IPTL,
integrated teaching and learning becomes a seamless part of daily instruction, rather than a
disconnected add-on. The main difference between the IPTL and other approaches to integration
is that this framework seeks to integrate the entire process of planning, teaching and learning
across various disciplines, rather than just their curricula.
This approach to integration, which is outlined in a 5-step protocol, is intended to be
implemented by a grade-level team of teachers who teach all or most subjects taken by a grade-
level cohort of students. Given that intentional planning of curriculum and instruction, as well as
both formal and informal assessments, are critical for the overall teaching and learning
experience and outcomes, collaboration among the grade-level team teachers is essential for
achieving the full impact of integration. Planning, or more specifically collaborative planning, is
one of the cornerstones of the IPTL process.
 With the exception of the initial professional development focused on training teachers
on the implementation of the IPTL protocol, this integration approach does not require any
additional professional development on content or instructional strategies. The Integrated
Planning, Teaching, and Learning approach embraces current teaching practices (even if they are
more traditional and teacher-centered) and allows teachers to experience integration and its
benefits within their own, previously established instructional parameters. It is our belief that
providing teachers with these experiences will eventually lead to teachers reflecting on their
instructional pedagogies and, if needed, transforming them to more student-centered methods.
Finally, this approach to integration builds the necessary curricular and instructional foundation
needed for schools whose ultimate goal is to adopt problem-based learning, project-based
learning, or any inquiry-based instructional model. IPTL provides a mechanism for
transformation that is less likely to experience teacher resistance, and thereby establish an
environment more likely to nurture the desired evolution of teaching practices. This is
accomplished by approaching such a transformation through focusing efforts on allowing
teachers to experience the benefits of integration while not requiring up-front transformation of
their current instructional pedagogy,

Integrated planning, teaching, and learning protocol

The Integrated Planning, Teaching, and Learning Protocol seeks to integrate the academic
content of various disciplines, while maintaining the integrity of individual content standards for
each subject. Traditional scope and sequence guidance documents that support adequate
preparation for local and state assessments (as well as progression to subsequent courses) are not
seen as obstacles to integration and are intentionally utilized throughout the process. Teachers’
current or preferred instructional methods are embraced and not challenged as inadequate to
support student success, regardless of their nature. Through its design, the IPTL protocol gently
moves educators from their instructional comfort zone into a zone of organic, yet intentional
integration of curriculum, instruction, and even assessment. This protocol is based on the belief
that revealing, exploring, and learning about the connections across various curricula ensures
deep comprehension of content standards, regardless of the prevalent method of instruction in
respective courses. It is also our belief that an ongoing implementation of this protocol and
engagement in its instructional outcomes, leads to significant changes in pedagogy from teacher-
centered to student-centered methods.
The IPTL protocol is intended to be implemented with a team of grade-level teachers
who teach the same (or mostly same) group of learners. While the protocol can be implemented
with only two teachers, the full impact of the protocol implementation on overall student
engagement, critical thinking skills, deep understanding of content, and academic achievement
and growth, is enhanced by the participation of all core subject teachers (mathematics, language
arts, science, and social studies). As students enroll in other courses (such as career-oriented
classes, visual and performing arts, foreign languages, etc.), participation of all grade level
teachers is welcomed and recommended, if possible. However, because all students are required
to enroll in these courses, the focus of the protocol is on the curricular connections across the
core subjects. The protocol is designed for secondary (grades 6-12) teachers.
Teacher grade-level teams can engage in the IPTL protocol at any time during a school
year. Since changes in curriculum and instruction are easier to implement at the start of a school
year, and given that it may be challenging to provide the required time for teachers to complete
the protocol during a school year, the recommendation is to implement the IPTL protocol during
the summer break.
The protocol is most impactful when implemented schoolwide, or at least at a multi-grade
level (meaning that there is more than one team implementing the protocol in a school and that
these teams are targeting different grade levels). The reason for this is that it allows for both
inter- and intra-team interactions that strengthen the overall process, as will be noted at various
points throughout this manuscript.

The IPTL protocol steps

The Integrated Planning, Teaching, and Learning Protocol consists of the five consecutive steps,
shown in Figure 1. As depicted in the graphical portion of the Figure, the Protocol involves
identifying key learning outcomes in each discipline (the various colored shapes), constructing
an integrated curricular map containing the key topics for all of the disciplines as well as all
connections between cross-disciplinary topics, and uncovering overarching themes (referred to
as integration nodes) connecting large numbers of these topics. Once identified, the protocol
guides the team through the development of an integration plan for each of these nodes as well as
the construction of individual lesson plans for each involved discipline.

