Vol 15 No 9 - August 2016

International Journal
of
Learning, Teaching
And
Educational Research
p-ISSN:1694-2493
e-ISSN:1694-2116IJLTER.ORG
Vol.15 No.9

PUBLISHER
London Consulting Ltd
District of Flacq
Republic of Mauritius
www.ijlter.org
Chief Editor
Dr. Antonio Silva Sprock, Universidad Central de
Venezuela, Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic of
Editorial Board
Prof. Cecilia Junio Sabio
Prof. Judith Serah K. Achoka
Prof. Mojeed Kolawole Akinsola
Dr Jonathan Glazzard
Dr Marius Costel Esi
Dr Katarzyna Peoples
Dr Christopher David Thompson
Dr Arif Sikander
Dr Jelena Zascerinska
Dr Gabor Kiss
Dr Trish Julie Rooney
Dr Esteban Vázquez-Cano
Dr Barry Chametzky
Dr Giorgio Poletti
Dr Chi Man Tsui
Dr Alexander Franco
Dr Habil Beata Stachowiak
Dr Afsaneh Sharif
Dr Ronel Callaghan
Dr Haim Shaked
Dr Edith Uzoma Umeh
Dr Amel Thafer Alshehry
Dr Gail Dianna Caruth
Dr Menelaos Emmanouel Sarris
Dr Anabelie Villa Valdez
Dr Özcan Özyurt
Assistant Professor Dr Selma Kara
Associate Professor Dr Habila Elisha Zuya
International Journal of Learning, Teaching and
Educational Research
The International Journal of Learning, Teaching
and Educational Research is an open-access
journal which has been established for the dis-
semination of state-of-the-art knowledge in the
field of education, learning and teaching. IJLTER
welcomes research articles from academics, ed-
ucators, teachers, trainers and other practition-
ers on all aspects of education to publish high
quality peer-reviewed papers. Papers for publi-
cation in the International Journal of Learning,
Teaching and Educational Research are selected
through precise peer-review to ensure quality,
originality, appropriateness, significance and
readability. Authors are solicited to contribute
to this journal by submitting articles that illus-
trate research results, projects, original surveys
and case studies that describe significant ad-
vances in the fields of education, training, e-
learning, etc. Authors are invited to submit pa-
pers to this journal through the ONLINE submis-
sion system. Submissions must be original and
should not have been published previously or
be under consideration for publication while
being evaluated by IJLTER.

VOLUME 15 NUMBER 9 August 2016
Table of Contents
Mapping the Domain of Subject Area Integration: Elementary Educators’ Descriptions and Practices.....................1
Gustave E. Nollmeyer, Lynn Kelting-Gibson and C. John Graves
Improving Leadership Practice through the Power of Reflection: An Epistemological Study ..................................28
Ann Thanaraj
Towards Actualising Sustainable Education Standards in Nigeria ............................................................................... 44
Dr. B. K. Oyewole and Dr. (Mrs.) F. M. Osalusi
Policy of Carrying Capacity and Access to University Education in Nigeria: Issues, Challenges and the Way
Forward.................................................................................................................................................................................. 55
Dr (Mrs.) Chinyere Amini-Philips and Mukoro, Samuel Akpoyowaire
Who am I? Where am I Going? And which Path should I Choose? Developing the Personal and Professional
Identity of Student-Teachers ............................................................................................................................................... 71
Batia Riechman
Secondary Mathematics Teachers: What they Know and Don't Know about Dyscalculia......................................... 84
Anastasia Chideridou–Mandari, Susana Padeliadu, Angeliki Karamatsouki, Angelos Sandravelis and Charalampos
Karagiannidis
Case Study – Results at Primary School Leaving Examination in a Rural District in Rwanda ..................................99
Jan Willem Lackamp
Teacher Evaluation and Quality of Pedagogical Practices ............................................................................................ 118
Paul Malunda, David Onen, John C. S. Musaazi and Joseph Oonyu
Investigation Learners’ Performance in TOEFL Prior to their Participation in the TOEFL Enhancement Training
Program................................................................................................................................................................................ 134
Ardi Marwan, Anggita and Indah Anjar Reski

1
© 2016 The authors and IJLTER.ORG. All rights reserved.
International Journal of Learning, Teaching and Educational Research
Vol. 15, No. 9, pp. 1-27, August 2016
Mapping the Domain of Subject Area
Integration: Elementary Educators‟ Descriptions
and Practices
Gustave E. Nollmeyer
Eastern Washington University
Cheney, WA
Lynn Kelting-Gibson and C. John Graves
Montana State University
Bozeman, MT
Abstract. A review of relevant literature reveals that integration is a
difficult practice to define, yet elementary teachers are quick to speak
positively of it and many claim to integrate in their practice. If there is a
lack of consensus about what integration means, what then are these
teachers doing when they say that they integrate? This study
investigated five cases in an effort to establish how elementary teachers
describe the domain of subject area integration. Qualitative data was
collected through interviews with the participants and observations of
the integrated lessons they taught. The data revealed a healthy mix of
commonalities within and differences between the teachers‟ descriptions
and practices. These similarities and differences revealed a model of
integration that goes beyond the linear continuums common in the
literature. Instead we propose a model of the domain that consists of
four variables. These variables can be used to describe with great detail
an individual practice of integration and allow educators and
administrators an opportunity to consider and plan for growth in the
application of subject area integration.
Keywords: Integration; Interdisciplinary curriculum; Elementary
Education; Curriculum and Instruction
Introduction
The practice of subject area integration began in the early part of the twentieth
century; however, its philosophical origins have been traced into the 1800s.
Mathison and Freeman (1997) credit Herbert Spencer‟s writings of 1855 for
founding the idea of integration. The British psychologist suggested that the last
step of a changing or adapting organism was that of integration. Fifty years later
Spencer‟s explanation of the organism as a whole was translated, by Gestalt
Theory, from the field of natural science to that of psychology (Humphrey,
1924). In the world of education this produced two practical realities. First, the
learner was seen as a whole in need of meaningful learning experiences

2
reflecting this “wholeness.” Second, learning was not simply a linear process
with new ideas being added onto existing ones. Instead, it was complex and
interactive—filled with rebuilding and transformation (Harrell, 2010). It was this
progressive thinking that led to integrated curriculum and authentic experiences
which make learning meaningful (Mathison & Freeman, 1997).
Through the first half of the twentieth century, integration was advanced in both
theory and practice by innovators such as John Dewey and Hollis Caswell
(Bunting, 1987; Fraley, 1977). Then, in the 1980s and 90s integration experienced
another surge in popularity. Once again, integration was on the minds of
educators, researchers, and policy makers. This rich period in the history of
integration has been attributed to curriculum organizational theory, brain
research, and learning theory (Hartzler, 2000). Whatever the impetus, several of
the movement‟s most cited advocates sprang up during these years, including
James Beane, Robin Fogarty, and Heidi Hayes Jacobs. It was a time of significant
research; Hartzler (2000), looking with a specific criteria, located and analyzed
thirty quantitative studies on integration—all between the years of 1985 and
1997. Also during this time, a number of United States policy organizations
turned to integration for answers including the National Association for the
Advancement of Science (NAAS), the Bradley Commission on History in
Schools, the National Research Council (NRC), the National Council of Teachers
of Mathematics (NCTM), the American Association for the Advancement of
Science (AAAS), and the National Council for the Social Studies (NCSS).
With so much interest and support, it appeared that the promotion of subject
area integration would be a fixture of education in the United States for some
time; however, in the years surrounding the turn of the century, calls for
accountability resulted in a surge of high stakes testing. Over the next decade
efforts in integration declined as teachers faced the pressure of the No Child Left
Behind legislation and the achievement expectations associated with it
(Musoleno & White, 2010).
In spite of these challenges, those practicing integration have continued to
believe in its ability to bring the curriculum alive (Treacy & O‟Donoghue, 2014).
This faith has been rewarded by recent policy changes. Integration has been
brought back to the vanguard in the United States. With the arrival of the
Common Core State Standards (National Governors Association Center for Best
Practices, 2010) and Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS Lead States,
2013), relevance has once again been added to rigor. This shift in thinking is not
novel, but it has thrust subject area integration to the forefront of the
conversation among policy makers and educators. The resurfacing of integration
brings with it both benefits and challenges. Research has shown that students
experiencing integrated curriculum are more motivated to learn (Brown, 2011),
find their studies more meaningful (Leung, 2006), and do as well if not better on
standardized tests (Hartzler, 2000; Vars, 1997). Nevertheless, teachers who chose
to integrate subject areas face a number of challenges. Mcbee (2000) consolidates,
from a number of authors, a list of these barriers which include a lack of
professional development and the compartmentalization of content in published

3
materials. These challenges are further complicated by the literature‟s lack of
uniformity in defining integration.
The literature presents a complex and diverse picture of integration; however,
this leaves it unclear as to what elementary educators mean when they say that
they “integrate.” With expectations for integration found in such policy
documents as the United States‟ Common Core State Standards, it is important
to form a clear picture of what in-service teachers are doing when they integrate
(Collier & Nolan, 1996). With this purpose in mind, this research pursued two
main research questions:
1. How do elementary educators‟ descriptions help map the domain of
subject area integration?
2. How do elementary educators‟ practices fit within the resulting map of
the domain of subject area integration?
Situating the Study
The title of the Common Core Standards for English language arts is English
Language Arts and Literacy in History/Social Studies, Science, and Technical Subjects.
This title makes it clear that ELA skills are a necessary element to understanding
in the content areas—a reality well established in the literature (Brozo,
Moorman, Meyer, & Stewart, 2013). The standards demand a high level of
reading competency and bring back an emphasis on content area writing
(Gewertz, 2012). These expectations combined with the push for nonfiction
text—even for the youngest students—will require a successful integrated
response. Still, the expectation is not simply an application of general language
skills. Rather, there is a focus on content specific reading and writing which
often includes technical skills (Hoachlander, 2014). The goal is that by drawing
and synthesizing meaning from multiple texts, content knowledge would
increase (Ciecierski & Bintz, 2015). Also, writing about what is learned would
further strengthen the understanding.
Review of Relevant Literature
Literacy across the Curriculum
The Common Core‟s call for an increased emphasis on literacy across the
curriculum is not a new idea. Content area literacy was a major topic in the
literature of the 1980‟s and 1990‟s (Langer, 1986). The American Library
Association (1989) described the need for informational literacy and how it
would be achieved through an active, integrated curriculum based on real-world
problems. The primary thrust of the movement was using reading and writing
to facilitate learning in the content areas (Harp, 1989; McKenna & Robinson,
1990). Reading and writing about content knowledge stimulates thinking
(Dickson, 1995) and serves to facilitate student metacognition (Harp, 1989). At
the same time, using these skills while engaged in the content provide a
meaningful backdrop for the complex tasks of literacy development. Subject
specific applications allow students to explore their understandings of literacy
while focusing on the content (Taylor, 1989).

