This presentation explores what it means to adopt a knowledge-based approach to curriculum integration and examines the kinds of conditions set by knowledge integration with respect to teaching and curriculum design. The research question is: What kind of conditions knowledge sets for curriculum integration and how these conditions can be acknowledged in curriculum making? The presentation is based on Niemelä’s (2022a) doctoral thesis but looks beyond the thesis to outline concrete ideas for curriculum innovation.

In this presentation, curriculum integration refers to the integration of educational knowledge or to the building of an interdisciplinary curriculum with the objective of making learning more holistic. Key questions pertaining to curriculum integration include how to differentiate between and integrate knowledge within and across the boundaries of school subjects. However, school subjects have often been claimed to contradict curriculum integration because the subjects seemingly fragment the curriculum. Certain approaches to inquiry learning or project-based learning aim at transdisciplinary curriculum integration in which the boundaries of school subjects are considered as boundaries for holistic learning. In turn, this presentation aims to reason why the disciplines of knowledge matter for curriculum integration and how the disciplines are vital for building an interdisciplinary curriculum.

The argumentation of the presentation leans on three published papers (Niemelä, 2021, 2022b; Niemelä & Tirri, 2018) and makes an overarching conclusion based on them. Two of the research papers are theoretical, while the other applies quantitative empirical methods. The studies identify three major conditions affecting curriculum integration. The first study presents curriculum integration as a challenge for teachers because it expands the demands of teacher knowledge. The second study points to the subject-matter specific character of curriculum integration, meaning that not all subjects can be equally integrated with one another. Given that curriculum integration creates challenges for teachers and is subject-matter specific, the third study suggests that it needs to be addressed more clearly as an issue concerning the organisation of educational knowledge in the written curriculum.

Two theoretical frameworks are used to examine the conditions of knowledge-based curriculum integration. First, to study the requirements of teacher knowledge and how they change when curriculum is integrated, Lee Shulman’s (1986, 2015) construct of pedagogical content knowledge is applied. Then, to examine why knowledge matters at the level of written curriculum, the presentation draws on discussions about powerful knowledge in education initiated by Michael F.D. Young and Johan Muller (2016). These two theoretical frameworks serve in a mutually complementary way to assess both the level of teaching and that of curriculum design.

This presentation contributes to developing curriculum theory from the perspective of curriculum integration. It formulates an argument for expanding the focus of the questions concerning integration of knowledge from the classroom to the level of the intended curriculum. This presentation joins the discussion initiated by Young and Muller (2016) on the role of boundaries in curriculum making. Young and Muller have described in length why the boundaries between disciplinary knowledge and everyday knowledge and between the school subjects are essential. They have been open for the idea of boundary-crossing but have not developed this idea fully. This presentation elaborates why boundary maintenance and curriculum integration do not necessarily contradict. Young and Muller’s thinking is much influenced by Bernstein’s (2000) sociology of knowledge. Bernstein has analysed boundary maintenance and boundary-crossing especially with the concepts of classification and framing of educational knowledge. Other important theoretical sources of the presentation include the previous knowledge-based conceptions of curriculum integration developed by Hirst (1974) and Pring (1976) as parts of the so-called forms of knowledge discussion in Britain. Both expressed curriculum integration as an important aim in curriculum making, but explored the conditions different forms of knowledge put to boundary-crossing. Hirst stressed the role of well-structured coherent curriculum. Pring, in addition to that, underlined how disciplinary modes of thinking can be made pedagogically accessible from the viewpoint of the everyday life of the students. Many scholars have recently called that curriculum theory is in crisis, because its focus on the issues of power, identity and culture has distanced it from the concrete questions of curriculum design (Apple, 2018; Connelly & Xu, 2010; Deng, 2018; Priestley, 2011; Young & Muller, 2016). In addition, the recent focus on the development of skills or competences has not paid enough attention to the role of knowledge in teaching and learning. The discussion on curriculum integration is a good example of this tendency. It has often been presented as a way to deconstruct power relations reconstructed by the school subjects and their specific interest groups (see e.g. Young, 1971). To address the lack of attention on curricular knowledge and on the questions of its organisation, this presentation redevelops the theory of knowledge-based curriculum integration.