Figure 1. The five steps of the Integrated Planning, Teaching, and Learning Protocol.
Step 1: Identify Key Teaching and Learning Outcomes
The IPTL protocol begins with each teacher from the grade-level team reflecting on the content
standards for their particular course. If the grade-level team has more than one teacher teaching
the same course, those teachers should complete this step collaboratively. Otherwise, this process
is done individually because it is subject-specific and focused on the content standards for one
course only. Guided by the course’s scope and sequence document and curricular supports
provided by the local, state, or national institutions (for example, the Department of
Education, educational organizations, such as the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics
and the National Science Teaching Association, etc.) teachers identify the key (main) standards
for their course. The objective here is not to list every standard covered in the course, but to
construct a list that contains only those that are truly key to a student’s success in the current and
subsequent courses. The “must know” criteria will typically be linked to the standards that
encompass the overarching and enduring content concepts and skills. This part of the process is
the most challenging part of Step 1 as teachers often view all of their standards as essential and
struggle to narrow down the list to a set of key outcomes. It is important to note that the ultimate
goal of Step 1 is not to identify standards that will be included versus those that will be excluded
from the integration process. Rather, this step helps teachers focus their efforts on the areas that
have the greatest potential impact on student learning and success due to their importance in the
course curriculum and the learning progression of the discipline. Ideally, each teacher should
strive to identify no more than 10-15 overarching learning outcomes that they believe to be most
critical to student success. These outcomes could, in some cases, encompass several related
standards that are easily grouped under a broader (more general) learning outcome.
If the protocol is being implemented schoolwide or at more than one grade level (i.e.,
there are multiple grade-level teams serving different grades), then after each teacher has
determined the key outcomes for their course, the teachers should meet by discipline to discuss
their lists. For example, all of the math teachers should meet as a group, all of the English
Language Arts (ELA) teachers in another group, and so forth. During these group meetings, the
teachers will look for vertical alignment of their key learning outcomes. Beginning with the
highest grade level course in a particular discipline, the teacher should discuss the outcomes they
identified, and indicate competencies and prior knowledge they expect students to enter the
course with based on previously completed courses. Teachers of lower grade level courses
should be listening to ensure that the key outcomes they identified cover the pre-requisite needs
of the higher-level courses. When done on a multi grade level basis, this part of Step 1 allows for
vertical content alignment and inclusion of learning objectives necessary for meeting student
needs at all grade levels. Example work products from a recent multi-grade level training session
on the IPTL protocol are given below the discussion for Part I of Step 2.
If the IPTL protocol is implemented by only one grade-level team, it may be helpful to
engage teachers in conversation with colleagues from the same discipline who may teach the
course subsequent to theirs, connect them with colleagues teaching the same course in other
schools or even districts, or provide support of content specialists (if available). In addition,
many state content standards are accompanied with guidance on essential understandings for the
specific course and vertical alignment with other courses in the discipline.

Step 2: Prepare to Share

Critical to the overall success of the IPTL protocol is effective sharing of disciplinary content
and/or concepts with colleagues who are experts in a different content area. At the end of Step 1
teachers (if working in a multi-team environment) will have had an opportunity to discuss their
identified key learning outcomes with other experts in their particular field. This type of
discussion is what most teachers are used to engaging in when it comes to discussing their
disciplinary topics. Engaging in productive discussions across disciplines is very different in that
the background knowledge that we often take for granted when discussing our areas of expertise
with others in the same field is typically not available to provide the necessary context when
discussing concepts across disciplinary boundaries. The two parts of Step 2 are designed to aid
individuals in adjusting their perspective so that they can productively and clearly discuss their
disciplinary topics in a manner that will be clear to non-experts in their content area, and which
will enhance the probability of uncovering areas of intersection of the various disciplines.
Identification of the areas of major intersection/overlap (or “nodes” as they will be called in Step
3) is one of the main goals of the IPTL protocol.