4
Defining Integration
Over the years attempts have been made to define integration and its relative
terms. Instead of endeavoring to nail down one definition, most authors propose
a continuum or range of integrated approaches (i.e. Applebee, Adler, & Flihan,
2007; Jacobs, 1989; Lonning, DeFranco, & Weinland, 1998). Several authors do
propose a broad, all-encompassing definition: “[Integration is] bringing together
in some fashion distinctive components of two or more disciplines” (Nissani,
1995, p. 122); “Integration involves relationships—relationships between
different subject areas, relationships between different content, relationships
between different skills . . .” (Hartzler, 2000, p. 19). Wang, et al. (2011), divide the
domain into two categories of integration they label as “multidisciplinary” and
“interdisciplinary.” From another perspective, Kain (1993), Shriner (2010), and
Toren, et al. (2008), argue that all varieties of integration can fit within two
approaches. The approaches they identify are Beane‟s (1992) student-centered,
integrative approach and Jacobs‟ (1989) subject-centered curriculum, approach.
Other researchers and authors do not address the fluid qualities of integration;
but instead, speak with some confidence in their own view of the domain.
 Gehrke (1998) defines curriculum integration as, “A collective term for
those forms of curriculum in which student learning activities are built,
less with concern for delineating disciplinary boundaries around kinds of
learning, and more with the notion of helping students recognize or
create their own learning” (p. 248).
 Case (1991) defines content and skill integration as: “Connecting the
understanding promoted within and among different subject areas or
disciplines . . . . Integration of skills and processes refers to so-called
generic skills and processes. The call to „teach reading and writing in the
content areas‟ is an example of integrating reading and writing „skills‟
into subjects such as social studies and science” (p. 216).
 Beane (1992) sees most “interdisciplinary” models a part of a
“multidisciplinary” category. In his view, an interdisciplinary curriculum
is one in which the concepts and activities are derived by the needs of a
central theme. There is no specific concern for how each discipline may
contribute to the study; “And although we may draw from one or
another discipline of knowledge, the act itself is done without regard for
subject area distinctions” (pp. 46-47).
 Brown (2011) seems to take his thoughts a step further. Not only does he
speak with conviction on definitions, he separates multidisciplinary and
interdisciplinary approaches from what he calls “true” curriculum
integration. The major distinction he draws is that “true” integration
requires student involvement in the design process. In doing so he
claims, “Few educators [understand] the design of „true‟ CI” (p. 195).
 Collier and Nolan (1996) recognize ambiguity in terms, but express a
confidence in distinguishing between integrated curriculum,
interdisciplinary instruction, and thematic instruction. “While a review
of the literature indicated a clear distinction between the three
instructional models . . .” (p. 7).

5
Diversity may abound in defining integration, yet foundational principles still
exist. Beginning with integration‟s foundations in Gestalt psychology and the
progressive education movement and following the literature through to present
day, two consistent threads emerge. First, integrated curriculum in some way
addresses connections between discipline content and/or skill. Second,
integration enhances the relevance of school through meaningful experiences
and/or student-centered approaches.
Part of the frustration in defining the terms surrounding integration is alleviated
by seeing the wide range of approaches not as competing models, but rather
complimentary ones under a large umbrella. Some researchers speak directly of
a continuum of integrated practice and propose their own (i.e. Applebee et al.,
2007; Huntley, 1998; Leung, 2006; Lonning et al., 1998). Others infer or leave the
possibility open in their presentation of the terms (i.e. Beane, 1992; Fogarty, 2009;
Jacobs, 1989). Few of these authors agree on the terminology to be used at each
stage of the continuum; however, there appears to be some agreement as to the
scope and directionality of a continuum of integration. In scope, the continuums
or variations stay solidly on the side of curriculum and content. In direction,
Mathison and Freeman (1997) point out that most suggested continuums move
from discipline based models at one end to totally integrated ones at the other
end.
Teachers’ Descriptions of the Domain
Considering the years that integration has been a topic of research and the rich
diversity of approaches, it is surprising that few studies have investigated in-
service educators‟ definitions or descriptions of the domain. Of course,
throughout the literature the presence of teachers is felt. Many worked closely
with the movement‟s foundational theorists (i.e. Beane, 1995; Fogarty, 2009;
Jacobs, 1991). Others participated in integrated programs under study (Greenleaf
et al., 2011; Lonning et al., 1998; MacMath, Roberts, Wallace, & Chi, 2010;
Romance & Vitale, 2001). A number have shared experiences, beliefs, or
challenges (Applebee et al., 2007; Dowden, 2007; Greene, 1991; Harrell, 2010;
Leung, 2006; McBee, 2000; Offer & Mireles, 2009; Shoemaker, 1991; Vars, 1991;
Wang et al., 2011; Weilbacher, 2001). Some even participated in crafting
integrated curriculums (DeCorse, 1996; Kain, 1996). However, our review
uncovered only three studies since the mid-90‟s where in-service educators
helped to describe or define the domain of integration (Collier & Nolan, 1996;
DeCorse, 1996; Stinson, Harkness, Meyer, & Stallworth, 2009). Two of these
studies included elementary educators. DeCorse (1996) studied how pre-service
training prepared teachers to teach integrated lessons. As part of her research,
she found that experienced teachers held to a variety of definitions. These
educators were doubtful about their ability to fully practice what they believed
integration to be. Collier and Nolan (1996) sought to understand elementary
teachers‟ perceptions of three integrated instructional models. They reported
findings similar to DeCorse. When presenting three models of integration—
integrated, interdisciplinary, and thematic—teachers‟ descriptions differed. The
responses were unclear and, at times, contradictory. The researchers concluded
that professional development was needed for the clarification of terms and the
success of any implementation (Collier & Nolan, 1996; DeCorse, 1996).

6
Methodology
Context and Participants
We worked from the inquiry paradigm of constructivism in this study. Instead
of beginning with a deductive framework, like Collier‟s and Nolan‟s (1996)
work, our desire was to understand the participants‟ constructed reality
(Shadish, 1995). Since constructivism purports reality to be relative and multiple
because of social and contextual factors (Lincoln, 1990), it captured the essence
of our goals. With the rich variety of definitions present in the integration
literature, educators will no doubt have constructed their own contextualized
reality. Therefore, it made sense to employ this naturalistic inquiry paradigm.
Our research design was case study as it is a preferred choice for answering
“how” questions (Yin, 2003).
Participants were identified using a combination of snowball and maximum
variation sampling (Patton, 2002). A snowball sample was accomplished by
talking to school principals about teachers in their building who integrated
frequently; direction was also given by one of the district‟s instructional coaches.
Following the leads supplied, five participants were selected based on several
demographic factors for maximum variation: grade levels taught, current grade
level, and years of experience. These participants were assigned pseudonyms for
purposes of anonymity. Employing a multiple-case model has the advantage of
being more robust than the classic single case design (Yin, 2003).
Data Collection
For our case study research, data were collected by conducting interviews and
observing lessons. Collecting qualitative data best fits the ideals of the
constructivist framework (Lincoln, 1990). The following pattern was used in data
collection: pre-observational interview, lesson observation, and post-
observational interview. The first interview was 30 to 45 minutes long and was
conducted in the participant‟s classroom at her convenience. A pilot tested
interview guide (Maxwell, 2005) was used as a framework for the first semi-
structured interview. Data were collected during the interview by audio
recording. The final question of this interview asked the teacher to perform two
tasks with the Matrix of Integration (MoI) depicted in Figure 1. Each participant
was asked to mark the location that best described her current practice and mark
the location that best described what her teaching would look like in a perfect
world.
Shortly after the first interview, a 30 to 60 minute lesson involving subject area
integration was observed. Data collection during the observation consisted of
typed notes. In the days following the observation, a second 30 to 45 minute
interview was conducted with the participant. Again, a pilot-tested interview
guide was used for the semi-structured interview. The final question of the
interview asked the teacher to place one more mark on the MoI. The participant
was asked to mark the location that best described the lesson taught for the
observation. The overall process—pre-observation interview, lesson observation,
and post-observation interview—was completed with each participant within a
two-week period of time.

