Encyclopedia of Science Education

Living Edition
| Editors: Richard Gunstone

Science and Mathematics Teacher Education

  • Russell Tytler
Living reference work entry
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-6165-0_234-3


Mathematics; Pedagogical knowledge

This entry will consider how and why science and mathematics have been linked in teacher preparation programs in ways that influence notions of content knowledge and pedagogy.

How Similar Is Teaching in Mathematics Compared to Science?

While the obvious importance of mathematics to scientific endeavor might seem to indicate an obvious link between science and mathematics teaching and learning, the structure and guiding principles for school curricula in the two areas are substantially different (Siskin 1994). Mathematics tends to have a highly sequential curriculum structure, whereas science curricula are organized around topics that are not tightly sequenced. The pedagogies in the two areas tend to differ, with mathematics teaching emphasizing sequenced practice in problem solving and science teaching incorporating substantial experimental work and practical application of concepts.

Studies of science and mathematics specialist teachers...


Preservice Teacher Mathematics Teaching Pedagogical Content Knowledge Teacher Education Program Pedagogical Knowledge 
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.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.


  1. Darby, L (2008) Negotiating mathematics and science school subject boundaries: The role of aesthetic understanding. In Thomase MV (ed) Sci in Focus. Hauppauge, NY: Nova Science Publishers, pp. 225–251Google Scholar
  2. Darby-Hobbs L (2013) Responding to a relevance imperative in school science and mathematics : humanising the curriculum through story. Res Sci Educ. doi:10.1007/s11165-011-9244-3 43(1):77–97Google Scholar
  3. Hobbs L (2012) Teaching out-of-field: factors shaping identities of secondary science and mathematics. Teach Sci 58(1):32–40Google Scholar
  4. Ingersoll R (2003) Out-of-field teaching and the limits of teacher policy. University of Pennsylvania Scholarly Commons. http://repository.upenn.edu/gse_pubs/143. Accessed July 2012
  5. Lehrer R, Schauble L (2004) Modeling natural variation through distribution. Am Educ Res J 41(3):635–679CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Lehrer R, Schauble L (2005) Developing modeling and argument in elementary grades. In: Romberg TA, Carpenter TP, Dremock F (eds) Understanding mathematics and science matters. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, pp 29–53Google Scholar
  7. Pang J, Good R (2000) A review of the integration of science and mathematics: implications for further research. Sch Sci Math 100(2):73–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Shulman LS (1987) Knowledge and teaching: foundations of the new reform. Harv Educ Rev 57(1):1–22Google Scholar
  9. Siskin LS (1994) Realms of knowledge: academic departments in secondary schools. Falmer Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  10. Tytler R (2007) Re-imagining science education: engaging students in science for Australia’s future. Australian Education Review No. 51. Australian Council for Education Research, ACER press, Camberwell. www.acer.edu.au/research_reports/AER.html
  11. Vosniadou S (2008) Handbook of research on conceptual change. Routledge, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  12. Wheatley G (1991) Constructivist perspectives on science and mathematics learning. Sci Educ 75(1):9–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of EducationDeakin UniversityWaurn PondsAustralia