• Winnie Wing-mui SoEmail author


Science as inquiry and mathematics as problem solving are conjoined fraternal twins attached by their similarities but with distinct differences. Inquiry and problem solving are promoted in contemporary science and mathematics education reforms as a critical attribute of the nature of disciplines, teaching methods, and learning outcomes involving understandings, attitudes, and processes. The investigative and quantitative processes involved in scientific inquiry include seeking problems, identifying researchable questions, proposing hypotheses, designing fair tests, collecting and interpreting data as evidence for claims, constructing evidence-based arguments, and communicating knowledge claims. Within this empirical context, science and mathematics come together to solve problems with evidence, construct knowledge claims, communicate claims, and persuade others that the claims are valid and useful. This study examined the intersection of inquiry and problem solving and the use of mathematics in 26 extracurricular open science inquiries. The category and the appropriateness of the mathematical procedures revealed these students used measurement, numeracy skills of counting and calculation, and tables and graphs in their science inquiries. It was found that most measurements in the science inquiries were used appropriately, but there is room for improvement with other mathematical procedures that involve higher-level thinking skills, such as analyzing and calculating numerical data and interpreting graphs and tables. The findings imply that mathematics and science are connected in inquiry and should be extended to solve real-life problems and that instruction should emphasize comprehending and interpreting data.