Step 2 - Part I
The first part of preparing to share involves providing teachers with an initial indication of the
level of comfort and understanding that their colleagues have for the terms and concepts they
have included in their lists of “Key Teaching & Learning Outcomes” from Step 1. This is done
by each team member sharing their lists with the rest of the team. This “sharing” does not
involve any discussion among the team members, and does not include any explanation by the
disciplinary expert about their list. In a recent training session this was done by having each
teacher write their list of key outcomes on an easel-sized post-it note, with all of the lists for the
entire team displayed on a wall. Without any discussion, every team member examined everyone
else’s lists. When they came across a term that they were unfamiliar with or one which they were
uncertain of its meaning in the context of the discipline, they circled the term (each discipline
was assigned a specific marker color, so that the color of the circle would indicate which
disciplinary expert had questions about the term). Further, each individual put a checkmark
(using their color) next to any items on the list that they believe they already knew a connection
to in their own discipline. Sample work product showing the outcome of Step 1 and Step 2 – Part
I for a specific team which participated in the recent training is shown in Figure 2.
Any terms that are circled by team members represent those that the disciplinary expert
will need to make sure to take special care in explaining when the interactive part of sharing their
topics takes place in Step 3. The check-marks next to items in their lists can be used to help
guide their discussions in Step 3 as well. In particular, they should not focus on trying to think
about what intersections these checkmarks might represent (that will be uncovered in Step 3
during the active sharing phase), but rather focus on those items that have few or no checkmarks
next to them as these are the items that they will need to explain in clear (and sometimes
innovative) ways in order to make sure that the potential for important overlaps between
disciplines are not overlooked/missed due to a lack of understanding of what the concept really
entails.
Figure 2. Sample work product for Step 1 and Step 2 (Part 1)
Step 2 – Part II
After looking at the information gained in Part I of Step 2, teachers need to think about the items
and concepts that they want to discuss with their team from the perspective of non-experts. As
mentioned previously, experts in any area typically depend on a body of background knowledge
of their subject when discussing specific items in their curriculum. While completely appropriate
when dealing with other experts in the same content area, these assumptions about pre-existing
knowledge can be a hindrance to interdisciplinary discussions among team members when this
knowledge is not uniformly understood by all team members. It is not practical (nor necessary)
to attempt to provide this background to the rest of the team in order to discuss each of the topics
on every member’s list. Instead, the content area expert needs to seek ways to describe the
concepts in a manner that is as discipline independent as possible. This is done by focusing on
the underlying concepts rather than the specific items that would be used in teaching the topic to
students. For example, many science-based courses involve some discussion of forces and or
motion of objects. Once part of this discussion is often the importance of the concept of “frame
of reference” when discussing forces, velocities, etc. We will use this topic to demonstrate the
difference between how the subject is often discussed among content area experts versus how
one might approach the discussion when dealing with a broader audience.
One of the key aspects of any discussion of velocities is that in many contexts the
absolute size of the velocities is not important, but rather their size relative to each other. As part
of such a discussion, many professionals would construct a diagram similar to that shown in
Figure 3. The pane on the left shows a system where two objects are moving in the same
direction with different velocities. This is the perspective of a stationary observer who is
watching both objects go by. The pane on the right depicts a second system where one object is
not moving, but the second is moving with a velocity that is equal to the difference of the
velocities of the objects in the pane on the left. This system is equivalent to the one on the left if
one imagines being in a moving reference frame that moves along with the top object so that it
appears to be stationary. Thus, equivalent systems may appear different depending on which
reference frame one chooses.
Figure 3. Frame of Reference Diagram – Background Dependent

This description of the different reference frames conveys all of the necessary
information for those who have the requisite background in both the physics and mathematics of
moving objects with respect to velocities/vectors. During such a discussion, except for those in
mathematics and science, most other team members will likely find it difficult to see how there
could be any connections between their content area (ELA, Social Studies, Art, etc) and this
topic. The goal of the teacher leading the discussion of this topic with their team, however, is to
do so in a manner most likely to lead to uncovering the connections between their discipline and
the others. This does not require the content area expert to know the other areas and think about
things from their perspective, but rather to seek one or more alternative ways to represent their
topic that require less background knowledge and which depend more on experiences that we all
hold in common.
Continuing our example based on frame of reference, an alternative diagram that could be
used is shown in Figure 4. Here, the same system (a ball being tossed up and down by a
passenger on a bus) is shown from the perspective of (in the top pane) another passenger on the
bus (for whom the other passenger is not moving), and from the perspective of someone standing
at the side of the road (for whom the person throwing the ball is moving).
Figure 4. Frame of Reference Diagram – Background Independent

