Integrative Curriculum

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
James A. Beane
Keyword(s):  
General Education ◽  
Common Good ◽  
Social Issues ◽  
Integrative Approach ◽  
Student Centered ◽  
The Common Good ◽  
Integrative Curriculum ◽  
The Status ◽  
Subject Areas ◽  
The Common

An integrative curriculum is intended to help young people organize and integrate their present experiences so that they might be carried forward for the benefit of both self and the common good. As such, this kind of curriculum has historically been proposed as a preferred design for a general education intended for all students, particularly in programs meant to promote democratic living and learning. An integrative curriculum involves arrangements and methods that engage students in identifying self and social issues, critiquing the status of society and the common good, planning for new learning experiences, accessing resources, researching and solving problems, communicating ideas, collaborating with others, and reflecting on the meaning and value of experiences. Crucial to the use of the term “integrative” is the idea that individuals do their own integrating. This definition distinguishes an integrative curriculum from “integrated” curriculum organizations, such as “multidisciplinary” or “interdisciplinary,” in which teachers and others correlate content and skills from two or more subject areas with the intention of illustrating connections among them or making their content more accessible and engaging for students. Use of an integrative approach has a long history tied to progressive and democratic arrangements in elementary and secondary schools. These include CORE Programs, the experience-centered approach to curriculum, and many problem-centered courses. At present, some integrated approaches are enjoying popularity, as are methods like project- and problem-centered activities that are historically associated with integrative approaches. However, the student-centered, democratic philosophy that partly defines an integrative curriculum approach has waned under pressure from bureaucratic subject-based standards, tests, and prescriptive curriculum plans.

scholarly journals Valuing Compromise for the Common Good

Daedalus ◽  
2013 ◽  
Vol 142 (2) ◽  
pp. 185-198 ◽  
Author(s):  
Amy Gutmann ◽  
Dennis Thompson
Keyword(s):  
Common Good ◽  
Common Ground ◽  
Status Quo ◽  
Institutional Reforms ◽  
Short Supply ◽  
The Common Good ◽  
Common Mistake ◽  
Permanent Campaign ◽  
The Status ◽  
The Common

Pursuing the common good in a pluralist democracy is not possible without making compromises. Yet the spirit of compromise is in short supply in contemporary American politics. The permanent campaign has made compromise more difficult to achieve, as the uncompromising mindset suitable for campaigning has come to dominate the task of governing. To begin to make compromise more feasible and the common good more attainable, we need to appreciate the distinctive value of compromise and recognize the misconceptions that stand in its way. A common mistake is to assume that compromise requires finding the common ground on which all can agree. That undermines more realistic efforts to seek classic compromises, in which each party gains by sacrificing something valuable to the other, and together they serve the common good by improving upon the status quo. Institutional reforms are desirable, but they, too, cannot get off the ground without the support of leaders and citizens who learn how and when to adopt a compromising mindset.

scholarly journals The Common Good and the Egalitarian Research Imperative

2021 ◽  
pp. 117-174
Author(s):  
Alex John London
Keyword(s):  
Common Good ◽  
Social Systems ◽  
Social Institutions ◽  
Moral Claim ◽  
Social Cooperation ◽  
Community Members ◽  
The Common Good ◽  
The Status ◽  
The Common ◽  
Central Claim

This chapter distinguishes two conceptions of the common good and argues that reluctance to embrace a research imperative grounded in the corporate conception of the common good is sound. In contrast, it is argued that the basic or generic interest conception of the common good grounds an imperative with two requirements: to carry out research that produces the information necessary to enable a community’s basic social systems to efficiently and equitably advance the basic interests of its members and to ensure that this activity is organized as a voluntary scheme of social cooperation that respects the moral claim of its constituent members to be treated as free and equal. A central claim of this chapter is that an imperative to improve the capacity of social institutions to secure the interests of community members can be reconciled with fundamental moral respect for the status of the individuals who make such progress possible.

An economist in the public space

2017 ◽  
pp. 42-55 ◽  
Author(s):  
J. Tirole
Keyword(s):  
Public Space ◽  
Common Good ◽  
Public Intellectuals ◽  
The Public ◽  
The Common Good ◽  
Public Debates ◽  
The Status ◽  
The Common

This third chapter of the book “The economy of the common good” considers the status of academic economists as public intellectuals. It discusses the pitfalls economists face when engaging in public debates, in providing expertise for businesses or governments. It also makes some normative claims as to the socially best form of interaction between economics and practice.

Engaging with the State for the Common Good: Some Reflections on the Role of the Church

2009 ◽  
Vol 11 (2) ◽  
pp. 169-180
Author(s):  
Peter Smith
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Common Good ◽  
Social Issues ◽  
The State ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
European Convention ◽  
The Common Good ◽  
The Common ◽  
The Right ◽  
The Church

The Canon Law of the Roman Catholic Church establishes the right of the Church to proclaim the Gospel and expound it, and to proclaim moral principles especially when this is required by fundamental rights or ‘for the salvation of souls’ (Canon 747). While this was taken for granted for centuries, society and culture have undergone rapid and extensive changes, especially over the last forty years. From what was once a Christian society and culture, we have moved to a multicultural and secular society, and have seen the rise of ‘ideological secularism’. The place of religion and religious values in the public forum is being questioned, and an aggressive secularism seeks to reduce religion and its practice to the private sphere. However, a healthy secularity should recognise both the autonomy of the state from control by the Church and also the right of the Church to proclaim its teaching and comment on social issues for the common good of humanity. This right is recognised in the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the 1950 European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. From the Church's point of view, this right was recognised for all religions in the Second Vatican Council's ‘Declaration on Religious Liberty’. We must defend that right because the Church exists not for its own sake but for the sake of humanity.

scholarly journals Ethical Dimensions of Entrepreneurial Practice in Three Traditions

2021 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
pp. 23-34
Author(s):  
Joseph Situma ◽  
Stephen Ifedha Akaranga
Keyword(s):  
Conceptual Framework ◽  
Common Good ◽  
The Common Good ◽  
The Status ◽  
The Common

Entrepreneurs are a category of agents who are found in all human societies and their significance has been variously assessed. Although they are a universal phenomenon, their repertoire of activities, thoughts, motivations and emotions appear to be tradition-specific. This paper considers entrepreneurial practice in the liberal, libertarian, and communitarian traditions. The first objective is to determine if the primary ethical dimensions of entrepreneurial practice are structured by tradition. The second objective is to evaluate the status of entrepreneurial practice in the three traditions vis-à-vis common good. The paper uses the conceptual framework of tradition and its allied concepts of practice and narrative. It concludes that although the primary ethical dimensions of entrepreneurial practice arise from a tradition, novel entrepreneurial practices depart from tradition-set norms. It also concludes that entrepreneurial practices can and do violate the common good—more so in the liberal and libertarian tradition  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document