graph mathematics measurement numeracy skills science inquiry table 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. American Association for the Advancement of Science (1990). Science for all Americans: Project 2061. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  2. American Association for the Advancement of Science (1993). Benchmarks for science literacy: Project 2061. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Anderson, J. O., Chui, M-H. & Yore, L. D. (2010). First cycle of PISA (2000–2006)—International perspectives on successes and challenges: Research and policy directions. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 8(3), 373–388.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Chalufour, I., Hoisington, C., Moriarty, R., Winkour, J. & Worth, K. (2004). The science and mathematics of building structures. Science and Children, 41(4), 30–34.Google Scholar
  5. Charlesworth, R., & Lind, K. K. (2010). Math & science for young children (6th ed.). Albany, NY: Delmar.Google Scholar
  6. Curriculum Development Council (2002). Science education: Key learning area curriculum guide (primary 1 - secondary 3). Hong Kong: Government Printer.Google Scholar
  7. DeBoer, G. E. (2006). Historical perspectives on inquiry teaching in schools. In L. B. Flick & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Scientific inquiry and nature of science (pp. 17–35). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.Google Scholar
  8. Department for Education (2011). Primary curriculum subjects—Science. Cheshire, England: Author.Google Scholar
  9. Duschl, R. A. (2000). Making the nature of science explicit. In R. Millar, J. Leach, & J. Osborne (Eds.), Improving science education: The contribution of research (pp. 187–206). Buckingham, England: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Furner, J. M. & Kumar, D. D. (2007). The mathematics and science integration argument: A strand for teacher education. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 3(3), 185–189.Google Scholar
  11. Geary, D. C., Hoard, M. K., Byrd-Craven, J., Nugent, L. & Numtee, C. (2007). Cognitive mechanisms underlying achievement deficits in children with mathematical learning disability. Child Development, 78(4), 1343–1359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Gersten, R., Jordan, N. C. & Flojo, J. R. (2005). Early identification and interventions for students with mathematics difficulties. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 38(4), 293–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hmelo-Silver, C. E., Duncan, R. G. & Chinn, C. A. (2007). Scaffolding and achievement in problem-based and inquiry learning: A response to Kirschner, Sweller, and Clark (2006). Educational Psychologist, 42(2), 99–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hurley, M. M. & Normandia, B. (2005). A taste of math & science. Science Scope, 29(1), 26–29.Google Scholar
  15. Jordan, N. C., Glutting, J. & Ramineni, C. (2010). The importance of number sense to mathematics achievement in first and third grades. Learning and Individual Differences, 20(2), 82–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kuhn, D., Black, J., Keselman, A. & Kaplan, D. (2000). The development of cognitive skills to support inquiry learning. Cognition and Instruction, 18(4), 495–523.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Landerl, K., Bevan, A. & Butterworth, B. (2004). Developmental dyscalculia and basic numerical capacities: A study of 89-year-old students. Cognition, 93(2), 99–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Long, K. & Kamii, C. (2001). The measurement of time: Children’s construction of transitivity, unit iteration, and conservation of speed, School Science and Mathematics, 101(3), 125–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Martin, S., Sharp, J. & Zachary, L. (2004). Thinking engineering. Science and Children, 41(4). 18–23.Google Scholar
  20. Masingila, J. O., Muthwii, S. M. & Kimani, P. M. (2011). Understanding students’ out-of-school mathematics and science practices. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 9, 89–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Meaney, T. (2007). Weighing up the influence of context on judgements of mathematical literacy. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 5(4), 681–704.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Meredith, A., Rogers, P., Volkmann, M. J. & Abell, S. K. (2007). Science and mathematics—A natural connection. Science and Children, 45(2), 60–61.Google Scholar
  23. Morrison, J. & McDuffie, A. R. (2009). Connecting science and mathematics: Using inquiry investigations to learn about data collection, analysis, and display. School Science and Mathematics, 109(1), 31–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2000) Principles and standards for school mathematics, Reston, VA: Author.Google Scholar
  25. National Curriculum Board (2009). Shape of the Australian curriculum: Science. Canberra, Australia: Government of Australia.Google Scholar
  26. National Governors Association Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief State School Officers (2010). Common core state standards. Washington, DC: Author.Google Scholar
  27. National Research Council (2000). Inquiry and the National Science Education Standards: A guide for teaching and learning. Committee on Development of an Addendum to the National Science Education Standards on Scientific Inquiry. In S. Olson & S. Loucks-Horsley (Eds.), Center for science, mathematics, and engineering education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  28. National Research Council (2011). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas [Preliminary public draft]. Committee on a Conceptual Framework for New K-12 Science Education Standards. In H. Quinn, H. A. Schweingruber & T. Keller (Eds.), Board on Science Education, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  29. Pang, J. & Good, R. (2000). A review of the integration of science and mathematics: Implications for further research. School Science and Mathematics, 100(2), 73–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Potgieter, M., Harding, A. & Engelbrecht, J. (2008). Transfer of algebraic and graphical thinking between mathematics and chemistry. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(2), 197–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Rittle-Johnson, B., Siegler, R. S. & Alibali, M. W. (2001). Developing conceptual understanding and procedural skill in mathematics: An iterative process. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93(2), 346–362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Rogers, M., Volkmann, M. & Abell, S. K. (2007). Science and mathematics: A natural connection. Science and Children, 45(2), 60–61.Google Scholar
  33. Rommel-Esham, K. & Souhrada, C. (2002). Mission to Mars: A classroom simulation. Science and Children, 39(5), 16–21.Google Scholar
  34. Schneider, R. M., Krajcik, J. & Blumenfeld, P. (2005). Enacting reform-based science materials: The range of teacher enactments in reform classrooms. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42(3), 283–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Smith, L. D., Best, L. A., Stubbs, D. A., Archibald, A. B. & Roberson-Nay, R. (2002). Constructing knowledge: The role of graphs and tables in hard and soft psychology. American Psychologist, 57(10), 749–761.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. So, W. M. W. (2003). Learning science through investigations: An experience with Hong Kong primary school children. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 1(1), 175–200.Google Scholar
  37. So, W. M. W. (2006). Inquiry into primary pupils' science projects: Implication for design of inquiry learning. Asia-Pacific Forum on Science Learning and Teaching, 7(1), Article 3. Retrieved 18 July, 2011 from
  38. So, W. M. W. & Zhong. M. (2009). Myths of science: How children know about science in inquiry projects. The International Journal of Science in Society, 1(2), 31–34Google Scholar
  39. Sun, Y., Rye, J. & Selmer, S. (2010). Using pedometers in elementary science and mathematics methods courses. Journal of Mathematics Research, 2(4), 70–78.Google Scholar
  40. Tate, W. F. & Malancharuvil-Berkes, E. (2006). A contract for excellence in scientific education: May I have your signature please? Journal of Teacher Education, 57(3), 278–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Vásquez-Mireles, S. & West, S. (2007). Mixing it up. The Science Teacher, 74(2), 47–49.Google Scholar
  42. Walter, J. & Johnson, C. (2007). Linguistic invention and semantic warrant production: Elementary teachers’ interpretation of graphs. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 5(4), 705–727.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Wilkins, J. L. M. (2000). Preparing for the 21st century: The status of quantitative literacy in the United States. School Science and Mathematics, 100(8), 405–418.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Yore, L. D. (2011). Foundations of scientific, mathematical, and technological literacies—Common themes and theoretical frameworks. In L. D. Yore, E. Van der Flier-Keller, D. W. Blades, T. W. Pelton, & D. B. Zandvliet (Eds.), Pacific CRYSTAL centre for science, mathematics, and technology literacy: Lessons learned (pp. 23–44). Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Yore, L. D. & Hand, B. (2010). Epilogue: Plotting a research agenda for multiple representations, multiple modality, and multimodal representational competency. Research in Science Education, 40(1), 93–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Yore, L. D., Pimm, D. & Tuan, H-L. (2007). The literacy component of mathematical and scientific literacy. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 5(4), 559–589.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© National Science Council, Taiwan 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Science and Environmental StudiesThe Hong Kong Institute of EducationTai PoHong Kong

Personalised recommendations