Advertisement

ZDM

, Volume 49, Issue 2, pp 237–248 | Cite as

Preservice teachers’ knowledge of interdisciplinary pedagogy: the case of elementary mathematics–science integrated lessons

  • Song A. An
Original Article
First Online:

Abstract

The purpose of the study is to explore how elementary preservice teachers’ mathematics–science integrated teaching strategies changed as a result of participating in exemplary interdisciplinary activities with multiple themes across school curricula. The participating elementary preservice teachers (n = 28) were recruited for this study from the College of Education students enrolled at a medium-sized southwestern research university in the United States. A qualitative methodology with pre-and-post data collection from open-ended surveys was used in the current study to explore the development of preservice teachers’ mathematics teaching strategies with connections to science themed activities before and after an 8-week intervention. In general, the results from the pre-and-post surveys revealed that the preservice teachers’ interdisciplinary knowledge of using science-themed activities as instructional approaches for teaching mathematics had remarkable changes across all four science content areas including physics, chemistry, biology, and environmental and space science. This study provided additional empirical evidence on how contextualized mathematics educational activities, in the current case using the association between science and mathematics, can be used as effective teacher education resources for developing teachers’ capacity for designing mathematics lessons.

Keywords

Teacher education Mathematics education Interdisciplinary curriculum Mathematics–science integration 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1998). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  2. An, S. A., & Tillman, D. (2014). Elementary teachers’ design of arts based teaching: Investigating the possibility of developing mathematics–music integrated curriculum. Journal of Curriculum Theorizing, 30(2), 20–38.Google Scholar
  3. An, S., Tillman, D., & Paez, C. (2015). Music-themed mathematics education as a strategy for improving elementary preservice teachers’ mathematics pedagogy and teaching self-efficacy. Journal of Mathematics Education at Teachers College, 6(1), 9–24.Google Scholar
  4. An, S. A., Tillman, D., Robertson, W., Zhang, M., Siemssen, A., & Paez, C. (2016a). Astronauts in outer space teaching students science: Comparing Chinese and American implementations of space-to-earth virtual classrooms. European Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 4(3), 397–412.Google Scholar
  5. An, S. A., Tillman, D. A., Zhang, M., Robertson, W., & Tinajero, J. (2016b). Hispanic preservice teachers’ peer evaluations of interdisciplinary curriculum development: A self-referenced comparison between monolingual generalists and bilingual generalists. Journal of Hispanic Higher Education, 15(4), 291–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. An, S. A., Tillman, D., Shaheen, A., & Boren, R. (2014). Preservice teachers' perceptions about teaching mathematics through music. Interdiscip J Teach Learn, 4(3), 150–171.Google Scholar
  7. Ball, D. L. (1990). Breaking with experience in learning to teach mathematics: the role of a preservice methods course. learn math, 10(2), 10–16.Google Scholar
  8. Ball, D. L., Thames, M. H., & Phelps, G. (2008). Content knowledge for teaching what makes it special? Journal of teacher education, 59(5), 389–407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Baumert, J., Kunter, M., Blum, W., Brunner, M., Voss, T., Jordan, A., et al. (2010). Teachers’ mathematical knowledge, cognitive activation in the classroom, and student progress. American Educational Research Journal, 47, 133–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Berlin, D. F., & Lee, H. (2005). Integrating science and mathematics education: Historical analysis. School Science and Mathematics, 105(1), 15–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Berlin, D. F., & White, A. L. (1994). The Berlin-White integrated science and mathematics model. School Science and Mathematics, 94(1), 2–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Blomhøj, M., & Kjeldsen, T. H. (2009). Project organised science studies at university level: Exemplarity and interdisciplinarity. ZDM - The International Journal on Mathematics Education, 41(1–2), 183–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Borko, H., & Putnam, R. (1996). Learning to teach. In D. Berliner & R. Calfee (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 673–708). New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  14. Cady, J. A., & Rearden, K. (2007). Pre-service teachers’ beliefs about knowledge, mathematics, and Science. School Science and Mathematics, 107(6), 237–245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Cochran, K. F., King, R. A., & DeRuiter, J. A. (1991). Pedagogical content knowledge: a tentative model for teacher preparation. East Lansing, MI: National Center for Research on Teacher Learning.Google Scholar
  16. Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2008). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. Thousand Oaks: California, CA, USA.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Darling-Hammond, L., & Baratz-Snowden, J. (2007). A good teacher in every classroom: Preparing the highly qualified teachers our children deserve. Educational Horizons, 85(2), 111–132.Google Scholar
  18. Davison, D. M., Miller, K. W., & Metheny, D. L. (1995). What does integration of science and mathematics really mean? School science and mathematics, 95(5), 226–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Drake, S. M. (1991). How our team dissolved the boundaries. Educational Leadership, 49(2), 20–22.Google Scholar