7
The MoI (Figure 1) used during the interviews was developed during a pilot
study. It attempted to blend the literature and our own experiences to picture
the domain of integration. For the purpose of labeling the MoI, Huntley‟s (1998)
terminology was used to establish three of the four points.
 “An intradisciplinary curriculum is typified by instruction that focuses on
one discipline” (p. 320).
 “An interdisciplinary curriculum is one in which the focus of instruction is
on one discipline, and one or more other disciplines are used to support
or facilitate content in the first domain” (p. 320).
 “An integrated curriculum is one in which a teacher, or teachers, explicitly
assimilates concepts from more than one discipline during instruction”
(p. 321).
 Needs driven was one researcher‟s term to describe a fluid delivery of
instruction based on the current need instead of a daily schedule of
subjects. Beane‟s (1992) work supports this variable by describing the
flow of instruction as being concerned with the content or skill needed in
the moment.
Figure 1: The Matrix of Integration (MoI) displays, at one time, two variables involved
in integration.
Data Analysis
The unit of analysis in this study was the individual, and the method of analysis
was case study (Yin, 2003). The recordings were transcribed shortly following
each interview. These transcriptions were entered into the HyperRESEACHER
software program and coded as a case study. We used a combination of
inductive and deductive themes while coding these data. The deductive themes
arose from the pilot study and the review of the literature. Using
HyperRESEARCH‟s reporting feature, quotes were grouped by theme. From this
themed data, a case study was written and then emailed to the participant for

8
member checking to enhance reliability (Patton, 2002). All five case studies were
returned with positive comments. Finally, the case studies were compared in a
cross-case analysis to identify broader themes and highlight complex ideas (Yin,
2003).
Findings
Each of the five case studies are displayed in order according to the grade level
taught by the educator. At the conclusion of the individual cases, the cross-case
analysis is summarized.
Cullen Case
Ms. Cullen, a kindergarten teacher with 26 years of experience, saw integration
as making connections and a natural part of teaching. “Boy, I think it‟s really
hard not to. The minute I think of a topic, I think of the books that go with it
because that‟s just a love of mine and I think because I‟ve seen kids love that.”
This type of organic teaching included subject area connections as well as
connections of any kind. “I‟m a believer in connections. I don‟t really care what
the connection is. It‟s firing a synapse; it‟s growing curiosity and questions and
interest. And those are all good things.” Cullen believed that integration
enriched learning experiences by creating more connections and increased the
probability of meaningful learning. “I think [reading] hits a different area. And I
don‟t want to say it cements it, but it either sparks interest, or it creates a
synapse connection to what they were doing with their hands.” Therefore, when
Cullen planned for instruction, she often sought to integrate. She built her
integrated lessons around science content and the inquiry process, yet she did
not plan with a detailed structure designed to ensure a certain number of subject
areas or skills got brought into the lessons. Instead, she allowed for the
integration to occur more naturally. “I guess I don‟t feel like I purposely set out
to integrate like, „This will be a math table, and this will be a social studies
table.‟” Because of this organic process, Cullen struggled to place her current
practice on the MoI (see Figure 2). “I guess I have no idea where I would plot
myself, but I would of course like to be—this is where I‟m aiming (pointing to
upper right corner).” Eventually, she agreed to place a triangle over the area that
most closely pictured her practice. Cullen conceded to this because she felt that
when she did integrate it was a natural process, and things were delivered
concurrently without a lot of planning for specific content areas.
The observed lesson was an inquiry-based science lesson that integrated ELA,
math, social studies, and art. It was a multiday lesson about water; the science
content involved the states of water, water‟s interaction with other materials,
and the water cycle. Cullen stated that tackling such lofty scientific learning
goals and such complex concepts was only possible through high levels of
integration. She particularly saw the value of integrating reading, writing, and
speaking. Reading was integrated in the books about water Cullen read to the
class, the station where an adult helper read books about water with small
groups, and the station where students explored books on their own. Writing
was integrated at the station where students created their own books about
water. Speaking was integrated throughout as Cullen used inquiry based
questioning to explore student understanding, as well as, at the end of the lesson

9
where students had a chance to present art work and their water books in front
of the class. As with placing her full practice on the integration matrix, Cullen
struggled to determine where the observed lesson belonged—readily admitting
the process was difficult. “It is! Because I don‟t really set out planning, it just
kind of happens. It‟s the way that I see things.” In an effort to help Cullen place
her lesson, we talked her through what we had seen. At that point, she readily
agreed that the lesson itself belonged up in the upper right hand corner of the
MoI.
Figure 2: Cullen’s MoI completed during the interviews.
In a perfect world, Cullen felt that she would like to balance out that ability to
integrate organically, with an increased level of structured planning so that she
had a more complete integration of all knowledge and skill. She referred to this
as a good balance between the delivery of content on the y axis and the
combination of content on the x axis. “I would hope that it would be balanced
and that‟s hard in kindergarten because we‟re always leading up to something
else . . . . I guess I‟d like it to be up here and be using both of these.” She also felt
that this balanced approach should be in the upper right hand corner of the MoI,
where everything was integrated. At first she felt like some rote things needed to
be handled in isolation. But, as we discussed it, she determined that even low
level knowledge and skill could and should be integrated. “Then I would go all
the way up because even those little rote things like drill and practice numbers
we could be making it slightly more exciting.”
Knox Case
Ms. Knox, a first-grade teacher with 22 years of experience, described integration
through the lens of teamwork. While she acknowledged that integration did
occur within her classroom without the collaboration of fellow teachers, Knox
believed true integration involved grade level teamwork. “What it looks like to
me is that you‟re team teaching with a group of people that have the same grade
level and the same subjects that you teach . . . . That‟s the beauty of integration—

10
when you work with teachers.” Knox said that integration was a matter of
weaving together subject areas in the way that is best for kids. “It‟s not how
many subjects you can teach at the same time. It‟s how well kids can relate to
real life situations.” In her mind, single lessons done by individual teachers
could not be considered integration. “It‟s an ongoing lesson; it‟s not just one shot
. . . . We could do this for the rest of this year if we wanted. We could take
quality rather than quantity and just build on what we do this week.” Ms. Knox
planned for integration by meeting with her grade level teaching team. They
met weekly and planned for special integrated units. These meetings were
inclusive and welcoming. “It‟s an invitation to teachers, and I‟m learning that
you can‟t demand it . . . . Treat it as novelty and then build with the team.” The
integration that followed provided meaningful learning that bound together all
subject areas. Because of the challenges of bringing team members on board and
the time involved in developing these fully integrated units, Knox placed her
current practice toward the bottom left corner of the MoI (See Figure 3). Yet, she
saw it moving up the center line through the year and ending close the middle
by the end of the year. “Well, I‟ll get [more teachers] involved, and we‟ll plan
more science days . . . . You have to invite them and say, „hey, wouldn‟t it be
great to save time if we did it this way?‟” Knox stated that fully integrating all
the time with her team would be the perfect world situation. She placed this
near the upper right hand corner of the MoI because she believed there was
always room for improvement.
Figure 3: Knox’s MoI completed during the interviews.
The observed lesson was a multiday social studies lesson that integrated
multiple subject areas. Because of this full integration, Knox placed the lesson in
the upper right hand corner of the MoI. The content of the lesson was learning
about mapping and focused on students moving from a map of their bedroom
up to a map of the world. Reading was integrated through a read-a-loud book.
Math was integrated when students used rulers as a tool for drawing their own
maps. As Ms. Knox discussed the lesson, which included ELA, social studies,

11
and math, she described how even that successful integration would be
strengthened by in involvement of her grade level team.
Havel Case
Ms. Havel, a first-grade teacher with seven years of teaching experience,
described integration as teaching two subjects at one time. While she did see
places for skills from one subject to be used as “tools” for mastering content
within the primary content area, “true” or “full” integration, Havel asserted,
needed to have lesson objectives for all subject areas being taught. She then
conceded that this was only her view. “Are you integrating both subjects fully if
there aren‟t objectives attached to both? I think you‟d hear arguments for and
against.” Planning for integration came easily for Havel because she saw literacy
as a natural part of every content area. Regardless of what she was teaching, her
lessons involved reading, writing, speaking, and listening. “[Literacy is] one
common subject that‟s in every subject—everyday. I‟m constantly repeating a
word, having them repeat it back—speaking and listening, that covers that.
Writing down their thoughts in each of the subjects so you have writing
integrated with math and science and social studies.” While discussing
integration, Havel never used the term “continuum;” however, she did employ
several other terms and descriptions. Mostly, she discussed different “levels” of
integration, but she exchanged this with “full” each time she described the
highest level of integration. Havel compared previously taught lessons by
discussing the difference in the “degree” of integration. “This [lesson] would be
like a 1 or a 2—on a scale of 1 to 5—this would be a 2, and that would be a 4 or 5
because of the nature of how I did it.”
Clearly having spent time considering how she was integrating as well as the
levels at which she tended to integrate, Havel identified the location of her
current practice on the MoI (see Figure 4) with some definitiveness and was able
to discuss in detail why. She placed herself just past half way to the right side
but well below the line. This was where Havel felt her practice belonged because
she was not able to integrate everything, yet she did so with every opportunity
she could find. She also felt that the inherit structure to her day limited her
ability to be any further up the y axis.
The observed lesson was a science inquiry lesson; however, the math and ELA
integrated into it were of equal importance to Havel. She felt like that was an
important feature of integration; each content area needed to have a purpose
within the integration—even when it‟s being used as a tool. “I would say subject
area integration is teaching two subjects in the same lesson sequence. You know,
not less equally, so, with objectives in place for both . . . . I guess you could say
„full‟ integration or not „true‟ integration if the objectives on both sides aren‟t
being met.” She believed this one lesson was a good example of the content
areas she typically integrated, but placed it higher on the MoI since she was able
to integrate more seamlessly.