The drawing in Figure 4 once again depicts the differences observed based on the frame
of reference, but this time it is in a context more familiar to all members of the team, not just
those familiar with velocities and vectors. Such a diagram and discussion are more likely to
result in subsequent discussions among the team members concerning the idea that the exact
same situation can look different depending on the perspective (frame of reference) from which
it is observed. Ideally this would lead to uncovering connections to many other areas such as:
Social Studies - how one views things depends on where one views them from and/or one’s
background; ELA - the same situation is often written about from different character’s
perspectives, often leading to a very different seeming story/situation even though they are all
describing the exact same events, just from different perspectives; Art - The same object can
look very different depending on its location relative to the observer, as well as based on lighting
and other environmental conditions. Such discussions naturally lead to uncovering the
connections across disciplines that lie at the heart of integrated teaching and learning. Thus, in
Step 2, Part II it is critical that each team member thinks about ways to discuss the topics
included on their lists from Step 1 in ways that they believe will be most accessible to all of the
members of their team. This process should be undertaken at the same time as the teacher is
rewriting the key learning outcomes on sticky notes which will be used in Step 3. The sticky
notes should be color coded (one color per discipline). As they are rewriting the outcomes the
teacher should be thinking about and making notes on ways that they believe each concept
should be discussed with their team members to best convey its core meaning and objectives to
non-experts.

Step 3: Construct an Integrated Curricular Map and Identify Integration Nodes

Completion of Steps 1 and 2 requires very little interaction of the team members. Step 3,
however, requires the team members to share their content and to interact in ways that lead to in-
depth discussions around their collective curricula so that an integrated curricular map can be
constructed. If the teams have not previously had effective training on teaming and have not been
effectively working together as a team prior to engaging in this Protocol, it has been found to be
very beneficial to interweave training on team dynamics throughout the time spent by the teams
on Steps 1 and 2. In particular, brief sessions on teaming, trust, productive conflict, etc. provide
team members with the necessary tools to develop and maintain an environment that supports the
type of discussions necessary to have the level of interactions required for Step 3 to be fully
successful. As not all teams will require such training, and as this is not formally part of the
protocol being presented in this work, the details of such training will not be discussed other than
to indicate the importance of providing teachers with these types of interaction skills before
beginning Step 3.
Step 3 involves each team member sharing their key learning outcomes with the rest of
the team. The way in which things are shared is critical to successfully uncovering the natural,
authentic connections that exist between disciplines related to many of the major topics covered
in typical curricula at any grade level. One of the main beliefs driving the protocol being
presented in this work is that these authentic overlaps are discoverable when the concepts being
taught in the various disciplines are viewed through a common lens. In particular, it is the
authors belief that these connections can be most easily accessed by teacher teams when they
view the process through the following lens: In most instances, authentic connections across
multiple disciplines arise due to problems or issues of importance that impact large segments of
society. Such issues are most often rooted in the sciences or social sciences as these disciplines
are fundamentally concerned with observing and explaining the world around us and our
interactions with it and each other. Mathematics as well as the related disciplines like statistics
and computer science, seek to represent and/or model such situations in a manner that allows for
the logical interpretation and in-depth study of such issues. The humanities and arts are involved
in the effective expression and communication of the facts, attitudes, emotions, and outcomes
related to such issues. Using this as a model for the mechanism by which integration naturally
evolves, the Protocol being discussed in this work involves sharing of the identified key learning
outcomes by starting with those coming from the sciences and social sciences. As a result, the
teacher from one of these areas (it does not matter whether they are from a science or social
science), will be the first to share a key learning outcome. Sharing this outcome involves
placement of the related sticky note prepared at the end of Step 2 on a board or other surface
while providing the relatively brief description related to this topic that they decided would be
most effective. This is depicted as a purple sticky note in the upper-left section of Figure 5 where
a drawing is provided to help discuss this process. At this point, there should be a robust
discussion concerning what this topic involves. In particular, the other team members need to be
questioning the presenter to ensure that they understand all of the related terms and concepts so
that they can be viewing these ideas from the perspective of their own discipline. The individual
presenting the topic is charged with not only starting the discussion, but with leading it. In
particular, it is their responsibility to ensure that every voice is heard, and that each team member
has an opportunity to engage with respect to discussing the topic and exploring possible
connections with their own discipline. It is critical to note that at this stage of the protocol, all
discussions should be about the content, not about the instructional strategies. Thus, continuing
our example about frame of reference, the discussion would be about these topics, not how the
material will be taught nor what activities would be used as part of that instruction. The
instructional strategy portion is discussed separately (in Step 4) so as to not distract from the
current focus of uncovering connections between key learning outcomes across the various
disciplines.
 During the discussion, there will most often be connections to topics in one of the other
disciplines on the team. When a connection is identified, the individual with that related topic as
one of their learning outcomes places the appropriate sticky note on the board. This is shown in
Figure 5 where in addition to the original purple sticky note, a connection is indicated to another
topic (orange sticky note) in a different discipline (indicated by a different color note). After
discussing the two topics, the team should decide whether the connection is strong (denoted by
red lines) or weak (denoted by blue lines) and draw the connection between the topics and attach
an appropriate label that captures the essence of the connection (additional detail about the
connections should simultaneously be captured in a set of notes for future reference). Once the
first topic (the purple note in Figure 5) has been completely discussed and all related connections
to any of the other disciplines have been identified, and outcomes (additional sticky notes) added
to the board, the team then needs to discuss all of the new topics (other than the original purple
one) that were added to the board. In our example, the individual who added the orange sticky
note in Figure 5 would now fully unpack this topic, which may entail more discussion than was
undertaken when discussing the connection to the original (purple) topic. During this discussion,
it is possible that a connection may be identified to a topic in another area and it is added to the
board (green sticky note in Figure 5) and discussed by the team.

