Mathematics and Science Integration: Models and Characterizations

The squeeze on instructional time and other factors increasingly leads educators to consider mathematics and science integration in an effort to be more efficient and effective. Unfortunately, the need for common understandings for what it means to integrate these disciplines, as well as the need for improving disciplinary knowledge, appears to continue to be significant obstacles to an integrated approach to instruction. In this study we report the results of a survey containing six instructional scenarios administered to thirty-three middle grades science and math teachers. Analysis of teacher responses revealed that while teachers applied similar criteria in their reasoning, they did not possess common characterizations for integration. Furthermore, analysis suggested that content knowledge serves as a barrier to recognizing integrated examples. Implications for professional development planners include the need to develop and provide teachers with constructs and parameters for what constitutes mathematics and science integration. Continued emphasis on improving teacher content knowledge in both mathematics and science is also a prerequisite to enabling teachers to integrate content.     

Integration of Science and Mathematics: A Theoretical Model

Interest in interdisciplinary, integrated curriculum development continues to increase. However, teachers, who have been given primary responsibility for developing these materials, are often working with little guidance. At present there exists no clear definition of the meaning of integration of mathematics and science. A continuum model of integration is proposed as a useful tool for curriculum developers as they create new integrated mathematics and science curricula or adapt commercially prepared materials. On the continuum, activities range from mathematics or science involving no integration to those activities including balanced mathematics and science concepts. Several examples are given to illustrate the utility of the continuum model for analyzing integrated curricula. The continuum model is intended to be used by curriculum developers to clarify the relationship between the mathematics and science activities and concepts and to guide the modification of lessons.     

A Literature Review of Science and Mathematics Integration

Integrated curricula has gained a great deal of acceptance among educators. Many educators provide testimonials about the effectiveness of units they teach, and many professional organizations stress integration across the curriculum. However, few empirical studies exist to support the notion that an integrated curriculum is any better than a well-designed traditional curriculum. Some educators question integration across the curriculum, because in the effort to integrate topics, science and mathematics content becomes superficial and trivial. This paper presents a review of the literature on integrated curricula. It concludes with a call to action for members of School Science and Mathematics Association.     

Integrating Science and Mathematics Education: Historical Analysis

A number of national science and mathematics education professional associations, and recently technology education associations, are united in their support for the integration of science and mathematics teaching and learning. The purpose of this historical analysis is two‐fold: (a) to survey the nature and number of documents related to integrated science and mathematics education published from 1901 through 2001 and (b) to compare the nature and number of integrated science and mathematics documents published from 1990 through 2001 to the previous 89 years (1901–1989). Based upon this historical analysis, three conclusions have emerged. First, national and state standards in science and mathematics education have resulted in greater attention to integrated science and mathematics education, particularly in the area of teacher education, as evidenced by the proliferation of documents on this topic published from 1901–2001. Second, the historical comparison between the time periods of 1901–1989 versus 1990–2001 reveals a grade‐level shift in integrated instructional documents. Middle school science continues to be highlighted in integrated instructional documents, but surprisingly, a greater emphasis upon secondary mathematics and science education is apparent in the integration literature published from 1990–2001. Third, although several theoretical integration models have been posited in the literature published from 1990–2001, more empirical research grounded in these theoretical models is clearly needed in the 21st century.     

A Review of the Integration of Science and Mathematics: Implications for Further Research

Building on the earlier analysis by Berlin (1991) , this paper reviews various studies on integrating mathematics and science in the 1990s and provides some implications for further research. The areas identified for further exploration include comparison of the nature of mathematics and science, epistemological debates in mathematics and in science education, the bases used to emphasize science over mathematics or vice versa, empirical evidence of effectiveness of integration, connections between teacher education programs for integration and teachers' subsequent classroom teaching practices, perceptions of integration on the part of teacher educators, contextual difficulties in implementing integrated approaches and possible solutions, and rationales of integrating mathematics and science through technology. In order to help all students become scientifically literate, which most reform documents call for, more focused attention on integration of curriculum and instruction is necessary.     

The Integration of Science,Mathematics, and Technology in a Discipline-Based Culture

The culture of the middle years of schooling in Western Australia, as in many parts of the world, is predominantly discipline based. This paper focuses on exceptions to this norm by describing examples of integrated teaching of science, mathematics, and technology in seventh- to ninth-grade classrooms. Several different forms of integration were found in the 16 Western Australian schools examined in this study, including thematic approaches, cross-curricular approaches, technology-based projects, and local community projects. Interviews with teachers in these schools raised several implementation issues, including the process of getting started, implications for teachers and students, implications for schedule structure, and implications for departmental structure. All the forms of integration observed in this study were through secondary means, in which the discrete subject discipline boundaries were being maintained. The deep culture of subject disciplines, underwritten by curriculum documents organized in terms of subjects, means that there may be few incentives for teachers to teach and students to learn in an integrated manner.     

What Does Integration of Science and Mathematics Really Mean?

In this era of curriculum reconstruction, considerable attention is being focused on curriculum integration. The integration of science and mathematics continues to be interpreted in different ways. In this article, five different meanings of integration of science and mathematics–discipline specific, content specific, process, methodological and thematic–are investigated along with instructional implications of these different approaches to integration.     

A Longitudinal Look at Attitudes and Perceptions Related to the Integration of Mathematics,Science, and Technology Education

The purpose of this study is to provide an in‐depth analysis of attitudes and perceptions related to the integration of mathematics, science, and technology education of preservice teachers preparing to teach STEM disciplines. Longitudinal data by individual cohort and across 7 years of the Integrated Mathematics, Science, and Technology (MSAT) Program are reported, analyzed, and interpreted to help design and improve preservice teacher education programs and improve teaching and learning in STEM classrooms. Results of quantitative analyses indicate that there was generally no change in preservice teacher attitudes and perceptions related to the value of the integration of mathematics, science, and technology education—they clearly valued integration at the onset and at the completion of the program. However, there was a significant change in preservice teacher attitudes and perceptions related to integration feasibility in terms of inefficiency and difficulty. Implications for teacher education programs include: (a) more exposure to concepts, processes, and skills in STEM that are similar, analogous, complementary, or synergistic; (b) familiarity with instructional strategies and access to resources; (c) deeper understanding of content across STEM; and (d) strategies for collaboration and team work to make integrated instruction time more efficient and less difficult to manage.     

Stepping into iSMART: Understanding Science–Mathematics Integration for Middle School Science and Mathematics Teachers

This paper is based on an online graduate program for middle school science and mathematics teachers in Texas titled Integration of Science, Mathematics and Reflective Teaching (iSMART). Launching the program for its first cohort in fall 2010, the authors attempted to answer the following two questions in this paper: (a) How do the members of the iSMART design team and the first cohort of teacher participants define science and mathematics integration with similar and different emphases? and (b) How would these definitions and concerns impact the ongoing design of the program? The iSMART design team members and the participating cohort teachers had a shared view regarding the importance of integration and its possible impact on student motivation. The findings also revealed that the two groups showed some different points of emphasis in their definitions of integration. These issues will be addressed in the ongoing design of the program in the following three areas: (a) design of the second summer meeting activities, (b) greater emphasis on teacher as researcher and action research, and (c) administrative support for teacher collaboration.