12
Figure 4: Havel’s MoI completed during the interviews.
Ms. Havel was fairly content with the amount of subject area integration she was
able to do. The place she really wanted to have more flexibility was in the
delivery of her curriculum. In the perfect world she would have as much
blending of instructional time as she had connections between content. Her
practice would be balanced that way, on the center line of the MoI, up toward
the right hand corner. “I think I‟d want to be up here; like this, but I still think
there would have to be some subject areas that I teach that would have to be—
like spelling. I don‟t think I could teach it any other way just because of the
structure involved.”
Bilas Case
Ms. Bilas, a third-grade teacher with nine years of experience, described
integration in terms of connections. These connections could be between subject
areas or bridging the gap between school and the real world. While regularly
planning for integration in a variety of ways, Bilas also saw the advantage of
connections that arise through teachable moments—whether they connected
subject areas or school learning and life. Bilas planned for subject area
integration because she believed that connecting reading and writing to her
content area units was critical to maximizing instructional time. “So, like when I
was thinking about this last writing assignment . . . the first thing I thought
about was my social studies content. How can I build a writing assignment
around what I‟m going to be teaching in social studies?” This was a regular
thought process for Bilas because there was so much ground to cover. Plus, from
a pragmatic standpoint, connecting subject areas only made sense. “Why would
you be reading other nonfiction texts? That doesn‟t make any sense. Why not
teach your students how to read the nonfiction texts that give them the [social
studies and science] content?” While she did not use the term “continuum,”
Bilas saw levels to integration where higher levels of integration would include
multiple content areas. “I guess better integration, if it was on a scale, would be

13
when you‟re able to connect multiple disciplines.” Bilas conceded that the
planning involved in high levels of integration is overwhelming. “I think that it
can be difficult on a daily basis so any kind of connecting is beneficial rather
than having things taught completely in isolation, separate from each other.”
Because of this challenge and the constraints of school wide structures, Bilas
placed herself towards the bottom left corner of the MoI (See Figure 5).
Figure 5: Bilas’ MoI completed during the interviews.
The observed lesson was part of a unit studying a traditional Native American
story; however, it was the reading skills and not the Native culture that formed
the foundation of the unit. The social studies content, science content, speaking,
and writing skills were given attention as they were needed. The reading skills
taught during the observation were the skill of recognizing traditional stories
and the skill of visualization. Social studies was integrated through the
traditional Native American story used for the visualization. ELA speaking skills
were applied as students presented group work. In other lessons of the unit
science knowledge about fire and skills of inquiry were learned and applied.
Even though these other subject areas played a small role, Bilas saw it belonging
above the center line on and on the left edge of the MoI. “I think it‟s always
going to be heavy on the reading . . . . If you look at the whole unit, it‟s going to
be heavy on the reading throughout.”
As Figure 5 shows, Bilas wanted to be integrating most subjects most of the time.
She still saw the need for some isolated instruction and isolated content. “So, I
don‟t feel like I can be like, here (pointing to upper right hand corner of the MoI)
because math has to be taught in isolation. Especially the last two years I‟ve
spent here with these students because I think that they have, in some ways,
really weak math skills.”

14
Donner Case
Ms. Donner, a fifth-grade teacher with eight years of experience, saw integration
as teaching multiple subject areas at the same time. She thought that it was
important for there to be a natural fit in the content being taught, and any
subject brought into the lesson needed to contribute to the purpose and goal of
the learning. “If it‟s a natural fit, I‟ll do it. If I‟m pushing, I‟ll think, „Eh, maybe
this isn‟t the right thing.‟” When we began our discussion about integration,
Donner felt that anytime another subject area was brought into a lesson (i.e.
writing about science content) integration was occurring. As we explored these
thoughts deeper and Donner spent time considering her own practice, she came
to the conclusion that “true” integration required knowledge or skill to be taught
for each subject being integrated.
Figure 6: Donner’s MoI completed during the interviews.
Ms. Donner‟s planning for integration occurred primarily around her science
content. The main reason for this structuring of curriculum was that she loved
science. Since her fifth-grade team rotated students for several subjects, science
was also the place where Donner had the greatest opportunities to integrate.
“For me, my easiest way to integrate is in science. I look at my standards in
science, and „Well, okay! This is kind of the big idea, and this is what I have to
teach. So, how do I push other subjects into that idea?‟” For Donner, looking for
opportunities to integrate was a natural part of planning. She began with her
science standards, but that did not mean that content from other subjects was
used merely as a means to an end. She examined the standards of other subject
areas to determine what should be brought in—what would be a natural fit and
also needed to be taught. “I have an environments kit now, and so, I have to
look where I‟m at in the math standards . . . . If I can find objectives that meet my
objectives in science, that‟s when I put them together.” Because of the challenge
of designing such experiences and finding the needed materials coupled with
practical limitations with schedules at her school, Donner placed her current
practice low on the y axis of the MoI (See Figure 6). She did put herself half way

15
through the x axis because of her focus on bringing subjects together whenever
possible.
The observed lesson was about environmental impact and integrated social
studies, mathematics, and ELA into the science content. It took multiple days to
complete. Working with a group, students developed their own stretch of land
bordering a river. Then, Donner explained the potential for pollution with each
plan. As students struggled with the realities of human impact, Donner
integrated reading through a nonfiction book about river pollution, and social
studies through an exploration of the industrial revolution. She then integrated
writing as students wrote critical pieces about technological advancement. Since
the lesson included nearly all of the subjects, Donner positioned it on the MoI far
on the right side. However, she felt that within the lesson there still was
significant separation between subject areas; therefore, Donner was not
comfortable placing the lesson very high on the y axis.
Donner discussed a range in integrated practice throughout the interviews. She
saw the highest level as the “best practice” of integration. In a perfect world, this
was what her teaching practice would look like. “I would be . . . where you
would integrate fully all day, and the curriculum was completely integrated.
There [would be] no time constraints—if it was possible.”
Cross-Case Analysis
A cross-case analysis revealed common themes within the cases and
discrepancies between the cases. Four compatible themes were found within the
cases: (1) an organizing description, (2) grounded in content, (3) range of
options, and (4) perfect world versus reality. The contrasting themes between
the cases were (1) philosophical foundations, (2) planning structure, and (3)
depth of integration.
All five participates described subject area integration as combining subjects.
Cullen and Bilas used the term “connections,” Havel and Donner simply stated
that it was teaching multiple subjects at the same time, and Knox referred to it as
“weaving.” Each statement contained nuances; nevertheless, the foundation was
the same.
Also, these educators saw integration as both a planned and natural process.
Bilas, Havel, and Donner all explicitly stated that they were constantly looking
for opportunities to combine subjects. Knox, emphasized the planning done with
a grade level team. Of the five, Cullen spoke the least about structured planning,
yet the lesson I observed contained a high level of subject area orchestration. At
the same time, each teacher spoke to one degree or another about the organic
elements of integrating. For Cullen, Knox, and Havel it was who they were as
teachers. Cullen questioned whether she could “disintegrate” if she tried. While
clearly more planning oriented, Bilas and Donner felt that true integration
required natural connections. They both spoke of combining subjects that had a
natural fit.

16
While none claimed it to be the only way to integrate, four of the five
participants described integration that was grounded in the content disciplines
of science or social studies. Cullen and Donner planned and taught that way
because of their love for science—each referred to the fact that it was how they
saw the world. Bilas regularly built her integrated units around science or social
studies in order to maximize instructional time and cover all of her ELA
standards. Havel integrated based upon science and social studies because she
saw literacy as being the one commonality throughout her day. Knox did not
discuss planning in this way; yet, the lesson we observed was a social studies
based lesson that had integrated other subjects into it.
Each of the five teachers recognized a range of options for integration. They all
quickly grasped the MoI and discussed the range present there. Four of them
readily acknowledged that their methods of integrating were not the only ways
to do it. Cullen and Donner, who most routinely integrated through science
only, discussed how their teaching peers had different strengths and passions.
Havel, Bilas, and Donner all discussed a range of levels for integration. Havel
most frequently termed these as “levels.” Bilas discussed the range in terms of
“complexity” of integration. Donner, referred to the highest level as “best
practice.” Even though Knox never directly discussed a range of integrated
options, she suggested that her own practice changed in the “amount” of
integration throughout the year.
Figure 7: The compiled MoI comparing all teachers’ current and preferred practice.
B=Bilas; C=Cullen; D=Donner; H=Havel; and K=Knox.

17
The final common theme across the cases was a discussion of the perfect world
versus reality. These educators all placed their current practice at low levels on
the MoI and their desired practice at very high levels (see Figure 7). The
uniformity in their desire to integrate at or near the “full” level of the upper
right hand corner of the matrix was very telling data. This shows that if possible,
each of these five educators would like to be integrating at a “full” or nearly full
level.
The cross-case analysis also revealed contrasting themes between the cases:
philosophical foundations, planning structure, and depth of integration. There
were philosophical ideas about integration that differed between cases. In her
discussion of integration, Cullen described it as teaching the “whole” instead of
the parts. She emphasized the need for students to see the whole so that it makes
sense. This idea was unique to Cullen‟s description. None of the other teachers
referenced this view, but Knox discussed a different idea dealing with whole
versus parts. She described integration as something that extended through the
whole year. Because of this perspective, Knox did not see a single lesson taught
in isolation to be part of the domain of integration. Again, no other participant
mentioned anything similar. Also, Knox believed that “true” integration was a
team effort. Others mentioned this as an option but never attributed higher
“value” to the resulting integration.
Differences were present between the participants‟ planning structure for
integration. Two educators discussed using themes for planning but neither
explained them in the same way. Havel brought up themes in reference to
conceptual ideas that cross disciplinary boundaries. Knox, did not directly state
the word “theme”; however, her description of the integrated units taught by
her grade level team matched descriptions of thematic units—as presented in the
literature. Other participants‟ planned integrated units topically around a
science or social studies foundation. While planning for integration was clearly
performed by all participants, it was not as important to Cullen. She described
her planning for integration as an organic process. She integrated subjects as the
opportunity arose and felt like she never really set out to integrate certain
subjects or certain skills.
A final difference between the cases was variations in the depth of integration.
In describing the range of options in the practice of integration, there was
general consensus about there being “amounts” of integration. At the same time,
participants were split over the details. Two teachers, Havel and Donner,
believed that true integration required lesson objectives or standards for each
subject area in the lesson. In other words, reading an article in science class
would not be considered integration of reading unless specific standards or
lesson objectives for reading were being met. The other three participants did
not state such an expectation.
Discussion
Knowing how teachers describe the domain of integration would be a helpful
addition to the literature. This is especially true in the United States with the
arrival of new standards emphasizing integration (i.e. English Language Arts and

