2004
  1. Home
  2. A-Z Publications
  3. Lampas
  4. Volume 57, Issue 2
  5. Article
Volume 57, Issue 2
  • ISSN: 0165-8204
  • E-ISSN: 2667-1573

Abstract

Abstract

This article focuses on interdisciplinarity in Dutch gymnasia. Even though interdisciplinary education knows many advantages and is a shared ambition among many teachers, it is not a prominent feature of school curricula in the Netherlands. Which problems do gymnasium teachers experience when developing interdisciplinary education at their schools? What are features of ‘best practices’? And what do teachers need in order to improve interdisciplinary education? To answer these questions two methods were used, namely a questionnaire and a focus group. The results show that teachers are mainly in need of development time, good conditions (roster, rooms), shared interest among colleagues, a clear vision from school management, and ways to embed interdisciplinarity in the curriculum. Analysis of best practices and prior research indicate that this embedment can be achieved if teachers gain better knowledge of each other’s school subjects. In this way, existing subject specific curricula can be used as a starting point for interdisciplinary education, rather than developing something ‘completely new’ on top of existing curricula. This approach is in line with an important aspect of successful implementation of (educational) innovations: the ‘new’ interdisciplinary education is connected in a meaningful and acceptable way to the ‘familiar’ subject specific curricula.