Figure 5. Diagram depicting Step 3 – Construction of an Integrated Curricular Map

 This process results in a wide-ranging branching of topics based on the identified
connections between the key learning outcomes. Once all of the connections related to the
branch initiated by the original outcome (the purple note in Figure 5) have been explored, then
the original presenter goes back to their list of outcomes, selects one from the remaining list, and
places it on the board to start another branch. This process continues until the first individual (the
one with purple sticky notes in our example) has placed all of their outcomes on the board. If this
person was in the social sciences, then the next person to initiate topics would be the science
teacher. It is quite possible that many of their notes will already be placed on the board due to the
discussions related to the previous branches. If any of their topics remain to be discussed, they
select one and begin a new branch. At any point in this process, new connections to a topic that
is part of an existing branch may be identified and they should also be drawn on the map. After
the science and social science teachers have exhausted their topics, the remaining teachers may
go in any order that best meets the needs of the team. In most cases, after the science and social
science teachers have exhausted their outcomes, many of the original notes from all of the
disciplines will already be on the board, and so the selection of the order may be based on which
discipline has the most topics left to discuss.
At the conclusion of this process (after all of the teachers have placed their notes on the
board and all of the connections have been explored/discussed), the resulting network of topics
represents an integrated curricular map for the grade level team. Samples (top and bottom panes)
generated during a recent training session on this protocol are shown in Figure 6. The expanded
image related to the bottom pane shows sample detail of the topics and explored connections.
After construction of their integrated curricular map, the team should examine those
topics with the largest number of connections. Based on each subset of highly connected key
learning outcomes, the team should determine an overarching theme that captures the
relationship integrating these topics. This overarching theme is referred to in this work as a
“node”. At the completion of Steps 1 - 3, the team has constructed an integrated map for their
grade level that can be revisited throughout the school year or even in subsequent years to
identify additional themes that can be used as integration nodes. For each such node, the team
will iterate through Steps 4 and 5 in order to construct an integration plan (Step 4) and their
individual lesson plans (Step 5). If implementing the protocol for the first time, the team might
decide to limit their consideration of nodes to a small number (perhaps 2 or 3) that they believe
will be the most impactful on their students. These nodes should be fully developed and
implemented during the current year.

Figure 6. Sample Integrated Curricular Maps Generated by Step 3

Step 4: Develop an Integration Plan for Each Node
In Step 4 the team considers each selected node, and develops an implementation plan for each
of these distinct, overarching themes. Prior to this point in the protocol, the teachers have not
been discussing any teaching strategies nor methods for assessing student learning. Only at this
point (Step 4) is the team ready to discuss the strategies and other details of the
teaching/assessment of the material related to a particular node. It is critical that every team
member realize that the implementation of this protocol is not predicated on any particular
instructional strategy, nor on every member of the team utilizing the same strategy. Each teacher
is free to use those approaches which they believe lead to the greatest success of their students in
their discipline. The goal of Step 4 is to share whatever those strategies might be and for all team
members to be looking for ways that they can utilize or build off of items being used by their
colleagues.
To begin this process, the team should construct another set of sticky notes duplicating all
of the topics from the integrated curricular map related to a particular node, placing them on a
new node-level map that will be used to visualize the integration plan (see the lower portion of
Figure 7 for an example). The team should then discuss the timing of when these topics are
taught in their various disciplines, and should think about any which may be flexible in their
timing. The goal is to have as many overlaps, timing wise, as possible so that students are
hearing about related topics at (or nearly at) the same time in various courses. More on this
important issue can be found at the end of the discussion about the current Step (see the sub-
section on real-time integration and spiral integration).
It is recommended that the team construct a simple timeline like that at the top of Figure
7 (and shown in the blow-up at the top of that figure) as part of this discussion to aid in their
planning. The team should then discuss the topics in order of the timeline (earliest going first),
detailing the instructional strategies/techniques used as well as how the material is typically
assessed. The discussions would go into details such as describing the content of utilized guided
notes, worksheets, labs, essays, fieldtrips, movies, guest speaker talks, etc. that are part of the
normal delivery of the material. While the team member providing these details is speaking, the
other team members are listening and asking for clarifications so that they can look for possible
overlaps or items used in another discipline that they could fully utilize or build off of in their
course. This can be as simple as a mathematics instructor getting word problems from another
discipline for use in their course, or as complex as using a fieldtrip in one course as the
springboard for activities/tasks in several other courses.

