Abstract
Science and mathematics integration has long been recommended as a way to increase student conceptual understanding of, interest in and motivation to learn both subjects. However, attempts to develop a model to integrate science and mathematics have not resulted in a consensus regarding optimal curricular organisation. This research therefore has designed and developed a curriculum model for assisting teachers to integrate mathematics into science in second-level education in Ireland. This chapter reports on some of the findings from the evaluation of the artefacts of the model, in particular themes relating to teachers’ perceptions regarding disciplinary boundaries of subject communities. Two major themes (disciplinary disconnect and boundary crossing) were identified and are addressed in this chapter. The first concerns the disconnect between science and mathematics in second-level schools, and the second concerns the potential of engagement with the model to support boundary crossing between subjects. The findings suggest that curriculum models need to take account of the subject subculture, school structure and teacher subject identity issues that impact on the curricular choices teachers make.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Akkerman, S. F., & Bakker, A. (2011). Boundary crossing and boundary objects. Review of Educational Research, 81(2), 132–169.
Basista, B., & Mathews, S. (2002). Integrated science and mathematics professional development programs. School Science and Mathematics, 102, 359–370. doi:10.1111/j.1949-8594.2002.tb18219.x.
Berlin, D. F., & White, A. L. (2012). A longitudinal look at attitudes and perceptions related to the integration of mathematics, science, and technology education. School Science and Mathematics, 112, 20–30. doi:10.1111/j.1949-8594.2011.00111.x.
Czerniak, C. M., & Johnson, C. C. (2014). Interdisciplinary science teaching. In S. K. Abell & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (2nd ed., pp. 395–411). London: Routledge.
Edwards, A. (2011). Building common knowledge at the boundaries between professional practices: Relational agency and relational expertise in systems of distributed expertise. International Journal of Educational Research, 50(1), 33–39.
Fereday, J., & Muir-Cochrane, E. (2008). Demonstrating rigor using thematic analysis: A hybrid approach of inductive and deductive coding and theme development. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 5(1), 80–92.
Geraedts, C., Boersma, K. T., & Eijkelhof, H. M. (2006). Towards coherent science and technology education. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 38(3), 307–325.
Hobbs, L. (2013). Teaching ‘out-of-field’ as a boundary-crossing event: Factors shaping teacher identity. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 11(2), 271–297.
Irzik, G., & Nola, R. (2011). A family resemblance approach to the nature of science for science education. Science & Education, 20, 591–607. doi:10.1007/s11191-010-9293-4.
Kent, P., Noss, R., Guile, D., Hoyles, C., & Bakker, A. (2007). Characterizing the use of mathematical knowledge in boundary-crossing situations at work. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 14(1–2), 64–82.
Lee, M. M., Chauvot, J. B., Vowell, J., Culpepper, S. M., & Plankis, B. J. (2013). Stepping into iSMART: Understanding science–mathematics integration for middle school science and mathematics teachers. School Science and Mathematics, 113, 159–169. doi:10.1111/ssm.12015.
Moore, R. (2011). Making the break: Disciplines and Interdisciplinarity. In F. Christie & K. Maton (Eds.), Disciplinarity: Functional linguistic and sociological perspectives (pp. 87–105). London/New York: Continuum.
National Research Council. (2014). STEM integration in K-12 education: Status, prospects, and an agenda for research. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
Nicolini, D., Mengis, J., & Swan, J. (2012). Understanding the role of objects in cross-disciplinary collaboration. Organization Science, 23(3), 612–629.
Nikitina, S. (2006). Three strategies for interdisciplinary teaching: Contextualizing, conceptualizing, and problem-centring. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 38, 251–271. doi:10.1080/00220270500422632.
Ní Ríordáin, M., Johnston, J., & Walshe, G. (2016). Making mathematics and science integration happen: Key aspects of practice. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 47, 233–255. doi:10.1080/0020739X.2015.1078001.
Olson, J., & Hansen, K.-H. (2012). New directions in science education and the culture of the school: The CROSSNET project as a transnational framework for research. In K.-H. Hansen, W. Gräber, & M. Lang (Eds.), Crossing boundaries in science teacher education (pp. 9–30). Munster: Waxmann Verlag.
Osborne, J. (2014). Scientific practices and inquiry in the science classroom. In N. G. Lederman & S. K. Abell (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (2nd ed., pp. 579–599). London: Routledge.
Pang, J., & Good, R. (2000). A review of the integration of science and mathematics: Implications for further research. School Science and Mathematics, 100, 73–82. doi:10.1111/j.1949-8594.2000.tb17239.x.
Plomp, T., & Nieveen, N. (Eds.). (2013). Educational design research part A: An introduction (2nd ed.). Enschede: SLO, Netherlands Institute for Curriculum Development.
Rennie, L., Venville, G., & Wallace, J. (Eds.). (2012). Integrating science, technology, engineering, and mathematics: Issues, reflections, and ways forward. New York: Routledge.
Roehrig, G. H., Moore, T. J., Wang, H.-H., & Park, M. S. (2012). Is adding the E enough? Investigating the impact of K-12 engineering standards on the implementation of STEM integration. School Science and Mathematics, 112, 31–44. doi:10.1111/j.1949-8594.2011.00112.x.
Saldana, J. (2013). The coding manual for qualitative researchers. Los Angeles: Sage.
Stinson, K., Harkness, S. S., Meyer, H., & Stallworth, J. (2009). Mathematics and science integration: Models and characterizations. School Science and Mathematics, 109, 153–161. doi:10.1111/j.1949-8594.2009.tb17951.x.
van den Akker, J. (2013). Curricular development research as a specimen of educational design research. In T. Plomp & N. Nieveen (Eds.), Educational design research part A: An introduction (2nd ed., pp. 5–71). Enschede: SLO, Netherlands Institute for Curriculum Development.
Walshe, G. (2015). Integrating Mathematics into Science: Design, Development and Evaluation of a Curricular Model for Lower Second-Level Education (Unpublished PhD thesis). University of Limerick, Limerick.
Young, M., & Muller, J. (2010). Three educational scenarios for the future: Lessons from the sociology of knowledge. European Journal of Education, 45, 11–27. doi:10.1111/j.1465-3435.2009.01413.x.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2017 Springer International Publishing AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Walshe, G., Johnston, J., McClelland, G. (2017). Integrating Mathematics into Science: Design, Development and Evaluation of a Curriculum Model. In: Hahl, K., Juuti, K., Lampiselkä, J., Uitto, A., Lavonen, J. (eds) Cognitive and Affective Aspects in Science Education Research. Contributions from Science Education Research, vol 3. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-58685-4_23
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-58685-4_23
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-58684-7
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-58685-4
eBook Packages: EducationEducation (R0)