The major claim of this presentation is that separate school subjects and curriculum integration are not opposing poles, but rather comprise the basic elements of teaching and curriculum design. The knowledge-based approach reveals that integrating educational knowledge is essential to the formation of school subjects and to the design of the curriculum as a coherent whole. Because curriculum integration increases the demands on teachers’ work and integration is subject-matter specific, it needs to be grasped more explicitly as an issue concerning the organization of knowledge on the level of the written curriculum. Many alternatives to organize knowledge in curricula have been presented during the history of modern schooling. The models are attempts to handle the dynamics of drawing and crossing the boundaries of educational knowledge (see Tanner & Tanner, 2007). Klafki (1991) has presented a prospective curriculum model that is built around discipline-based subjects and epoch-typical key problems that integrate approaches from different subjects. This presentation concludes with an updated form of Klafki’s model that is connected with the United Nations (2015) current goals for sustainable development. The proposal is tentative and its chances for success would be improved if the curriculum design process were actualized in the form of interdisciplinary work that enables disciplinary experts to map the most powerful boundary-crossing points (see Schwab, 1978).

Apple, M. W. (2018). Critical curriculum studies and the concrete problems of curriculum policy and practice. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 50(6), 685–690. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220272.2018.1537373 Bernstein, B. (2000). Pedagogy, Symbolic Control and Identity: Theory, Research, Critique (2nd ed.). Rowman & Littlefield. Connelly, F. M., & Xu, S. (2010). An overview of research in curriculum inquiry. In B. McGraw, E. Baker, & P. Peterson (Eds.), Elsevier International Encyclopedia of Education (3rd ed., pp. 324–334). Elsevier. Deng, Z. (2018). Contemporary curriculum theorizing: crisis and resolution. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 50(6), 691–710. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220272.2018.1537376 Hirst, P. H. (1974). Knowledge and the curriculum. Routledge & Kegan Paul. Klafki, W. (1991). Grundzüge eines neuen Allgemeinbildungskonzepts. Im Zentrum: Epochaltypische Schlüsselprobleme. In Neue Studien zur Bildungstheorie und Didaktik: Zeitgemäẞe Allgemeinbildung und kritisch-konstruktive Didaktik (2nd ed., pp. 43–81). Beltz Verlag. Niemelä, M. A. (2021). Crossing curricular boundaries for powerful knowledge. Curriculum Journal, 32(2), 359–375. https://doi.org/10.1002/curj.77 Niemelä, M. A. (2022a). Knowledge-Based Curriculum Integration: Potentials and Challenges for Teaching and Curriculum Design. University of Helsinki. Niemelä, M. A. (2022b). Subject Matter Specific Curriculum Integration: A Quantitative Study of Finnish Student Teachers’ Integrative Content Knowledge. Journal of Education for Teaching, 48(2), 228–240. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/02607476.2021.1989288 Niemelä, M. A., & Tirri, K. (2018). Teachers’ Knowledge of Curriculum Integration: A Current Challenge for Finnish Subject Teachers. In Y. Weinberger & Z. Libman (Eds.), Contemporary Pedagogies in Teacher Education and Development (pp. 119–132). IntechOpen. https://doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.75870 Priestley, M. (2011). Whatever happened to curriculum theory? critical realism and curriculum change. Pedagogy, Culture and Society, 19(2), 221–237. https://doi.org/10.1080/14681366.2011.582258 Pring, R. (1976). Knowledge and Schooling. Open Books. Schwab, J. J. (1978). The Practical: Translation into Curriculum. In I. Westbury & N. J. Wilkof (Eds.), Science, Curriculum, and Liberal Education: Selected Essays (pp. 365–383). University of Chicago Press. Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those Who Understand: Knowledge Growth in Teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4–14. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X015002004 Shulman, L. S. (2015). PCK: Its genesis and exodus. In A. Berry, P. Friedrichsen, & J. Loughran (Eds.), Re-Examining Pedagogical Content Knowledge in Science Education (pp. 3–13). Routledge. Tanner, D., & Tanner, L. (2007). Curriculum Development: Theory into Practice (4th ed.). Pearson. United Nations. (2015). Transforming Our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. https://doi.org/10.1891/9780826190123.ap02 Young, M. F. D. (Ed.). (1971). Knowledge and control: New directions for the sociology of education. Collier-Macmillan. Young, M. F. D., & Muller, J. (2016). Curriculum and the Specialization of Knowledge. Routledge.