Figure 7. Sample Integration Plan Visualization Used in Step 4

At this time, the team should discuss opportunities to use the same assessment across
various disciplines. For example, a report or write-up in one course might be appropriate to also
count as an assessment in ELA, or a lab report that utilizes mathematical concepts like finding
lines of best fit to data could also have the mathematical portion count as an assessment in a
mathematics class.
The team should make sure to capture all of their discussions about the integration plan
for each node in sufficient detail that they will be able to reconstruct their ideas at a later date,
and in a manner that makes them accessible to all team members for future reference as they will
be needed in Step 5.
During these discussions, the team also needs to keep track of those items that will be
shared across disciplines. As part of this list of “shared” instructional items, the team needs to
record exactly what is needed, who needs it, who is providing it, and a date by which it will be
provided. This list should be constructed collaboratively by the team so as to represent a
commitment by each team member to hold themselves as well as their teammates accountable
for providing the agreed upon items by the indicated date. Such commitments help alleviate
potential issues at a later date with respect to misunderstandings about what was committed by
whom.

Real-Time integration and spiral integration

Typically, when we think of curriculum integration in classroom practice we envision teachers
from different disciplines working on common themes, using shared skills or strategies, or
placing their content within the context of the same authentic problem. When this occurs at the
same time period during a school year, we refer to it as a real-time integration. While this type of
integration is very effective in bringing different discipline-based perspectives together during
student learning experiences, it may not always be feasible for all of the participating courses.
All subjects follow their content standards, usually organized in a scope and sequence document.
Some disciplines may have a more flexible order of their topics which may allow the teachers
teaching those courses to rearrange their content to better align with other disciplines during the
integration. Some courses, however, may not have that ability and therefore they will need to
keep some or all parts of their content sequence unchanged.
When an integration plan requires implementation at different times by at least some of
the members of the grade-level team, we call that type of integration a spiral integration. Some
may view this lack of flexibility in the content order as a disadvantage. In reality, spiral
integration is likely to offer some additional benefits. When teachers are implementing the plan
at different times, students have an opportunity to revisit the content from other disciplines,
activate their prior knowledge, transfer their learning, fill in any learning gaps, and increase their
overall comprehension of the content. Both real-time and spiral integration have positive impact
on student achievement and growth, and should be selected depending on the placement of
content topics and the flexibility of their sequencing. School districts that may not have the
ability to modify their scope and sequence documents to allow for the rearrangement of content
standards should identify any existing content alignments between the disciplines and use real-
time integration for those topics, and embrace spiral integration in other cases. It is very likely
that within one integration plan, some teachers will engage in real-time integration, while others
will do a spiral integration. It should be noted that regardless of which of the proposed
integration strategies are adopted, ongoing communication between the subject teachers
throughout the year is absolutely critical. For example, even if the integrated topics are being
covered at different times during the semester, it is still possible for all of the involved subjects
to find time to mention the topics in their courses at critical times (even just briefly by way of
referring to the related topic that is being covered in the other course at that time). This
reinforces (for both teachers and students) that learning truly is multi-dimensional and that their
curricula are being actively integrated in a manner that reflects real life.