18
Literacy in History/Social Studies, Science, and Technical Subjects Common Core
Standards). The purpose of this study was to explore elementary teachers‟
descriptions and practices of subject area integration in an attempt to help define
the domain.
As the teachers in the study described their practice of integration, a number of
commonalities were found; however, with many unique perspectives also
present, it still remained challenging to establish a concise definition. This
finding mirrors Nissani‟s (1995) assertion that the very nature of integration
makes such clarity impossible. At the same time, Nissani provided a broad
definition of integration, and our participants‟ general descriptions sounded
quite similar. In simple terms, subject area integration is combining two or more
subjects into a lesson, lesson sequence, or unit. As the participants discussed
integration, their ideas regularly agreed with Case‟s (1991) definition of “skill”
integration. According to Case, “skill” integration is bringing skills like reading
or writing into content areas like science or social studies.
While none of the participants identified a continuum, they all readily
recognized a range of options and approaches to integration. This finding again
matches work established in the literature where any number of continuums and
options for approaching the task can be found (Adler & Flihan, 1997; Applebee
et al., 2007; Fogarty, 1991; Huntley, 1998; Jacobs, 1989; Leung, 2006; Lonning &
DeFranco, 1997; Mathison & Freeman, 1997). On the surface it seemed that the
participants‟ understanding of a continuum was only one dimensional. They
used terms like levels, amounts, full, range, and true. To some degree, the
continuums presented in the literature describe the domain of integration in
similar linear terms. At the one end of such a continuum, subjects are separated
and at the other, they are integrated (Mathison & Freeman, 1997). On closer
inspection the range of options, discussed by the elementary educators in this
study, were far more complex and required a model with multiple variables.
Even the dual axes of the MoI used during the interviews failed to fully capture
what educators described as the domain of integration. As Nissani (1995)
claimed, integration must be seen as multidimensional and not linear. With this
more complex lens in mind, it became apparent that many of the continuums
found in the literature also include more complexity. Though often presented in
a linear graphic, most contain characteristics from multiple dimensions that
describe movement along the continuum.
Based on findings in this study, we propose a model that maps the domain of
subject area integration (hereafter referred to as the Model) comprised of four
variables. Table 1 describes and gives an example of a low, medium, and high
level for each variable. Evidence from the study, by means of participant quotes,
is presented for most variable levels. The first variable, subject areas in the
integration, identifies the number of subjects being combined. The range of
options within this variable was presented on the MoI used in the interviews.
The second variable, frequency of integration, was one of the most conversed
aspects of the practice. The educators in the study all desired to integrate more
often and gave detailed explanations about the challenges that make an increase
in frequency difficult. The third variable, delivery of integration, was also on the

19
MoI. The range of options within this variable are often challenged by factors
out of teachers‟ control including district mandates, curricular programs, and
building schedules. Four of the five teachers in the study pointed to these issues
and others as hurdles to an integrated delivery. The final variable, depth of
integration, was discussed by four of the five educators. This variable has a
limited range, but according to some of the teachers in the study, the depth of
the combination can create distinct differences in learning experiences.
Table 1. Modeling the Domain of Integration: Descriptions and Evidence.
Variables Low Level Medium Level High Level
Subject
Areas in
Integration
Lessons
combine two
subject areas.
Lessons combine most or
all subjects taught at the
grade level.
Lessons are developed
around real-world
problems that require
knowledge and skill
from all or nearly all
grade level subjects.
“I think
teachers would
normally think
about it as just
two [subjects]
because you
don‟t—you
kind of think
in pairs I think,
naturally.”
Havel
“Moving
toward the
middle of the
continuum
represents an
increased
infusion of one
discipline
(mathematics
or science) into
the teaching
and learning of
the other
discipline”
(Huntley, 1998,
p. 321).
“I hope the tactile, using
the water with the lids, I
hope that that was math
and science. What else did
we do? We did some
writing which is always
good . . . . Then, they read
it to each other or they
read it to the group later.”
Cullen
“Interventions, for
example, leads to the
study of simple machines
in science, to reading and
writing about inventors in
language arts . . . to
drawing and studying
Rube Goldberg
contraptions in math”
(Fogarty, 1991, p. 63).
“So, let‟s say you‟re
studying the
environments. Well
somehow you would
take your math
standards and your
science standards and
your ELA standards
and all of that would
kind of be in harmony.”
Donner
“[It starts with] a
problem, idea, or
concept, and builds
knowledge from a
variety of areas without
regard to disciplinary
boundaries” (Adler &
Flihan, 1997, p. 7).

20
Frequency
of
Integration
Integrating
only a few
lessons in the
year.
Integrating on a regular
basis like one day a week.
Every all of the time,
every lesson, every day,
all year long.
“Well, I get a [few] more
teachers involved, and we
plan more science days.”
Knox
“I would [like to teach]
where you would
integrate fully all day
and the curriculum was
completely integrated.”
Donner
Delivery
of
Integration
Knowledge
and skill for
each subject
area is
delivered
separately.
Around half of the
knowledge and skill
content is delivered
separately and about half
is delivered as needed
regardless of subject area.
Knowledge and skill is
delivered as needed
regardless of subject
area.
“If I had
complete
control over
my classroom,
I would
probably be
reading
science content
during my
reading
block.” Bilas
“I think honestly if you
had the perfect scenario
[you would] teach a
lesson, a unit, where
you couldn‟t really
distinguish between
[subjects]. Okay, „this is
math and this is the
science part.‟” Donner
“The integrated day is a
natural day. Time is
structured according to
the needs of the
students, and the needs
of the curriculum are
planned around them,
rather than institutional
demands” (Jacobs, 1989,
p. 17).

21
Depth of
Integration
Knowledge or
skill from one
subject area is
used as a tool
to enhance
learning in
another subject
area.
Standards and objectives
are being met for each
subject area being
integrated.
Standards from
multiple subjects are
being met through
curriculum developed
around real-world
problems. No discipline
is the “primary” or
organizing subject
matter.
“You just have
to think about
how can one
subject be
used, if it‟s
math and
science, how
can math be
used as a
tool?” Havel
“They
combined
literature and
science to
make the
science content
more
interesting and
meaningful.
The literature,
they said, had
educational
value, but the
primary
emphasis was
the science”
(Mathison &
Freeman, 1997,
p. 14)
“I think whenever you can
integrate the standards
from any subject matter
whether it be math or
reading or whatever it is, I
think it makes the
integration that much
more rich because you‟re
touching on all of the
things standard wise.”
Donner
“At the center of the
continuum are those
activities meeting the
curricular objectives for
both science and
mathematics” (Lonning et
al., 1998, p. 313)
“Curriculum integration
begins with the
identification of
organizing themes . . . .
drawn from real-life
concerns . . . . [it]
transcends subject-area
and disciplinary
identifications; the goal
is integrative activities
that use knowledge
without regard for
subject or discipline
lines” (Beane, 1995, p.
619)
Note. There are two types of information found in the cells for each variable. At the top is a
short description of the level for the variable. Below the description, most cells have one or
two quotations that support the description. These quotations come from the participants in
the study and/or from the literature on integration.
We believe that the interaction of the four variables in the Model provides
further clarity in mapping the domain of subject area integration. It also allows
for an individual to describe the patterns of personal integrated practice. By
utilizing a bubble chart, this interaction can be displayed visually. First, the
frequency of the integration and the subjects in integration are assigned to the x and

22
y axes. Figure 8 shows the positions along these axes. As the frequency of the
integration increases, the position of the plot moves to the right. Since the range
in this variable moves from a single lesson to every lesson in the year, half way
across the axis would describe half of the lessons in a given period (i.e. day,
month, or year) being integrated. The number of subjects being integrated is
displayed on the y axis. At the bottom of the axis only two subjects would be
integrated. The further up the axis the greater the number of subjects involved.
With an increase in both frequency and the number of subjects being integrated,
the position plotted would move toward the upper right hand corner of the
chart.
Figure 8: Variables associated with the x and y axes of the Model.
The third and fourth variables are associated with the circles used to plot the
position on the chart (Figure 9). The depth of the integration is displayed by the
size of the circle—the smaller the circle the lower the level of depth. A small
circle, then, would display a practice that uses one or more supporting subjects
to facilitate the learning in an emphasized subject. An increase in the level of this
variable is displayed by an increase in the size of the circle. Similarly, the delivery
of the integration is depicted by the shade of color in the circle. A light shade
represents a low level of integrated delivery—indicating that knowledge and
skill are delivered in isolation. For example, a teacher may have students write
about their science content, but the science work and the writing take place
during different periods of the day. As the tint darkens, the level of the delivery
increases. A dark color indicates that content is being delivered as needed
regardless of the subject area or a set schedule of classes.

23
Figure 9: Variables associated with the circles plotted on the Model.
Figure 10 displays the interaction of the four variables in the Model which is
designed to map the domain of subject area integration. Plotting a practice on
the Model, involves consideration of each variable. Moving from left to right
represents an increase in the frequency of the integration. Moving from bottom
to top represents an increase in the subject areas involved in the integration.
Increasing the circle‟s diameter represents a deeper integration. Finally, a
darkening of the color shade indicates an increase in the integrated delivery.
Each circle plotted in Figure 10 represents an individual integrated practice.
Three plots have been labeled for the purpose of describing hypothetical
teachers. For clarity, we refer to the examples simply as Teachers “A”, “B”, and
“C.”
Figure 10: The four variable Model proposed to help map the domain of subject area
Integration.

