Integrating the subject matter helps motivate pupils, eliminate the curriculum repetition , and deepen understanding (e.g. MacMath, 2010; Drake & Reid, 2018). However, there are many possibilities for how to integrate.

Jacobs (1991) designed a continuum of integrating contents: discipline-based – parallel disciplines – multi-disciplinary – interdisciplinary units/courses – integrated day – complete programme. Later Lenoir et al. (2000) spoke about a two-dimensions continuum of integrating curriculum: from pseudo-interdisciplinary (no relation between subject matter) to hegemonic (domination of one subject matter over the others); and from eclectic (grouping of phenomena related to the topic, which are presented in isolation) to holistic (fusion of subject matters). Further, Fogarty (2009) describes ten ways to integrate within the subject contents – from completely isolated topics through various degrees and forms of integration up to full integration.

Lenoir´s and Fogarty´s work brought us to build a model of curricula integration because we feel that sequencing is as important as “mixing” the subject matters of fields. The model visualises types of curricular arrangements. For example, studying geography and history one-by-one is cellular and pseudo-interdisciplinary. Integrated thematic instruction can be seen as an example of webbed eclected curricula. The model helps us visualise the integration of contents at both the level of intended curricula and the level of implemented curricula.

In the paper, we would like to address the integration of subject contents of intended curricula at the primary level. Commonly, historical and geographical topics are taught together in one subject at the primary level (e.g. humanistic and social sciences in Australia – see Tambyah, 2015) as well as at all levels (e.g. geography and history in Spain - see Moreno-Vera & Alvén, 2020; or in Canada-Ontario - The Ontario curriculum, 2018).

In the past and present Czech/Czechoslovak curricula, the subject matter of social and natural (further S&N) sciences has changed several times in an arrangement into school subjects, their organisation and time allotment through the primary level as well as in the content as such. The first two or three grades have been traditionally organised into “prvouka” – a school subject covering all of these subject matters. In the following two or three grades (it depends on the period of time), S&N sciences were traditionally presented to pupils in separate (non-integrated) subjects called “přírodověda” that covered natural sciences, and “vlastivěda” that covered social sciences (mainly primary geography, history). Until 2007 it was always prescribed at the state level. Since 2007 the Czech Republic has had a two-level curriculum – national (Framework Educational Programme for Basic Education, further FEPBE), and school. The subject matter of S&N sciences is covered in a subject area called “Humans and their world”. The FEPBE prescribes quite openly compulsory outcomes for the area by the end of grade 3 (stage 1), 5 (stage 2 at primary level) and 9 (the end of the lower secondary level). Each school creates its own curricula based on the broad state one. Each school may decide how the contents will be organised into subjects, how the time allowance will be distributed into the subjects, and how deeply and widely the content will be taught. Although the FEPBE organises the subject matter as one educational area and allows for integration (FEPBE, 2007, p. 17), many schools even after 15 years after the reform still keep the “traditional” dividing into two separate subjects for stage 2. To understand the present, we have to know the past. That is why we would like to focus on the integration in current curricula and the previous ones in a broader context.

We aim to determine whether and how the Czech schools integrate natural and social sciences subject matters. We have asked three RQ: (1) How has natural and social sciences at primary school subject varied in the Czech state curricula from 1918 to the present? (2) How is the subject matter of natural and social sciences organised in the Czech curricula at the current school level (i.e. in School Educational Programmes)? (3) Which model of integration do current Czech schools use? To answer the first RQ, we used historical-comparative analysis (Baumgärtner, 2004) of historical curricular documents – all curricula of primary levels from the establishment of the republic in 1918 to the present (N = 26). We focused on the organisation of school subjects, time allowance, and integration at the subject level. To answer RQ 2, we used a content analysis (according to Bos & Tarnai, 1999) of school educational programmes and then descriptive statistics. First, we chose randomly 10% of all Czech primary schools (N = 362) and tried to gain their School educational programme. It is supposed to be public which surprisingly often means that it is “to look at the headteacher´s office”. From the school websites we gain 192 programmes. All the others were asked by e-mail to send a copy. Unfortunately - perhaps because of the COVID pandemic we got another 17 programmes only. So the response rate was about 58 %. About 1/3 of all schools in the Czech Republic are not-fully organised schools (with a primary level only, containing at least one class for joint grades). We suppose that the data of not fully organised schools will differ from the fully organised schools as they are usually in the villages and connect subjects by definition. That is why we used a second-level stratification. The final set consists of 70 school educational programmes – 35 fully-organised schools and 35 not-fully organised schools. Now we are working on developing of methodology to answer RQ 3.

