“It is no wonder many secondary school students complain that school is irrelevant to the real world. […] The adolescent begins to realize that in real life we encounter problems and situations, gather data from all of our sources, and generate solutions. The fragmented school day does not reflect this reality” (Jacobs 1989, p. 1). 

Interdisciplinarity helps and challenges students to think about the world from different disciplines, and, therefore, from different and diverse perspectives (Lattuca, Voigt, & Faith 2004). It prepares students for the way they need to handle real problems and situations in a real and diverse world and hence prepares them for the future (Beane 1997). A coherent curriculum is a widely shared ideal amongst teachers at all levels of teaching and learning (Janssen 2020). Furthermore, interdisciplinary teaching plays an important part in counteracting overload and fragmentation of the curriculum (Abbenhuis et al. 2008). For example, by diminishing overlap in learning plans between different school subjects, the problem of an overloaded curriculum can be solved (Folmer et al. 2017).

This study will focus on interdisciplinary teaching at secondary schools in The Netherlands. When considering all the advantages mentioned above, one would expect interdisciplinary learning to be an essential component of the curricula in secondary schools. However, according to recent reports (for example, the ‘Curriculum Mirror’ of 2017) it is not.

The main goal of this study is to investigate current practices of interdisciplinary teaching and learning, focusing on difficulties teachers encounter when developing this type of education. The two main questions to be answered are: 

1. Which problems do teachers in secondary schools in The Netherlands encounter when developing interdisciplinary education?

2. What do teachers need in order to improve their interdisciplinary education?

Answers to these questions will provide essential input for a didactical instrument aiding teachers in the development of interdisciplinary education. This instrument will be developed in the next phase of this research project.

This study focuses on a specific department of the Dutch secondary school system: the gymnasium. The ‘gymnasium’ is the Dutch school type that prepares pupils for higher education (university). This is also the school type where, among other subjects, Latin and Greek Languages and Culture are taught (Remie 2022, Burgersdijk 2022). The gymnasium is considered a promising place for interdisciplinary teaching and learning, but also here the development of it appears to be problematic (BGV 2015, BGV 2020). 

In order to answer the questions two methods were used (see also the method section below). First, a questionnaire was sent out to gymnasium teachers of different subjects in The Netherlands. Secondly, I organized three focus group meetings with teachers from different gymnasia. 

In this ignite talk I will argue that interdisciplinary education in Dutch gymnasia is often developed on top of existing disciplinary curricula. In other words, it is overloading curricula, instead of doing the exact opposite. Therefore, to make interdisciplinary teaching successful, it is important to really embed it in the curriculum, strengthening and diversifying existing disciplinary curricula. This is one of the main steps that needs to be taken to successfully embody a widely shared ideal: a coherent curriculum.

Two methods were used to collect data and to analyse them (Creswell 2013). First, a questionnaire was sent out to gymnasium teachers in The Netherlands. Secondly, I organized three focus group meetings with teachers. Questionnaire To structure the questionnaire three perspectives were used (Goodlad 1994 and Nieveen, Handelzalts & van Eekelen (2011). First, the substantive perspective, which mainly focuses on what is developed. Secondly, the political-social perspective focusing on who initiate collaboration between school subjects (MacBeath 2005). Thirdly, the technical-professional perspective, focusing on the process of the development of interdisciplinary education. Five-point Likert scale questions were posed, followed by an option for elucidation. Three open questions were posed, for example ‘what do you need (on any level) to improve interdisciplinary education at your school’? For the spread of the questionnaire I used existing gymnasium teacher networks. After filtering out data entries that were not usable (for example, very incomplete data), data of 108 teachers could be analysed, representing all school subjects and approximately 80 different schools. All Likert-scale questions were analyzed separately, using Excel to calculate the frequency of given answers. Answers to open questions were categorized in different cycles. A combination of an inductive and deductive approach was used, starting the categorization process by using phrases or terms used by the participants themselves and subsequently moving towards a more theoretical vocabulary (Linneberg & Kosgaard 2019). Two other researchers (both not involved in this study) also coded the data. Focus group Nieveen’s model of school specific curriculum development (2017), was used to structure the topics discussed in the three meetings with the focus group incorporating 1) curriculum development, 2) school organisation development and 3) professional development. On the basis of concrete examples of interdisciplinary education used at their schools, strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats were discussed (McKenney & Reeves 2019) from Nieveen’s three points of view. Participants were recruited through results of the questionnaire, where respondents could leave their contact information. This resulted in a group of ten teachers of different school subjects and two members of school management, who came together online three times. Discussions were held in sub-groups according to formats prepared by the researcher. At the end of every session key points were selected plenary. The discussion leading to these key points was recorded and transcribed and sent to the participants to check (Ravitch & Carl 2016). Participants had no further remarks about the selected key points.

