Advertisement

Research in Science Education

, Volume 30, Issue 2, pp 213–224 | Cite as

Integrated science teaching as a challenge for teachers to develop new conceptual structures

  • Manfred LangEmail author
  • John Olson
Article

Abstract

Integrated science teaching is a task which requires that teachers develop new conceptual structures for the science topics they teach. It is often assumed that changes in teaching can be facilitated through reflective practices such as teacher self-assessment. Does self-assessment in fact help teachers develop new conceptual structures in the context of integrated science? We examine this assumption in the research reported in this paper. In the German PING project—an integrated science project for middle schools—teacher in-service education was based on collaborative workshops in which a group of 22 teachers from different types of schools used teaching materials for eight integrated topics for their lesson planning and conducting units over a period of 30 months. During this time concept maps, interviews and questionnaires were used as means to promote teacher self-assessment. We find that this kind of self-assessment in a collaborative framework was a useful basis for helping science teachers develop integrated conceptual structures and we suggest that in-service courses might use self-assessment for reflection on conceptual content knowledge as a basis for supporting integrated science teaching.

Keywords

Professional Development Science Teaching Teacher Education Lesson Planning Conceptual Structure 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Alexander, P., & Judy, J. (1988). The interaction of domain-specific and strategic knowledge in academic performance.Review of Educational Research, 58(4), 375–404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Atkin, M. (1998). The OECD study of innovations in science, mathematics and technology education.Journal of Curriculum Studies, 30(6), 647–660.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bauer, K.-O. (1999).On teachers' professional self. In M. Lang, J. Olson, K.-H. Hansen, & W. Bünder (Eds.),Changing practices/changing schools: Recent research on teachers' professionalism (pp. 193–201). Leuven, Belgium. Garant.Google Scholar
  4. Black, P., & William, D. (1998).Inside the black box. Raising standards through classroom assessment. London: Kings College.Google Scholar
  5. Black, P., & Atkin, J. (Eds.). (1996).Changing the subject. Innovations in science, mathematics and technology education. London: Routledge/OECD.Google Scholar
  6. Bund-Länder-Kommission für Bildungsplanung und Forschungsförderung (BLK). (1997).Gutachten zur Vorbereitung des Programms “Steigerung der Effizienz des mathematisch-naturwissenschaftlichlichen Unterrichts [Expertise for Preparation of the Program “Increase of Efficiency in Mathematics and Science Education”]. Bonn, Germany: Bund-Länder-Kommission für Bildungsplanung und Forschungsförderung [Commission of the Central and Federal States Governments for Educational Planning and Research Promotion].Google Scholar
  7. Buhren, C., Killus, D., & Müller, S. (1998).Wege und Methoden der Selbstevaluation [Ways and methods for self-evaluation]. Beiträge 6. Dortmund, Germany: Institut für Schulentwicklungsforschung.Google Scholar
  8. Bybee, R. (1997).Achieving scientific literacy: From purposes to practices. Portsmouth, England: Heinemann.Google Scholar
  9. Close, D. (1996).National standards and benchmarks in science education. ERIC Digest ED402156.Google Scholar
  10. Fischer, H., Hucke, L., & Gerull, K. (1999). The interpretation of concept maps using a reference. In M. Komorek, H. Berendt, H. Dahncke, R. Duit, W. Gräber, & A. Kross (Eds.),Research in science education. Past, present, and future (pp. 269–271). Proceedings of the Second International Conference of the European Science Education Research Association (E.S.E.R.A.). Kiel, Germany: Institute for Science Education (IPN).Google Scholar
  11. Frey, K. (1973). Zum Begriff Integriertes Curriculum Naturwissenschaften [About the concept of integrated curriculum for science education]. In K. Frey, & P. Häußler (Eds.),Integriertes Curriculum Naturwissenschaft: Theoretische, Grundlagen und Ansätze [Integrated curriculum for science education: Theoretical basis and approaches]. Weinheim, Germany: Beltz.Google Scholar
  12. Prey, K. (1974). Integrated science education in the Federal Republic of Germany. Contribution to the symposium: “An interdisciplinary approach towards the teaching of science subjects at the secondary level.” Exeter, UK: Council of Europe.Google Scholar
  13. Hansen, K.-H. (1999). Science teacher socialization and professional development: integrated science education as a challenge for teaching. In M. Lang, J. Olson, K.-H. Hansen, & W. Bünder (Eds.),Changing practices/changing schools: Recent research on teachers' professionalism (pp. 134–148). Leuven, Belgium: Garant.Google Scholar
  14. Hashweh, M. (1987). Effects of subject matter knowledge in the teaching of biology and physics.Teaching and Teacher Education, 3, 109–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Huber, L., & Effe-Stumpf, G. (1994). Der fächrübergreifende Unterricht am Oberstufen-Kolleg [Integrated Teaching at the Upper Secondary College]. In U. Krause-Isermann, J. Kupsch, & M Schumacher (Eds.).Perspektivwechsel [Change in Perspective]. (Ambos 38). Bielefeld, Germany: Kramer.Google Scholar