Step 5: Construct Detailed, Individual Lesson Plans for each Integration Plan
The final step of the protocol includes developing individual discipline-specific lessons related to
the integration plan for each node. Teachers can work on this step individually, with their
colleagues who are teaching the same course, or they can continue to collaborate with other
members of the team. Lesson plans may be different depending on when the integration will
occur (in real-time or as a spiral integration). Lessons that will be taught as part of a spiral
integration are more likely to include review material designed to activate student prior
knowledge, albeit from a different subject, that would need to be applied at the time of the lesson
implementation. Teachers are encouraged to repurpose any of their previously developed
lessons, but review them through the lens of curriculum integration. All lessons need to be
directly related to the integration plan they are supporting. Teachers should consider consulting
not only their curricular materials, but also the materials and resources from the integrated
disciplines. Incorporating similar or related examples from different courses will further
emphasize the connections between the disciplines. This is also the time in the protocol when
teachers from different courses can work on developing the details of any common assessments
(both formal and informal) to administer to their students.
Conditions for successful implementation of the IPTL protocol
There are a number of general conditions that are typically key to the overall success of the
implementation of the IPTL protocol, and these are discussed below. While these conditions are
relevant to most (if not all) implementations, it is important to realize that conditions vary widely
from one setting to another, and so these general considerations may not capture some of the
most critical challenges faced by a particular school or district. As a result, it is recommended
that the team(s) from each school implementing the protocol engage in a premortem activity
(Klein, 2007) to assess their individual challenges to see if there are any unique issues associated
with their particular situation that should be added to the general list discussed below.
There are many different approaches to conducting a premortem assessment and any of
those approaches could be utilized in this setting. The one used in a recent training on the
protocol involved first asking the participants to, within their individual teams, brainstorm about
everything they can think of that could potentially go wrong or negatively impact their
implementation of the protocol without thinking about possible solutions. These may be written
on a board or large piece of paper (see Figure 8 for recent work samples). Next, the participants
are asked to eliminate from their lists all items that they as a team have no control over. This is
not to imply that the eliminated items are not real nor critical issues, but rather that the team
needs to focus on those items they can impact to give the implementation the greatest chance of
success. The teams should then be directed to sift through the remaining items to decide on a
small list (around five) of problems/challenges that they believe are the most likely to occur. The
team then brainstorms ways that these potential problems can be avoided and incorporates the
agreed upon mitigation strategies in their plan. If a relevant administrator is not already a
member of the team, and if the team believes it would be beneficial to have the participation of
the administration during this brainstorming, they may wish to invite one or more administrators
to participate in this discussion.
Based on past training workshops and subsequent follow up meetings involving a wide
range of grade level teams, there are several themes that have been observed which give rise to a
short list of generally applicable conditions that need to be met and sustained for successful
implementation of the IPTL protocol. One such recurring theme is time. The time commitment
required for the full implementation of the IPTL protocol includes the time needed for a grade-
level team to complete all of the protocol steps prior to the start of a school year. The protocol
can also be completed at the end of the school year or during the summer, as long as there are no
expected changes in staffing or content standards for the next school year. Grade-level teacher
teams can engage in the protocol throughout a school year (time permitting), but the
implementation of the protocol would not start until the protocol is fully completed for a
particular node.

Figure 8. Sample Premortem Brainstorming Outcomes

The time needed to complete each step of the protocol discussed above will depend on
the background/experience of the teachers participating in the protocol. The following are some
of the key factors that may impact the length of time needed for each step. If there are concerns
about any of the factors, it may be beneficial to address those prior to the start of the protocol or
allocate additional time during the protocol implementation.

Step 1 (identifying subject-specific content essentials):

• Knowledge of the content standards
• Knowledge of the content standards progressions (vertical alignment)
• Level of ability to create student success criteria based on content standards (unpacking
the standards)
Step 2 (preparing to share):
• Knowledge of applications of the content standards
• Experience with project based learning, problem based learning, and/or inquiry learning
Step 3 (creating an integrated curricular map):
• Number of teachers on the grade-level team
• Number of initial connections identified by the team members
• Level of collaboration and communication among the team members
Step 4 (creating an integration plan):
• Similarity and differences between teaching styles of the team members
• Level of collaboration and communication among the team members
• Level of teacher appreciation for discipline other than their own
Step 5 (creating individual lesson plans):
• Years of experience teaching the course
• Teaching style
• Number of teachers teaching the same course
• Available curricular resources
• Access to additional curricular resources
An approximate amount of time to fully complete Steps 1-3, and at least one iteration of Steps 4
and 5 (creating one integration plan and the corresponding individual lesson plans for each
participating course) is three days. Teachers can continue working through Steps 4 and 5
throughout the school year as long as they have completed at least one integrated unit prior to the
start of the school year. If the team members have not previously been trained on teaming and
effective communication, such training can be incorporated into the training on the protocol and
the time commitment then expands to approximately 4 days.
Another recurring theme that typically emerges is that regardless of when the teachers
engage in and complete the IPTL protocol, the successful implementation of integrated planning,
teaching, and learning will require commitment and accountability from each member of the
grade-level team. To support ongoing collaboration and integration, the grade-level team needs
to have the opportunity to meet on a regular basis, especially during times when teachers are
implementing their integration plans. If the teachers on the grade level team have not previously
had many opportunities to collaborate, it may be beneficial to allot some time to team building
activities and strengthening relationships between all team members.
Also critical to the sustainability of this effort is consistent support by all relevant
administrators within the school/district. Such support entails both tangible aspects (such as
providing adequate shared time for the teachers to interact and discuss their curricula and
evolving issues during the school year), as well as less tangible (but still essential) types of
support (such as those that reflect a clear commitment by the administration to the effort, and a
belief that the work the teachers are engaging in to integrate their curricula is important and
valued by the entire team). Without a firm commitment by the administrative team to this effort,
and without their continued buy-in on the overall process and evolution towards integrated
teaching and learning, the effort is likely to achieve less than optimal outcomes regardless of the
enthusiasm evidenced by the grade-level team constructing the integrated curricula.