24
 Teacher A integrates frequently. Over half of the lessons she teaches are
integrated. These lessons have a high level of subject area integration as
well as a high level of depth in integration. Her curriculum is constructed
around real-world problems that are not driven by any one discipline but
require the knowledge and skills from most subject areas. Teacher A
delivers this integrated curriculum as knowledge and skill are needed
without regard for subject area.
 Teacher B integrates English language arts into her science curriculum.
These are the only two subjects she integrates; however, her frequency of
the integration is high. Teacher B integrates with virtually every science
lesson she teaches throughout the year because she uses a science
notebook as a central piece to her program. The depth of this integration
is at a medium level. She has both science and ELA standards in mind as
students write in their science notebooks. Nevertheless, she has a set
schedule for her day and does not attempt to do any of the actual writing
instruction during her science block. This means that her delivery of
integration is at a low level.
 Teacher C rarely teaches integrated lessons throughout the year. When
she does integrate, she usually builds these lessons around her social
studies content. These lessons connect all or nearly all of the subjects;
however, there is a low level of depth. Teacher C is focused only on
students understanding the social studies content. The ELA, math,
science, and art knowledge and skills that are brought into the
integration are only used as tools to support and add meaning to the
social studies content. Some of the time, the typical schedule of the day is
removed and knowledge and skill are used in the flow of the curriculum.
At other times, Teacher C keeps the schedule in place and just uses those
blocks of the day to work on pieces of the integration.
Conclusion
While interpreting the data, it became apparent that what educators described
and practiced did not fit into a simple linear continuum. Nor was the MoI
developed during a pilot study sufficient to capture the full domain of subject
area integration. In an attempt to help map this domain and its rich range of
options, a Model consisting of four variables was developed. These variables
captured key aspects discussed by participants in describing subject area
integration. The Model provides a fundamental framework for considering the
various options in the range of integrated practice. It could prove useful for a
number of stake holders in education. Departments of Education and
Curriculum Leadership Teams could compare integrated practice and current
teacher understandings of integrated expectations with actual expectations and
desired practice. Districts and administrators could use these findings to plan for
professional development. Finally, teacher training programs, in concert with
Departments of Education, could use these findings to update pre-service
teacher education.
The Model interpreted from the data in this study remains untested. Further
research on the variables of the Model would help to refine it. One aspect of
future research should be to attribute value to the levels of each variable. The

25
purpose behind the Model of the domain is to describe teacher practice and
promote professional development. However, without additional research it
remains unclear if each variable is equal in value. Should educators focus on
increasing their level of integration on one variable more than another? And,
how is the value of each variable influenced by the subject areas involved? These
and many more questions need answering to further understand the domain of
subject area integration. For now, we hope that the Model can serve to further
the conversation of educators everywhere.
Acknowledgement
We wish to acknowledge the contributions to the elementary educators who
gave their time and energy as they participated voluntarily in this study.
References
Adler, M., & Flihan, S. (1997). The interdisciplinary continuum: reconciling theory, research
and practice. Retrieved from ERIC database. (ED414602).
American Library Association. (1989). American library association presidential committee on
information literacy final report. Washington, DC: Author.
Applebee, A.N., Adler, M., & Flihan, S. (2007). Interdisciplinary curricula in middle and
high school classrooms: Case studies of approaches to curriculum and
instruction. American Educational Research Journal, 44(4), 1002-1039. doi:
http://dx.doi.org/10.3102/0002831207308219
Beane, J. A. (1992). Creating an integrative curriculum: Making the connections. NASSP
bulletin, 76(547), 46-54.
Beane, J. A. (1995). Curriculum integration and the disciplines of knowledge. Phi Delta
Kappan, 76(8), 616-622.
Brown, D. F. (2011). Curriculum integration: Meaningful learning based on students'
questions. Middle Grades Research Journal, 6(4), 193-206.
Brozo, W. G., Moorman, G., Meyer, C., & Stewart, T. (2013). Content area reading and
disciplinary literacy: A case for the radical center. Journal of Adolescent & Adult
Literacy, 56(5), 353-357. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/JAAL.153
Bunting, C. (1987). Educational purpose and the new curricula: A view from the
theoretical perspective. NASSP Bulletin, 71(501), 119-125. doi:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/019263658707150128
Case, R. (1991). The anatomy of curricular integration. Canadian Journal of Education,
16(2), 215-224.
Ciecierski, L. M., & Bintz, W. P. (2015). Using authentic literature to develop challenging
and integrated curriculum. Middle School Journal, 46(5), 17-25.
Collier, S., & Nolan, K. (1996). Elementary teachers' perceptions on integration. Paper
presented at the Annual Meeting of the Mid-South Educational Research
Association, Tuscaloosa, Alabama.
DeCorse, C. B. (1996). Current conversations teachers and the integrated curriculum: An
intergenerational view. Action in Teacher Education, 18(1), 85-92.
Dickson, B. L. (1995). Reading in the content-areas. Reading Improvement, 32(3), 191-192.
Dowden, T. (2007). Relevant, challenging, integrative and exploratory curriculum
design: Perspectives from theory and practice for middle level schooling in
Australia. The Australian Educational Researcher, 34(2), 51-71.
Fogarty, R. (1991). Ten ways to integrate curriculum. Educational Leadership, 49(2), 61.
Fogarty, R. (2009). How to integrate the curricula (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin
Press.
Fraley, A. E. (1977). Core curriculum: An epic in the history of educational reform. Doctoral
Dissertation. Teachers College. Columbia University.

26
Gehrke, N. J. (1998). A look at curriculum integration from the bridge. Curriculum
Journal, 9(2), 247-260. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0958517970090209
Gewertz, C. (2012). Common standards drive new reading approaches. Education Week,
32(12), 2.
Greene, L. C. (1991). Science-centered curriculum in elementary school. Educational
Leadership, 49(2), 42-46.
Greenleaf, C. L., Litman, C., Hanson, T. L., Rosen, R., Boscardin, C. K., Herman, J., . . .
Jones, B. (2011). Integrating literacy and science in biology: Teaching and
learning impacts of reading apprenticeship professional development American
Educational Research Journal, 48(3), 647-717.
Harp, B. (1989). When the principal asks: "How are we using what we know about
literacy processes in the content areas?". The Reading Teacher, 42(9), 726-727. doi:
http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/20200286
Harrell, P.E. (2010). Teaching an integrated science curriculum: Linking teacher
knowledge and teaching assignments. Issues in Teacher Education, 19(1), 145.
Hartzler, D. S. (2000). A meta-analysis of studies conducted on integrated curriculum programs
and their effects on student achievement. Indiana University. ProQuest Dissertations
and Theses.
Hoachlander, G. (2014). Integrating S T E & M. Educational Leadership, 72(4), 74-78.
Humphrey, G. (1924). The psychology of the Gestalt. Journal of Educational Psychology,
15(7), 401.
Huntley, M. A. (1998). Design and implementation of a framework for defining
integrated mathematics and science education. School Science and Mathematics,
98(6), 320-327.
Jacobs, H. H. (1989). Interdisciplinary curriculum: Design and implementation. Alexandria,
VA: ASCD.
Jacobs, H. H. (1991). Planning for curriculum integration. Educational Leadership, 49(2),
27-28.
Kain, D. L. (1993). Cabbages--and kings: Research directions in
integrated/interdisciplinary curriculum. Journal of Educational Thought, 27(3),
312-331.
Kain, D. L. (1996). Recipes or dialogue? A middle school team conceptualizes curricular
integration. Journal of Curriculum and Supervision, 11(2), 163-187.
Langer, J. A. (1986). Learning through writing: Study skills in the content areas. Journal of
Reading, 29(5), 400-406.
Leung, W. L. A. (2006). Teaching integrated curriculum: Teachers' challenges. Pacific
Asian Education, 18(1), 88-102.
Lincoln, Y. S. (1990). The making of a constructivist: A rememberance of transformations
past. In E. G. Guba (Ed.), The paradigm dialog. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Lonning, R. A., & DeFranco, T. C. (1997). Integration of science and mathematics: A
theoretical model. School Science and Mathematics, 97(4), 212.
Lonning, R. A., DeFranco, T. C., & Weinland, T. P. (1998). Development of theme-based,
interdisciplinary, integrated curriculum: A theoretical model. School Science and
Mathematics, 98(6), 312-319.
MacMath, S., Roberts, J., Wallace, J., & Chi, X. (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.
Mathison, S., & Freeman, M. (1997). The logic of interdisciplinary studies. Paper presented
at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association,
Chicago.
Maxwell, J. A. (2005). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (2nd ed.).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