  20. Drake, S., & Burns, D. (2004). Meeting Standards through Integrated Curriculum. Alexandria VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.Google Scholar
  21. Fogarty, R. (1991). Ten ways to integrate curriculum. Educational Leadership, 49(2), 61–65.Google Scholar
  22. Frykholm, J., & Glasson, G. (2005). Connecting science and mathematics instruction: Pedagogical context knowledge for teachers. School Science and Mathematics, 105(3), 127–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Fuller, R. A. (1997). Elementary teachers' pedagogical content knowledge of mathematics. Mid-Western Educational Res, 10(2), 9–16.Google Scholar
  24. Gresham, G. (2008). Mathematics anxiety and mathematics teacher efficacy in elementary pre-service teachers. Teaching Education, 19(3), 171–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hattie, J. (2009). The black box of tertiary assessment: An impending revolution. In L. H. Meyer, S. Davidson, H. Anderson, R. Fletcher, P. M. Johnston, & M. Rees (Eds.), Tertiary assessment and higher education student outcomes: Policy, practice and research (pp. 259–275). Wellington, NZ: Ako Aotearoa & Victoria University of Wellington.Google Scholar
  26. Hudson, P. B., English, L. D., & Dawes, L. A. (2014). Curricula integration: identifying and locating engineering education across the Australian curriculum. Curriculum Perspectives, 34(1), 43–50.Google Scholar
  27. Kim, D., & Bolger, M. (2016). Analysis of Korean elementary pre-service teachers’ changing attitudes about integrated STEAM pedagogy through developing lesson plans. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 1–19.Google Scholar
  28. Kiray, S. A. (2012). A new model for the integration of science and mathematics: The balance model. Energy Education Science and Technology, Social and Educational Studies, 4(3), 1181–1196.Google Scholar
  29. Knoblauch, D., & Hoy, A. W. (2008). “Maybe I can teach those kids”. The influence of contextual factors on student teachers’ efficacy beliefs. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24(1), 166–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Labaree, D. F. (2008). The winning ways of a losing strategy: Educationalizing social problems in the United States. Educational Theory, 58(4), 447–460.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Lam, C. C., Alviar-Martin, T., Adler, S. A., & Sim, J. B. (2013). Curriculum integration in Singapore: teachers’ perspectives and practice. Teaching and Teacher Education, 31, 23–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Magnusson, S., Krajcik, L., & Borko, H. (1999). Nature, sources and development of pedagogical content knowledge. In J. Gess-Newsome & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Examining pedagogical content knowledge (pp. 95–132). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  33. Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge. The Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017–1054.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.Google Scholar
  35. National Science Teachers Association. (2003). Standards for science teacher preparation. Arlington, VA.: NSTA.Google Scholar
  36. Park, S., & Oliver, J. S. (2008). Revisiting the conceptualisation of pedagogical content knowledge (PCK): PCK as a conceptual tool to understand teachers as professionals. Research in Science Education, 38(3), 261–284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Saçkes, M., Flevares, L. M., Gonya, J., & Trundle, K. C. (2012). Preservice early childhood teachers’ sense of efficacy for integrating mathematics and science: Impact of a methods course. Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education, 33(4), 349–364.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Samson, G. (2014). From writing to doing: The challenges of implementing integration (and interdisciplinarity) in the teaching of mathematics, sciences, and technology. Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics and Technology Education, 14(4), 346–358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational researcher, 15(2), 4–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Shulman, L. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57(1), 1–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Singham, M. (2003). The achievement gap: Myths and reality. Phi Delta Kappan, 84(8), 586.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Sriraman, B., & Knott, L. (2009). The mathematics of estimation: Possibilities for interdisciplinary pedagogy and social consciousness. Interchange, 40(2), 205–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Swars, S. L., Daane, C. J., & Giesen, J. (2006). Mathematics anxiety and mathematics teacher efficacy: What is the relationship in elementary preservice teachers? Sch Sci Math, 106(7), 306–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Tillman, D. A., An, S. A., & Boren, R. L. (2015). Assessment of creativity in arts and STEM integrated pedagogy by pre-service elementary teachers. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 23(3), 301–327.Google Scholar
  45. 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 and Technology, 45(5), 703–718.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Venville, G., Rennie, L. J., & Wallace, J. (2012). Curriculum integration: Challenging the assumption of school science as powerful knowledge. In Second international handbook of science education (pp. 737–749). Springer Netherlands.Google Scholar
  47. Zemelman, S., Daniels, H., & Hyde, A. A. (1993). Best practice: New standards for teaching and learning in America’s schools. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© FIZ Karlsruhe 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.The University of Texas at El PasoEducation Building 601, 500 W. University Ave.El PasoUSA

Personalised recommendations

Cite article

Buy options