Three main conclusions can be drawn from the data. First, the development of interdisciplinary teaching cannot be considered on its own. Teachers encounter problems that do not only have to do with 1) the content of the interdisciplinary curriculum itself, but also with 2) the development of the school organization (for example: school culture, time and resources) and 3) their own professional development (Nieveen 2017). Therefore, to fully understand the problems teachers encounter, a more diverse view on curriculum development is needed, addressing these three areas. Secondly, interdisciplinarity is overloading the curriculum, even though in theory it is supposed to counteract overload. In practice, interdisciplinary education is often developed on top of existing disciplinary curricula. Thirdly, not only is interdisciplinarity overloading the curriculum, but also the teachers themselves, based on the most named need by teachers: development time. Therefore, to make interdisciplinary teaching successful, it is important to really embed it in the curriculum, strengthening and diversifying existing disciplinary curricula. Based on literature (e.g. Drake & Burns 2004 and Janssen 2021) and results from the focus group, this can be done from two perspectives: 1) by taking existing disciplinary curricula as a starting point and searching for ‘natural fits’ or ‘potential areas for integration’ (Drake & Burns 2004, p. 130), and 2) by first choosing a theme (for example, environmental sustainability) and then examining in which way curricula of different school subjects can be connected to this theme. In both cases the process of the development of interdisciplinary education, needs to be ‘protected’ by positive circumstances in the school organization, for example enough development time for teachers and support by school management. These are the key steps that need to be taken to make interdisciplinary education successful, and in the long term more diverse and inclusive.

Abbenhuis, R., Klein Tank, M., Lanschot, V. van, Mossel, G. van, Nieveen, N., Oosterloo, A., Paus, H. & Roozen, I. (2008). Curriculair leiderschap. Over curriculaire samenhang, samenwerking en leiderschap in het onderwijs. Enschede: SLO. Beane, J. A. (1997). Curriculum Integration: Designing the Core of a Democratic Education. New York: Teachers College Press. BGV/AOb. (2015). Enquête Stand van de Gouden Standaard voor gymnasiumopleiding op de scholengemeenschappen. Utrecht: BGV / AOb. BGV/AOb. (2020). Rapportage BGV-conferentie 28 november 2019 Het 13e werk van Herakles: voortbouwen op bouwstenen. Utrecht: BGV / AOb. Burgersdijk, D. (2022). Gymnasium. Geschiedenis van een eliteschool. Amsterdam: Athenaeum. Creswell, J.W. (2013). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches. 4th Edition. London: SAGE Publications, Inc.. Drake, S. and Burns, R. (2004). Meeting Standards through Integrated Curriculum. Alexandria: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Folmer, E., Koopmans-van Noorel, A., Kuiper, W. (eds.) (2017). Curriculumspiegel 2017. Enschede: SLO. Goodlad, J. (1994). Curriculum as a field of study. In T. Husén & T.N. Postlethwaite (Eds.), The international encyclopedia of education (pp. 1262-1267). Jacobs, H.H. (Ed.). (1989). Interdisciplinary curriculum: design and implementation. Alexandria: ASCD. Janssen, F.J.J.M. (2020). ‘Samenhang? Ja graag. Maar hoe dan?’, accessed 29.01.2023 from Didactiefonline via https://www.didactiefonline.nl/blog/blonz/samenhang-ja-graag-maar-hoe-dan Janssen F.J.J.M. (2021). Een curriculumkader voor vormend onderwijs: Een perspectiefgerichte benadering. Narthex, 21(3), 5-15. Lattuca, L., Voigt, L., & Fath, K. (2004). Does interdisciplinarity promote learning? Theoretical support and researchable questions. Review of Higher Education, 23-4. Linneberg, M. S., & Korsgaard, S. (2019). Coding qualitative data: A synthesis guiding the novice. Qualitative research journal. 19(3), 259-270. MacBeath, J. (2005). Leadership as distributed: a matter of practice. School Leadership and Management, 25:4, 349-366. McKenney, S. & Reeves, T.C. (2019). Conducting Educational Design Research. New York: Routledge. Nieveen, N. (2017). Schooleigen curriculumontwikkeling en voorwaarden voor succes. Enschede: SLO. Nieveen, N., Handelzalts A. & van Eekelen, I. (2011). Naar curriculaire samenhang in de onderbouw van het voortgezet onderwijs. Pedagogische Studiën 88 (1). 249-265. Ravitsch, S.M. & Carl, N.M. (2016). Qualitative Research: Bridging the Conceptual, Theoretical, and Methodological. London: SAGE Publications, Inc.. Remie, M. (2022). Het Gymnasium. Het verhaal van een eigengereid schooltype. Amsterdam: Prometheus.