27
McBee, R. H. (2000). Why teachers integrate. Educational Forum, 64(3), 254-260. doi:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00131720008984762
McKenna, M. C., & Robinson, R. D. (1990). Content literacy: A definition and
implications. Journal of Reading, 34(3), 184-186.
Musoleno, R. R., & White, G. P. (2010). Influences of high-stakes testing on middle school
mission and practice. RMLE Online: Research in Middle Level Education, 34(3), 1-10.
National Governors Association Center for Best Practices, Council of Chief State School
Officers. (2010). Common Core State Standards. Washington, DC: Author.
NGSS Lead States. (2013). Next generation science standards: For states, by states.
Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
Nissani, M. (1995). Fruits, salads, and smoothies: A working definition of
interdisciplinarity. Journal of educational thought, 29(2), 121-128.
Offer, J., & Mireles, S. V. (2009). Mix it up: Teachers' beliefs on mixing mathematics and
science. School Science and Mathematics, 109(3), 146-152.
Patton, M. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage Publications.
Romance, N. R., & Vitale, M. R. (2001). Implementing an in-depth expanded science
model in elementary schools: Multi-year findings, research issues, and policy
implications. International Journal of Science Education, 23(4), 373-404.
Shadish, W. R. (1995). Philosophy of science and the quantitative-qualitative debates:
Thirteen common errors. Evaluation and Program Planning, 18(1), 63-75. doi:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0149-7189(94)00050-8
Shoemaker, B. J. E. (1991). Education 2000 integrated curriculum. The Phi Delta Kappan,
72(10), 793-797.
Shriner, M., Schlee, B. M., & Libler, R. (2010). Teachers' perceptions, attitudes and beliefs
regarding curriculum integration. Australian Educational Researcher, 37(1), 51-62.
Stinson, K., Harkness, S. S., Meyer, H., & Stallworth, J. (2009). Mathematics and science
integration: Models and characterizations. School Science and Mathematics, 109(3),
153-161.
Taylor, D. (1989). Toward a unified theory of literacy learning and instructional
practices. The Phi Delta Kappan, 71(3), 184-193.
Toren, Z., Maiselman, D., & Inbar, S. (2008). Curriculum integration: Art, literature and
technology in pre-service kindergarten teacher training. Early Childhood
Education Journal, 35(4), 51-62. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10643-007-0197-0
Treacy, P., & O‟Donoghue, J. (2014). Authentic integration: A model for integrating
mathematics and science in the classroom. International Journal of Mathematical
Education in Science & Technology, 45(5), 703-718. doi:
10.1080/0020739X.2013.868543
Vars, G. F. (1991). Integrated curriculum in historical perspective. Educational Leadership,
49(2), 14-15.
Vars, G. F. (1997). Effects of integrative curriculum and instruction. In J. L. Irving (Ed.),
What Current Research Says to the Middle Level Practitioner. Westerville, OH:
National Middle School Association.
Wang, H. H., Moore, T. J., Roehrig, G. H., & Park, M. S. (2011). STEM integration:
Teacher perceptions and practice. Journal of Pre-College Engineering Educational
Research, 1(2).
Weilbacher, G. (2001). Is curriculum integration an endangered species? Middle School
Journal, 33(2), 18-27.
Yin, R. K. (2003). Case study research: Design and methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

28
© 2016 The author and IJLTER.ORG. All rights reserved.
International Journal of Learning, Teaching and Educational Research
Vol. 15, No. 9, pp. 28-43, August 2016
Improving Leadership Practice through the
Power of Reflection:
An Epistemological Study
Ann Thanaraj
University of Cumbria
Carlisle, United Kingdom
Abstract. This paper reports on a personal journey using reflection to
benefit and transform the development of the author‟s thinking on
important elements of leadership. The paper discusses the value of
critical reflection in professional development before building upon
the dynamic and complex multi-facet process of leadership. The
reflection has helped to draw out the author‟s epistemological stance
on the variety of different responsibilities, requirements of
professional, personal and interpersonal knowledge and skill and the
need to engage in reflection and continual improvement and growth
as a leader. In order to grow and improve as a leader there is a strong
need to address personal values and challenges that underpin thinking
about leadership and the manner of implementing leadership.
Keywords: Reflective learning; personal values; leadership,
professional learning, situational leadership, ethic.
Introduction
This paper is an epistemological study which reports on a personal journey
using reflection to benefit and transform the development of the author‟s
thinking on key elements of leadership. The paper is written in a first person
speech in order to allow for personal reflection, drawing on lived experiences
and self-awareness as this develops.
As an academic team leader and a principal lecturer in my subject discipline of
law, the nature of my work and areas of responsibilities are set out in my
contract. To name a few, these include team leadership, management of
programmes, setting and meeting the objectives of the department, researching,
influencing academics and students through research, income generation and
contributions to the wider university and the professional bodies.
Within the context of working in higher education, I believe leadership is a
dynamic and complex multi-facet process of initiating positive impact on others.
This process brings with it a variety of different responsibilities, requirements of
professional, personal and interpersonal knowledge and skill and the need to

29
engage in reflection and continual improvement and growth as an experienced
leader. This echoes what theorists have suggested; that leadership cannot be
taught as a skill set but it can be developed (Gill 2011; Avolio 2009; Yammarino
et al. 2005). As such, I am keen to develop more effective practices, learning and
evolving from challenges that have I have attempted to overcome. The paper
reflects on the skills, traits and challenges of leadership.
I began conscientiously reflecting on my experience of leadership two years ago,
with a strong desire for my team members to have confidence in me, as their
new leader and, together as a team, for us to take our subject area into a
successful and sustainable future. In order to achieve the wider aim of my
leadership, I set myself three priorities that underpin my leadership focus and
objectives:
● To achieve excellence in higher education through successful
management of teaching, learning and student support
● To instil a clear sense of purpose
● To motivate team members and work effectively
Increasingly, however, I have realised there is much more to being a leader than
effectively fulfilling the responsibilities set out in the job description. I decided to
keep a reflective journal, posing questions and issues that I found I needed to
address around my values that underpin what I think leadership is; my
understanding of influence and its place within leadership, my character and its
impact on how I lead, what it means to lead, the emotional dimension to leading
and general people skills. These reflections are reported in this paper.
This reflection is undertaken in light of the significant changes that higher
education continues to undergo in response to such factors as the advancement
of the new Higher Education bill in England and Wales being considered by
Parliament, contributions to the research excellence framework, impact of the
teaching excellence framework, impact of digital education, league tables,
widening participation and globalisation, to name a few (Times Higher
Education, August 2016). Furthermore within the legal profession, method of
delivery of legal services and legal education itself is undergoing vast
consultations and review (Legal Education Training Review 2013). In this
climate of change, there is a need for good strategic leadership and as such, I will
need to reflect, identify and develop my skills and qualities as a leader.
Methodology
This study is a reflective biography giving an account of the author‟s thinking on
the development of leadership skills and qualities over the past two years within
the context of the higher education sector.
The reflection is written in an auto-ethnographical style. This gives priority to
the lived experiences and reflections drawn from considering issues and
questions which has raised self-awareness and critical thinking from the author‟s
point of view. As such, a self-study research provides readers with the

30
opportunity to draw on the author‟s questions and experience and reflect on
their journey through leadership development.
Research focus
The research focus presented below guides the author‟s reflection on current
leadership experience.
The term leadership provides us with a „mental picture of power, prestige, and
authority‟ (Yukl 2002, p4). There is also some disconnect and ambiguity as to
what leadership is (Bryman, 2002, 2004). Some consider leadership as a function
or task for completion, or a role defined by the person carrying that
responsibility (Goodall, 2006). Others consider this to be a process of influence to
achieve common objectives (Northouse, 2004). It is acknowledged that skills
such as problem-solving, interpersonal skills, organising and planning, decision
making and delegating are absolutely crucial for successful leadership.
The aim of undertaking this reflection is to create some time and space to
consider personal characteristics, the values essential for leadership and to
develop awareness and reflect on current practices in higher education. Within a
wider context, it is hoped that this reflection may help to address whether good
leadership is derived from the personal traits of the leader or whether it is a
functional process.
The reflection will focus on:
1. Understanding the power of critical reflection in professional practice;
2. Identifying and reflecting on what my leadership values are;
3. Drawing out the extent to which emotion, influence and authority (Yukl,
2002) has an impact upon my leadership values; and
4. Reflecting on my character and its impact on the leadership process.
Evaluating the power of reflection in an ongoing journey of becoming
an effective leader
I have seen effective and transformational development in our students‟ ability
to formulate new ideas and they try to figure out a solution to a problem on their
own, whilst identifying areas for change and improvement through applying
what was learned from one situation to other situations, through the embedded
reflective learning scheme across all our law programmes.
As such, being a believer in the power of reflections and its ability to bring to
surface awareness, improvement and tackling challenges, I adopted reflection as
a part of my personal and professional development as an academic leader to
understand and recognise influences and improvements to my leadership
practice.
There is no straightforward or simple definition of reflection; instead there is a
wide variety of literature on what it is and how it is best implemented. Moon‟s

31
(1999; 2005) work on reflection explains that reflection is “a form of mental
processing…that we can use to fulfil a purpose…based on the further processing of
knowledge and understanding and possibly emotions that we already possess” (Moon
1999, 2005, working paper 4). This presents useful insights into what reflection
is:
● Thinking carefully about complicated matters where there is no obvious
or immediate solution;
● There is an emotional dimension to reflection;
● Existing knowledge is the starting point where reflections commence;
● Through the mental processing we may add new knowledge or areas for
further investigation after an experience; and
● Consequently, addressing the purpose of the reflection
Done well and effectively, reflective practice can be an enormously powerful
tool to examine and transform practice. It facilitates the time and space for one to
go “…to the heart of things…to reengage with beliefs of fundamental importance, which
provides a cohesive bedrock for all of life‟s activities” (Fook 2013).
There are a variety of frameworks, for example from Argyris and Schön (1974);
Schön (1983, 1987); Dewey (1933); Brookfield (1995); Ghaye (2004); Boud and
Walker (1998) and Reynolds and Vince (2004) on reflective practice and how the
“mental processing … to achieve some anticipated outcome…” (Moon, 2005, Working
Paper 4), however a review of the literature shows that there is no one right way
of reflecting effectively. Instead a number of features of effective reflection need
to be present in order to draw out the process of learning from experience in
order to improve practice.
We begin with Dewey‟s (1933) „How We Think: A restatement of the relation of
reflective thinking to the educative process‟ as a starting point in reviewing reflective
practices. Dewey was a pioneer in advocating for reflection becoming a core
feature in any education stating that “while we cannot learn or be taught to think, we
do have to learn to think well, especially acquire the general habit of reflection” (p.18).
He takes a holistic view of reflection as a process which moved people away
from routine ways of thinking about an experience towards reflective action
involving “active, persistent and careful consideration” (p.4).
Dewey‟s (1933) view has influenced theorists such as Kolb (1984); Schön (1983)
and Boud and Walker (1998) thinking about learning from reflection.
Kolb‟s (1984) experiential learning model features reflection as its nexus for
effective and active learning. It has been defined as fundamental to develop,
renew and expand one‟s knowledge and learning, achieved through a “cyclical
process of identification, review, questioning and reconstruction through experience”
(p.27).
Schon‟s (1983) work explored the development of one‟s professional practice
through reflection. He provided some helpful tips for reflection, which although
not a linear and sequential model, it offers structure to the process: i) being
aware of feelings or thoughts which may be challenging or uncomfortable, ii)