  16. Korthagen, F., & Kessel, J. (1999). Linking theory and practice: Changing the pedagogy ofteacher education.Educational Researcher, 28(4), 4–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Lang, M. (1997).Neue Wege für den naturwissenschaftlichen Unterricht [New ways for teaching science]. IPN-Materialien. Kiel, Germany: Institute for Science Education (IPN).Google Scholar
  18. Lang, M. (1998).Leitfaden zur Sicherung der Qualität schulischer Bildung und schulübergreifender Standards für den mathematisch-naturwissenschaftlichen Bereich [Manual for the gain of quality in schooling and general standards for science and mathematics education]. Manuskript Kiel, Germany: Institute for Science Education (IPN).Google Scholar
  19. Lang, M. (2000). Mediated exchange and reflective collaboration: A model of science teaching development.Journal of Teachers and Teaching, 6(9), 9–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Markham, K., Mintzes, J., & Jones, M. (1994). The concept map as a research and evaluation tool: Further evidence for validity.Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31(1), 1–11.Google Scholar
  21. Mason, C. (1992). Concept mapping: A tool to develop reflective instruction.Science Education, 76(1), 51–63.Google Scholar
  22. Miller, K., & Davison, D. (1998). Is thematic integration the best way to reform science and mathematics education?Science Educator, 7(1), 7–12.Google Scholar
  23. National Research Council. (1996).National science educational standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  24. Novak, J. (1990). Concept mapping: A useful tool for science education.Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 27(10), 937–949.Google Scholar
  25. Olson, J. (1992).Understanding teaching. Milton Keynes: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  26. Olson, J., James, E., & Lang, M. (1999). Changing the subject: The challenges to teacher professionalism of innovation in OECD countries.Journal of Curriculum Studies, 31(1), 69–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Piaget, J. (1957).Logic and psychology. New York: Basic books.Google Scholar
  28. Plotnick, E. (1997).Concept mapping: A graphical system for understanding the relationship between concepts. ERIC Digest ED407938Google Scholar
  29. Riquarts, K., & Hansen, K.-H. (1998). Collaboration among teachers, researchers and inservicetrainers to develop an integrated science curriculum.Journal of Curriculum Studies, 30(6), 661–676.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Projektkerngruppe (PING). (1996).Kurzinformation, Status, Konzeption, Entwicklung [Short information, status, conception, development]. Kiel, Germany: Institute for Science Education (IPN).Google Scholar
  31. Robertson, C., Cowell, B., & Olson, J. (1998). A case study of integration and destreaming: Teachers and students in an Ontario secondary school respond.Journal of Curriculum Studies, 30(6), 691–717.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Ruiz-Primo, M., Shavelson, R., & Schulz, S. (1997).On the validity of concept maps-base assessment interpretations: An experiment testing the assumption of hierarchical concept maps in science. (CSE technical report 455). Los Angeles: National Centre for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing (CRESST).Google Scholar
  33. Seiler, T. (1973). Die Bereichsspezifität formaler Denkstruturen-Konsequenzen für den pädagogischen Prozeß [Domain specific formal structures of thinking-consequences for the psychological process]. In K. Frey, & M. Lang (Eds.),Kognitionspsychologie und naturwissenschaftlicher Unterricht— Cognitive processes and science instruction (pp. 249–285). Bern, Germany: Huber.Google Scholar
  34. Terhart, E. (1995). Didaktik/Curriculum in teacher education: Some German complications. In S. Hopmann, & K. Riquarts, (Eds.),Didaktik and/or Curriculum. Kiel, Germany: Institute for Science Education (IPN).Google Scholar
  35. Terhart, E. (1999). Developing a professional culture. In M. Lang, J. Olson, K.-H. Hansen, & W. Bünder (Eds.),Changing schools/changing practices: Perspectives on educational reform and teacher professionalism (pp. 27–40). Leuven, Belgium: Garant.Google Scholar
  36. Trent, S., Pernell, E., Mungai, A., & Chimedza, R. (1998). Using concept maps to measure conceptual change in preservice teachers enrolled in a multicultural education/special education course.Remedial and Special Education, 19(1), 16–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Wiley, D., & Resnick, L. (1997). The new standards reference examination: Standards-referenced scoring system.CSE technical report 470. Los Angeles, CA: National Centre for Research on Evaluation, Standards and Student Testing (CRESST).Google Scholar
  38. Wilson, J. (1994). Network representations of knowledge about chemical equilibrium: Variations with achievement.Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31(10), 133–142.Google Scholar
  39. Yinger, R., & Hendriks-Lee, M. (1998). Professional development standards as a new context for professional development in the U.S.Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 4, 273–298.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Australasian Science Education Research Association 2000

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.IPN, Kiel UniversityKielDeutschland
  2. 2.Queens UniversityBelfastUSA

Personalised recommendations