Advertisement

Integrating Mathematics into Science: Design, Development and Evaluation of a Curriculum Model

Chapter
Part of the Contributions from Science Education Research book series (CFSE, volume 3)

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.

Keywords

Science and mathematics integration Second-level education Disciplinary boundaries 

References

  1. Akkerman, S. F., & Bakker, A. (2011). Boundary crossing and boundary objects. Review of Educational Research, 81(2), 132–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 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.
  3. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 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.Google Scholar
  5. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 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.Google Scholar
  7. Geraedts, C., Boersma, K. T., & Eijkelhof, H. M. (2006). Towards coherent science and technology education. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 38(3), 307–325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 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.Google Scholar
  13. National Research Council. (2014). STEM integration in K-12 education: Status, prospects, and an agenda for research. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  14. Nicolini, D., Mengis, J., & Swan, J. (2012). Understanding the role of objects in cross-disciplinary collaboration. Organization Science, 23(3), 612–629.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Nikitina, S. (2006). Three strategies for interdisciplinary teaching: Contextualizing, conceptualizing, and problem-centring. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 38, 251–271. doi: 10.1080/00220270500422632.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 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.Google Scholar
  18. 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.Google Scholar
  19. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Plomp, T., & Nieveen, N. (Eds.). (2013). Educational design research part A: An introduction (2nd ed.). Enschede: SLO, Netherlands Institute for Curriculum Development.Google Scholar
  21. Rennie, L., Venville, G., & Wallace, J. (Eds.). (2012). Integrating science, technology, engineering, and mathematics: Issues, reflections, and ways forward. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  22. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Saldana, J. (2013). The coding manual for qualitative researchers. Los Angeles: Sage.Google Scholar
  24. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 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.Google Scholar
  26. 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.Google Scholar
  27. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of LimerickLimerickIreland
  2. 2.University of LincolnLincolnUK

Personalised recommendations