© Sandra M. Karten
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.5117/LAM2024.2.003.KART
2024-06-01
2025-01-16
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Abbenhuis, R., M.Klein Tank, V.van Lanschot, G.van Mossel, N.Nieveen, A.Oosterloo, H.Paus en I.Roozen. 2008. Curriculair leiderschap. Over curriculaire samenhang, samenwerking en leiderschap in het onderwijs, Enschede.
     [Google Scholar]
  2. Adema, S.M. en S.Dijkstra. 2018. ‘Augustus’ ankers. Wetenschappelijk onderzoek voor leerlingen’, Lampas51.4, 393-409.
     [Google Scholar]
  3. Adema, S.M., R.Bekker, X.van Eckeren, M.D.de Ferrante, H.van Gelder, H.de Gier, C.D.P.van Oeveren, M.Simons, J.Splinter, P.van Uum en B.H.van der Wijk. 2019. Selfie met Sappho. Een nieuw curriculum voor de vakken GTC en LTC.
     [Google Scholar]
  4. Akker, J. van den. 2003. ‘Curriculum perspectives. An introduction’, in J.van den Akker, W.Kuiper en U.Hameyer (eds), Curriculum landscapes and Trends, Dordrecht, 1-10.
     [Google Scholar]
  5. Beane, J.A.1997. Curriculum integration. Designing the core of a democratic education, New York.
     [Google Scholar]
  6. Berendsen, M. en N.Nieveen. 2022. Curriculumwaaier, Amersfoort.
     [Google Scholar]
  7. Boxtel, C. van, H.Bulthuis, H.Goudsmit, F.Hooghuis, B.J.Mulder, P.Smulders, C.Stam, C.Steenstra, C.Waskowskij en B.de Weme. 2009. Vakintegratie in de mensen maatschappijvakken. Theorie en praktijk, Amsterdam.
     [Google Scholar]
  8. Bransford, J.D., A.L.Brown en R.R.Cocking. 2000. How people learn. Brain, mind, experience, and school, Washington DC.
     [Google Scholar]
  9. Dam, M., F.J.J.MJanssen en J.H.van Driel. 2013. ‘Concept-context onderwijs leren ontwerpen en uitvoeren – een onderwijsvernieuwing praktisch bruikbaar maken voor docenten’, Pedagogische Studiën90.2, 63-77.
     [Google Scholar]
  10. Folmer, E., A.Koopmans-van Noorel en W.Kuiper. 2017. Curriculumspiegel 2017, Enschede.
     [Google Scholar]
  11. Goodlad, J.1994. ‘Curriculum as a field of study’, in T.Husén en T.Postlethwaite (eds), The international encyclopedia of education, New York, 1262-1267.
     [Google Scholar]
  12. Greef, L. de, G.Post, C.Vink en L.Wenting. 2017. Designing interdisciplinary education. A practical handbook for university teachers, Amsterdam.
     [Google Scholar]
  13. Huizinga, T.2014. Developing curriculum design expertise through teacher design teams (diss. Universiteit Twente), Enschede.
     [Google Scholar]
  14. Huutoniemi, K., J.Thompson Klein, H.Bruun en J.Hukkinen. 2010. ‘Analyzing interdisciplinarity. Typology and indicators’, Research Policy39.1, 79-88.
     [Google Scholar]
  15. Jacobs, H.H.1989. Interdisciplinary curriculum. Design and implementation, Alexandria.
     [Google Scholar]
  16. Janssen, F.J.J.M.2020. ‘Samenhang, ja graag maar hoe dan’, Didactiefonline20.08.2020, didactiefonline.nl/blog/blonz/samenhang-ja-graag-maar-hoe-dan.
     [Google Scholar]
  17. Janssen, F.J.J.M., P.Grossman en H.B.Westbroek. 2015. ‘Facilitating decomposition and recomposition in practice-based teacher education. The power of modularity’, Teaching and Teacher Education51, 137-146.
     [Google Scholar]
  18. Janssen, F.J.J.M., H.Hulshof, en K.van Veen. 2016. Uitdagend gedifferentieerd vakonderwijs. Praktisch gereedschap om je onderwijsrepertoire te blijven uitbreiden, Leiden/Groningen.
     [Google Scholar]
  19. Janssen, F.J.J.M., H.B.Westbroek, W.Doyle en J.H.van Driel. 2013. ‘How to make innovations practical’, Teachers College Record115.7, 1-42.
     [Google Scholar]
  20. Karten, S.M.2021. ‘Of Classics and curricular cobwebs. Towards the development of interdisciplinary teaching in Dutch gymnasia’, Leidenartsinsocietyblog25.11.2021, leidenartsinsocietyblog.nl/articles/of-classics-and-curricular-cobwebs-towards-the-development-of-interdisciplinary-teaching-in-dutch-gymnasia.
     [Google Scholar]
  21. Karten, S.M.2022. ‘Vakoverstijgend onderwijs op het gymnasium. De term samenhang ontleed’, Amphora41.3, 8-11.
     [Google Scholar]
  22. Kits, K., S.Luger, H.Neven, M.Simons en P.Zijlstra. 2014. Een gouden standaard voor de gymnasiumopleiding.
     [Google Scholar]
  23. Kuiper, R., O.Agirdag, G.Biesta, R.Bosker, N.Nieveen, M.Raijmakers, J.van Tartwijk, en M.Boogaard. 2021. Samenhang in het curriculum. Verdiepende studie Wetenschappelijke curriculumcommissie, Amersfoort.
     [Google Scholar]
  24. Letschert, J. en B.Letschert-Grabbe. 2007. Wat leraren willen. Over veranderingen in onderwijs van binnenuit, Assen.
     [Google Scholar]
  25. McKenney, S. en T.C.Reeves. 2019. Conducting educational design research (tweede editie), Oxfordshire.
     [Google Scholar]
  26. Miller, R.1982. ‘Varieties of interdisciplinary approaches in the social sciences’, Issues in Integrative Studies1, 1-37.
     [Google Scholar]
  27. Nieveen, N.2017. Schooleigen curriculumontwikkeling en voorwaarden voor succes, Enschede.
     [Google Scholar]
  28. Nieveen, N. en M.van der Hoeven. 2011. ‘Building the curricular capacity of teachers. Insights from the Netherlands’, in P.Picard en L.Ria (eds), Beginning teachers. A challenge for educational systems, Lyon, 49-64.
     [Google Scholar]
  29. Nieveen, N., A.Handelzalts en I.van Eekelen. 2011. ‘Naar curriculaire samenhang in de onderbouw van het voortgezet onderwijs’, Pedagogische Studiën88, 249-265.
     [Google Scholar]
  30. Nissani, M.1995. ‘Fruits, salads, and smoothies. A working definition of interdisciplinarity’, Journal of Educational Thought29, 119-126.
     [Google Scholar]
  31. Oeveren, C.D.P. van.2019. ITHAKA gaf je de reis. Op weg naar reflectie op het eigene en het vreemde in het literatuuronderwijs klassieke talen (diss. Vrije Universiteit), Amsterdam.
     [Google Scholar]
  32. Remie, M.2022. Het gymnasium. Het verhaal van een eigengereid schooltype, Amsterdam.
     [Google Scholar]
  33. Repko, A.F., R.Szostak en M.P.Buchberger. 2020. Introduction to interdisciplinary studies (derde editie), Thousand Oaks.
     [Google Scholar]
  34. Skjott Linneberg, M. en S.Korsgaard. 2019. ‘Coding qualitative data. A synthesis guiding the novice’, Qualitative Research Journal19.3, 259-270.
     [Google Scholar]
  35. Sluiter, I.2018. ‘Oud is het nieuwe nieuw. Een inleiding op Anchoring Innovation’, Lampas51.4, 289-295.
     [Google Scholar]
  36. Thijs, A. en J.van den Akker. 2009. Leerplan in ontwikkeling, Enschede.
     [Google Scholar]
  37. Thompson Klein, J.2000. ‘A conceptual vocabulary of interdisciplinary science’, in N.Stehr, en P.Weingart (eds), Practising interdisciplinarity, Toronto, 3-24.
     [Google Scholar]
  38. Tuithof, H. (ed.). 2018. Wat werkt als je samenwerkt. Voorbeelden van samenwerking tussen gammavakken, Amsterdam.
     [Google Scholar]
  39. Visser, C., F.Coenders, C.Terlouw en J.Pieters. 2010. ‘Essential characteristics for a professional development program for promoting the implementation of a multidisciplinary science module’, Journal of Science Teacher Education21.6, 623-642.
     [Google Scholar]
  40. Vrind, E. de, F.J.J.M.Janssen, N.H.de Jong, J.H.van Driel en E.T.Stoutjesdijk. 2019. ‘Naar een praktische adaptieve aanpak voor spreekvaardigheidsonderwijs in moderne vreemde talen’, Pedagogische Studiën96.1, 15-39.
     [Google Scholar]
  41. Wilschut, A. en M.Pijls. 2018. Effecten van vakkenintegratie. Een literatuurstudie, Amsterdam.
     [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.5117/LAM2024.2.003.KART
Loading
‘En dan moeten we ook nog vakoverstijgend werken…’
LAMPAS 57, 152 (2024); https://doi.org/10.5117/LAM2024.2.003.KART
/content/journals/10.5117/LAM2024.2.003.KART
/content/journals/10.5117/LAM2024.2.003.KART
Loading

Data & Media loading...

Keyword(s): curriculum coherence; curriculum development; Dutch gymnasium; educational innovation; interdisciplinary education

Most Cited Most Cited RSS feed

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error