32
undertaking a critical analysis of the experience and iii) evaluating new
perspectives derived from the analysis. The use of such a process has been
suggested to lead to a state of expertise by bringing to the forefront of thinking
one‟s existing knowledge so that it could be considered and improved through
the process of reflection (p.67).
Building on previous literature on reflection and its processes, Boud and Walker
(1998) explain that reflection is more than “an intellectual exercise” (p.194) and
acknowledges the emotional dimension of undertaking reflections. They offer a
structured approach to reflecting to encapsulate and harness the value of
emotions in reflections. They encourage one to begin with reflecting on an
experience by mentally replaying the experience and describing it in a
descriptive, non-judgemental way. After this, identify the positive and negative
feelings triggered by the experience and attempt to „discharge‟ negative feelings
which may obstruct the reflection. When the emotional dimension has been
expressed and acknowledged, re-evaluate the issue by associating new
information to what is already known and integrating new ideas with existing
knowledge. One is also encouraged to validate the authenticity of the newly
developed ideas, exploring inconsistencies or contradictions. Although they do
not explain how this process of validation may be achieved, I would be keen to
develop a reflective dialogue to inject a much needed social dimension to this
process. Finally, to adopt and appropriate the new knowledge or behaviour as
part of one‟s own practice to be applied in future circumstances.
With regards to achieving the depth of awareness and learning through
reflection, Mezirow (1990) explained, reflection requires critiquing on the
assumptions on which our beliefs and values have developed. In Van Maanen
(1995) and Thompson‟s (2008) view, to engage in critical reflection, an issue or
experience will need to be explored with the “breadth and depth of practice, rather
than to focus on the negative or „crisis point‟ interpretations of the term” (p.23). Taking
this a step further, Fook and Askeland (2006) advices to critically reflect using a
clear rationale and analysis embedded in theory to draw upon a structured
process for reflection.
Reflection can aid successful professional identity
Reflective practice is often discussed as the foundation in achieving improved
professional development (Schon 1983). In adopting Schon‟s (1983, 1995) and
Fook and Askeland‟s (2006)‟s view, to engage in critical reflection effectively, we
need to be involved in more than just thinking about our experiences and move
towards understanding our experiences within the social context, based upon
theories and research, to help us develop our knowledge about our practice. In
turn, this helps professionals including leaders become aware of the wider
organisation and context in which they operate. There are some insightful
studies situated within the realm of the literature surrounding the value and
implication of reflection on leadership.

33
Research shows that the ability to reflect on experience is evident in leaders who
exhibit higher levels of cognitive development seen through their thought
processes, problem solving and decision-making (Kegan, 1994; Kuhnert &
Lewis, 1987). Reflective leaders also seem to be self-aware, able to reconsider
their assumptions and current practices and are more open to new ideas
(Mezirow, 1998). Neck & Manz (2010) explain that through self-awareness comes
“improved work performance” (p. 185) and as such “have higher productivity and
more fulfilling careers” (p.195). Further, adopting reflection as part of one‟s
professional identity can also assist and encourage one to draw upon personal
values, examine personality traits and consider their ethical stance in light of
challenging situations (Gardner, Avolio, Luthans, May, & Walumbwa, 2005),
whilst developing one‟s capacity to be mindful of the emotional dimensions in
which leadership operates (Goleman et al. 2002).
Fook (2004) proposes that critical reflection is a valuable tool which leaders
could employ to help them consider and understand the power and political
relationships within organisations and as such it has the potential of offering a
transformational approach to the manner in which one leads (Kayes, Kayes and
Kolb 2005), both to the individual and team level (Ghaye 2005).
Personal experience of reflection
From my own experience, conscientious and structured critical reflection has the
potential to bring about new ideas, renew practices and a sense of confidence
over the way I lead and decisions I make.
I enjoy writing and reflecting by making notes on my experiences, ideas,
feelings, challenges. Writing is a powerful mode of thinking (Smith 1998). I
adopt a structured approach to reflection by referring to a set of questions I have
developed which help me to draw out, focus and structure thoughts about my
experiences. This enables me to explore, question and evaluate my performance
and development as a leader. These questions which I have developed to aid my
reflection are derived from my tactical knowledge and past experiences and are
used as prompts when analysing a particular issue. Initially, I found that being
new to leadership and having read a limited amount of research on effective
practice, it was difficult to understand assumptions and analyse how pre-
conceived ideas of leadership could influence outcomes in a positive or negative
way.
Having adopted Fook and Askeland‟s (2006) advice on critical reflection to
question what we know as well as how we know it using theory (p.35), I
enrolled on a leadership study programme and studied various pieces of
research on effective leadership (including leadership papers by Kempster and
Stewart‟s (2010) Leadership as purpose: Exploring the role of purpose in
leadership practice; George & Sims et al‟s (2007) discovering your authentic
leadership; Dent‟s (1999) Challenging “resistance to change”; Duignan &
Bhindi‟s (1997) Authenticity in leadership: an emerging perspective; Kotter‟s

34
(1995) Leading change: Why transformational efforts fail; Bennis & Nanus‟
(1985) Leaders: The strategy for taking charge).
This period of learning helped me to open up to new ideas and change as well as
realise the importance of adapting to new strategies (Napier & Fook, 2000). It
was this combination of reflection underpinned by critical theory which allowed
me to deconstruct and understand assumptions about practice and its influence,
explore perceptions and expectations and consider different ways to reconstruct
the incident with other possible outcomes in a structured manner.
I found that, over time, I became more confident and open to examining
assumptions and expectations about my values and personality which helped
me gain awareness on some of the key facets of leadership such as control,
management, uncertainty and change; all of which require more than just
decision making or problem solving skills. In fact, many of these facets require
personal strength in courage, integrity and values to succeed. From my
experience of critical reflection, I believe it is a powerful technique that has the
potential to bring about new understanding and confidence in knowing how to
handle a situation.
My learning journey on the elements of leadership
There is much ambiguity involved in forming an exact definition of leadership
and whether it is a process or a function. From my own experience, I have found
the art of leadership to be a process of influence, inspiring people to work
towards goals which require fulfilling the tasks and objectives along the way.
Understanding leadership values
Personal values is the “…underlying moral, ethical foundation” (Copeland, 2014,
p.129), which is capable of underpinning one‟s leadership style and practice
(Brown & Treviño, 2006; Gardner et al, 2005). I wanted to reflect and understand
what my values were so that I had an awareness of how these could shape my
decisions, reactions to issues, and effectiveness as a leader as well as the example
I set for others.
Leadership theorists suggested that one‟s personal values influence how leaders
shape an organisation‟s culture (Peregrym and Wollf, 2013), which
consequently, can impact on how teams under one‟s leadership will conduct
themselves. In a business administration doctoral study, Lichtenstein(2005)
contextualised the importance of this by reviewing 163 managers and leaders.
The study found that a leader‟s personal values had a “direct and significant”
impact on organisational performance and influence, whilst their „age,
experience and qualifications‟ had no bearing on leadership (Lichtenstein, 2005,
p.57).

35
Understanding the importance placed on value and its impact on a leader, I
drafted a set of questions to provide me with structure to my thought process,
whilst ensuring that I situated my thinking within critical theory.
 What characteristics do I possess?
 What do I know about effective leadership?
 Do I have the skills and attributes which contribute towards effective
leadership?
 What does a leader do?
 How well do I understand myself as a leader?
 What do I hope to achieve as a leader?
 Do I worry about what others think of me?
 What do I believe to be the most important values in a leader?
 What are my values?
 What are my aspirations and how does it contribute to my personal
and professional practices?
 What motivates me?
 What motivates my stakeholders? What are the differences? How do
I adapt my values without compromising on my integrity and
beliefs?
My reflections lead me to the following value statements which underpin my
leadership style.
Adapting to fit
As a leader, I want to be able to help my team achieve our desired goals. In
order to do so, I have learnt that the way to lead effectively is to be fluid,
dynamic and responsive to change dependent on the needs of the group, using
different leadership skills and techniques at appropriate times. This mirrors
Fiedler‟s (1964, 1967), Hersey and Blanchard‟s (1969, 1977) and Yukl & Mahsud‟s
(2010) findings that there are no templates or strategies on how best to lead;
instead the style and manner of leadership should be appropriate to a situation,
task and audience, and the level of attention paid to a situation or task or
audience may vary and this requires a careful balance (Adair 1973).
For example, when faced with situations in the workplace which disrupt the
normal operation of an academic delivery, I have been able to provide a rapid,
decisive and appropriate response to minimize the adverse effects for staff,
students and the organisation. However, this has been challenging for me as this
has sometimes meant that I have had to find a balance for objectives that involve
difficult trade-offs. From this, I have learnt that to be flexible and adaptive in my
approach to leadership, I should attempt to be proactive in planning how to
avoid anticipated problems and have a draft contingency plan to should a
difficult situation arise.
Understanding and appreciating those whom we are working with

Vol 15 No 9 - August 2016

Empfohlen

Empfohlen

Weitere ähnliche Inhalte

Was ist angesagt?

Was ist angesagt? (19)

Ähnlich wie Vol 15 No 9 - August 2016

Ähnlich wie Vol 15 No 9 - August 2016 (20)

Mehr von ijlterorg

Mehr von ijlterorg (20)

Kürzlich hochgeladen

Kürzlich hochgeladen (20)

Vol 15 No 9 - August 2016