Cross-curricular teaching and learning 4: Whose responsibility?
Who is responsible for developing approaches to cross-curricular teaching and learning? Is it the responsibility of the whole school through the implementation of a whole school policy or strategy? Or is it the responsibility of individual subject teachers and their relationships with other teachers or wider local networks that encompass other professionals?
The short answer is that all of the above can play a part in developing approaches to cross-curricular teaching and learning. There is a shortage of data about how the recent curriculum changes in England have affected teachers’ perceptions on this issue, but one survey by OFSTED (2008) presents some interesting findings related to how schools can successfully manage innovation in the curriculum.
OFSTED’s survey of 30 schools indicated that at the whole school level there were four main categories of curriculum innovation. These included organising the curriculum around themes that were developed through different subjects. For some of these secondary schools, the thematic organisation was not subject orientated, but rather focused on a particular cross-curricular dimension or learning competence:
Themes based on cross-subject or inter-disciplinary approaches incorporated the appropriate development of skills, as in the following example. During Year 7, every pupil completed six projects, each lasting half a term, on the themes of ‘journeys’, ‘identity’, ‘positive images’, ‘art attach’, ‘survival’ and the ‘the power and the glory’. These drew on geography, history, religious education, dance, drama, art, and personal, social and health education. The pupils were able to assess their development against defined competencies, weekly or in individual lessons. As a result, they gained an understanding of their strengths and weaknesses which provided a powerful stimulus to learning and raising standards. (Ofsted 2008, pp.9-10)
For other schools, a thematic approach meant that a major theme, such as the impact of rivers on environmental, social and economic development, was chosen and explored from a range of subject perspectives. Skills, knowledge and understanding within each subject were orientated around the chosen theme.
In all the schools that Ofsted surveyed, subjects were taught discretely for part of the time. From the perspective of the individual teachers, Ofsted noted that they:
Emphasised the importance of thorough and detailed planning that identified, unambiguously, progression in knowledge of the subject and the development of skills. They also identified clearly how, when and by whom the work would be assessed. (Ofsted 2008, p.9)
Approaches such as those identified by Ofsted in this survey were only effective when there was a high degree of co-ordination from the either a group of dedicated teachers or when they were initiated and sustained by a senior manager with a responsibility for the curriculum at the appropriate Key Stage. They are unlikely to happen by chance. The survey is quite clear that strong leadership at all levels is essential for successful curriculum innovation of this type. However, at the level of the individual teacher and the work that is undertaken within that teacher’s classroom, there is much more that can be done.







This might answer part of your question: Individual teachers and school’s admin could take advantage of some of the groups already out there.
STEM net (www.stemnet.org.uk) provides access to volunteers in many fields (but all with a Science Technology Engineering Mathematics lilt) , many of whom have a board backgrounds / range of other skills, too.
I recently helped out at a fairly-local school’s particularly well executed “Humanities day” where year 10 students had 10 min opportunity to quiz Scientists, architechts, Soliders, Lawyers, Managers…
Disclosure: I’m a STEM ambassador, into Drumming, Software, IP, maths,…
Andrew Cordani
12 Feb 10 at 3:58 pm
(oops,please fix my typos , Architects, Soldiers )
Andrew Cordani
12 Feb 10 at 4:00 pm