Interdisciplinary Education in the Elementary Curriculum: Exploring Teacher Perceptions and Practices
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This research study focused on interdisciplinary education practices in elementary schools and classrooms. The main research question was: how does a sample of Ontario elementary educators design and implement interdisciplinary lessons in the classroom, and what outcomes do they observe from students? This question was investigated using semi-structured interviews with two elementary educators working in schools in Ontario. Findings of this study suggest that a variety of subjects can be combined in an interdisciplinary curriculum, but certain subjects should be taught in isolation. Furthermore, educators identified external frameworks and published materials that were useful resources for educators planning interdisciplinary curriculum. Another finding was that participants identified clear starting points for planning and assessing an interdisciplinary curriculum. Recommendations arising from this research are that teacher education should explicitly address interdisciplinary education. A whole school approach is also more supportive of teachers in their interdisciplinary practices and consequently, administrators may want to consider adopting school-wide interdisciplinary practices. Finally, teachers looking to implement interdisciplinary practices in their classroom should seek out opportunities to collaborate with other educators in order to plan a cohesive interdisciplinary curriculum.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.023 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".