Conclusion
Curriculum integration has a significant positive impact on student engagement, content
comprehension, development of student cognitive skills, and overall academic growth and
achievement. Unfortunately, numerous factors, such as time for teacher training on curriculum
integration, impact on content standards coverage, focus on standardized testing, and teacher
beliefs related to instructional methods, remain considerable obstacles to adopting this
instructional framework. Among these obstacles is a lack of efficient, sustainable, and
practitioner-oriented approaches for effective implementation of integration of various, grade-
level curricula. The Integrated Planning, Teaching, and Learning protocol was designed in
response to these challenges. Created to preserve the integrity of discipline-specific standards
and teachers’ preferred instructional approaches, this five-step protocol leads to transformation
of every participating course into a meaningful and relevant component of a grade-wide
integration.
 References

Brophy, J., & Alleman, J. (1991). A caveat: Curriculum integration isn't always a good idea.
Educational Leadership, 49(2), 66.
Brown, D. F., & Canniff, M. (2007). Designing curricular experiences that promote young
adolescents’ cognitive growth. Middle School Journal, 39(1), 16-37.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00940771.2007.11461609
Fraser, D. (2000). Curriculum integration: What it is and is not. SET: Research Information for
Teachers (3), 34-37.
Hargreaves, A., & Moore, S. Curriculum integration and classroom relevance: A study of
teachers' practice. Journal of Curriculum and Supervision, 15(2), 89-112.
Hinde, E. R. (2005). Revisiting Curriculum Integration: A Fresh Look at an Old Idea. The Social
Studies, 96(3), 105-111
https://doi:10.3200/TSSS.96.3.105-111
Klein, G. (2007). Performing a Project Premortem. Harvard Business Review, 85 (9): 18–19.
Loepp, F. L. (1999). Models of curriculum integration. Journal of Technology Studies, 25(2), 21-
25.
https://doi:10.21061/jots.v25i2.a.6
Magoma, C. M. (2016). The shift and emphasis towards curriculum integration: Meaning and
rationale. African Educational Research Journal, 4(2), 25-30.
McPhail, G. (2018). Curriculum integration in the senior secondary school: a case study in a
national assessment context. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 50(1), 56-76.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00220272.2017.1386234
National Academy of Engineering and National Research Council. (2014). STEM Integration in
K-12 Education: Status, Prospects, and an Agenda for Research. Washington, DC: The
National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/18612.
National Governors Association Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief State School
Officers. (2010). Common Core State Standards for Mathematics. Washington, DC.
Nesin, G., & Lounsbury, J. (2019). Curriculum integration: Twenty questions - with answers.
Becoming: Journal of the Georgia Association for Middle Level Education, 30(1), 37-
104.
 https://doi.org/10.20429/becoming.2019.300103
Senn, G., McMurtrie, D., & Coleman, B. (2019). Collaboration in the middle: Teachers in
interdisciplinary planning. Current Issues in Middle School Education, 24(1), Article 6.
https://doi: 10.20429/cimle.2019.240106
Shriner, M., Schlee, B. M., & Libler, R. (2010). Teachers' perceptions, attitudes and beliefs
regarding curriculum integration. Australian Educational Researcher, 37(1), 51-62.
https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03216913
Vars, G. F. (2015). Can Curriculum Integration Survive in an Era of High-Stakes Testing?
Middle School Journal, 33(2), 7-17.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00940771.2001.11494658
Wall, A., & Leckie, A. (2017). Curriculum integration: An overview. Current Issues in Middle
Level Education, 22(1), 36-40.
https://digitalcommons.georgiasouthern.edu/teach-secondary-facpubs/4
Weilbacher, G. (2001). Is curriculum integration an endangered species? Middle School Journal,
33(2), 18-27.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00940771.2001.11494659
Wilder, S. (2015). Impact of problem-based learning on academic achievement in high school:
A systematic review. Educational Review, 67(4), 414-435.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00131911.2014.974511