The analysis is on the way. The first results show that the time allowance for the social sciences and science curriculum in primary education (currently jointly referred to as the educational area Human and their world) decreases over time. The lowest time allowance was connected with a period of oppression – at the beginning of a communist period in 1950´, in normalisation period in 1970´ and surprisingly in the last few years (details will be presented in the paper). Until 2007, this curriculum was taught in traditional isolated subjects, whose names, classification into grades and time allowances have changed over time (a clear timeline will be presented). Currently, the total time allowance for the social sciences and science curriculum in primary education oscillates between 12 and 16 hours for all five primary level grades. Most schools add at least one “disponible” hour to this educational area. At present, the social science part of the subject matter occupies more space than the natural science part. In the 4/5 of analysed programmes both areas are taught quite strictly separately. Only about a fifth of the schools integrate the curriculum, surprisingly more often the fully organised schools. However, it is interesting that the schools that integrate this curriculum devote a lower time allowance on average. Our research has some limitations – the biggest is in the fact that what is written necessarily does not have to be done and that integrating the content does not necessarily mean better teaching (the higher integration, the bigger danger of shedding the content - see Janík et al., 2018). That is why we have to study deeply how the subject content is reduced (follow-up). The following steps, but will consist of gaining more school educational programmes so that we can work with a representative sample.

Baumgärtner, U. (2004). Tendenzen der Lehrplanentwicklung in Bayern im 20. Jahrhundert. In S. Sandro & B. Schönemann (Eds.), Geschichtsdidaktische Lehrplanforschung. Methoden – Analysen – Perspektiven (pp. 187–202). Münster: LIT Verlag. Bos, W. & Tarnai, Ch. (1999). Content analysis in empirical social research. International Journal of Educational Research, 31(8), 659–671. Drake, S. M. & Reid, J. L. (2018). Integrated Curriculum as an Effective Way to Teach 21st Century Capabilities. Asia Pacific Journal of Educational Research, 1(1), 31–50. Framework Educational Programme for Basic Education (2007). Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports of the Czech Republic Fogarty, R. (2009). How to Integrate the Curricula. (3rd ed.). Corwin Press. Jacobs, H. H. (1989). Design Options for an Integrated Curriculum. In H. H. Jacobs (Ed.), Interdisciplinary Curriculum: Design and Implementation (pp. 13–24). Alexandria, Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Janík, T., Slavík, J., Najvar, P., & Janíková, M. (2018). Shedding the content: Semantics of teaching burdened by didactic formalisms. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 51(2), 185−201. Lenoir, Y., Larose, F., & Geoffroy, Y. (2000). Interdisciplinary Practise in Primary Education in Quebec: Results from Ten Years of Research. Issues in Integrative Studies, 18, 89–114. MacMath, S. et al. (2010). Curriculum integration and at‐risk students: a Canadian case study examining student learning and motivation. British Journal of Special Education, 37(2), 87–94. Moreno-Vera, J. R., & Alvén, F. (2020). Concepts for historical and geographical thinking in Sweden's and Spain's Primary Education curricula. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 7(1), 1–10. Tambyah, M. (2015). What does the review of the Australian Curriculum mean for history in the primary years? Curriculum Perspectives, 35(1), 55–57. The Ontario Curriculum: Social Studies, Grades 1 to 6; History and Geography, Grades 7 and 8 (2018). Ministry of Education in Ontario, Canada.