Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education (한국과학교육학회지)

The Korean Association for Science Education (한국과학교육학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Analysis on the Theoretical Models Related to the Integration of Science and Mathematics Education: Focus on Four Exemplary Models

  • Received : 2011.04.26
  • Accepted : 2011.05.19
  • Published : 2011.05.31
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

The purposes of this study were to inform the exemplary models of integrated science and mathematics and to analyze and discuss their similarities and differences of the models. There were two steps to select the exemplary models of integrated science and mathematics. First, the second volume (Berlin & Lee, 2003) of the bibliography of integrated science and mathematics was analyzed to identify the models. As a second step, we selected the models that are dealt with in the School Science Mathematics journal and were cited more than three times. The findings showed that the following four exemplary theoretical models were identified and published in the SSM journal: the Berlin-White Integrated Science and Mathematics (BWISM) Model, the Mathematics/Science Continuum Model, the Continuum Model of Integration, and the Five Types of Science and Mathematics Integration. The Berlin-White Integrated Science and Mathematics (BWISM) Model focused an interpretive or framework theory for integrated science and mathematics teaching and learning. BWISM focused on a conceptual base and a common language for integrated science and mathematics teaching and learning. The Mathematics/Science Continuum Model provided five categories and ways to clarify the extent of overlap or coordination between science and mathematics during instructional practice. The Continuum Model of Integration included five categories and clarified the nature of the relationship between the mathematics and science being taught and the curricular goals for the disciplines. These five types of science and mathematics integrations described the method, type, and instructional implications of five different approaches to integration. The five categories focused on clarifying various forms of integrated science and mathematics education. Several differences and similarities among the models were identified on the basis of the analysis of the content and characteristics of the models. Theoretically, there is strong support for the integration of science and mathematics education as a way to enhance science and mathematics learning experiences. It is expected that these instructional models for integration of science and mathematics could be used to develop and evaluate integration programs and to disseminate integration approaches to curriculum and instruction.

Keywords

References

  1. American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). (1989). Science for all Americans. New York: Oxford University Press.
  2. American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). (1993). Benchmarks for science literacy. New York: Oxford University Press.
  3. American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). (1998). Blueprints for reform. New York: Oxford University Press.
  4. Austin, J. D., Hirstein, J., & Walen, S. (1997). Integrated mathematics interfaced with science. School Science and Mathematics, 97(1), 45-49. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1949-8594.1997.tb17339.x
  5. Berlin, D. F. (1991). A bibliography of integrated science and mathematics teaching and learning literature. School Science and Mathematics Association topics for teachers series number 6. Columbus, OH: ERIC Clearinghouse for Science, Mathematics, and Environmental Education.
  6. Berlin, D. F., & Lee, H. (2003). A bibliography of integrated science and mathematics teaching and learning literature. Vol. 2: 1991-2001(School Science and Mathematics Association Topics for Teachers Series No. 7). Columbus, OH: ERIC Clearinghouse for Science, Mathematics, and Environmental Education
  7. Berlin, D. F., & Lee, H. (2005). Integrating science and mathematics education: Historical analysis. School Science and Mathematics, 105(1), 15-24.
  8. Berlin, D. F., & Hillen, J. A. (1994). Making connections in math and science: Identifying student outcomes. School Science and Mathematics, 94(6), 283-290. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1949-8594.1994.tb15676.x
  9. Berlin, D. F., & White, A. L. (1994). The Berlin-White Integrated Science and Mathematics Model. School Science and Mathematics, 94(1), 2-4. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1949-8594.1994.tb12280.x
  10. Berlin, D. F., & White, A. L. (1995a). Connecting school science and mathematics. In P. A. House & A. F. Oxford (Eds.), Connecting mathematics across the curriculum. NCTM 1995 yearbook (pp. 22-33). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
  11. Berlin, D. F., & White, A. L. (1995b). Using technology in assessing integrated science and mathematics learning. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 4(1), 47-56. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02211581
  12. Berlin, D. F., & White, A. L. (1998). Integrated science and mathematics education: Evolution and implications of a theoretical model. In B. J. Fraser & K. G. Tobin (Eds.), International Handbook of Science Education (pp. 499-512). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
  13. Berlin, D. F., & White, A. L. (1999). Mathematics and science together: Establishing the relationship for the 21st century classroom. Paper presented at the international conference on mathematics education into the 21st century: Societal challenges, issues and approaches, Cairo, Egypt.
  14. Brasell, H. (1987). The effect of real-time laboratory graphing on learning graphic representations of distance and velocity. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 24(4), 385-395. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660240409
  15. Burrill, G., & Kennedy, D. (1997). Improving student learning in mathematics and science: The role of national standards in state policy . Washington, DC: The National Council of Teachers of Mathematics and the Center for Science, Mathematics, and Engineering Education, National Research Council.
  16. Choi, M. H., & Choi, B. S. (1999). Content organization of middle school integrated science focusing on the integrated theme. Journal of the Korean Association for Research in Science Education, 19(2), 204-216.
  17. 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. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1949-8594.1995.tb15771.x
  18. Foss, D. H., & Pinchback, C. L. (1998). An interdisciplinary approach to science, mathematics, and reading: Learning as children learn. School Science and Mathematics, 98(3), 149-155. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1949-8594.1998.tb17408.x
  19. Friend, H. (1985). The effect of science and mathematics integration on selected seventh grade students' attitudes toward and achievement in science. School Science and Mathematics, 85(6), 453-461. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1949-8594.1985.tb09648.x
  20. Goldberg, H., & Wagreich, P. (1991). A model integrated mathematics science program for the elementary school. International Journal of Educational Research, 14(2), 193-214.
  21. Huntley, M. A. (1997). Integrated mathematics and science education in the middle grades: Theory and practice. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Maryland College Park.
  22. Huntley, M. A. (1998). Design and implementation of a framework for defining integrated mathematics and science education. School Science and Mathematics, 98(6), 320-327. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1949-8594.1998.tb17427.x
  23. Hurley, M. M. (1999). Interdisciplinary mathematics and science: Characteristics, forms, and related effect sizes for student achievement and affective outcomes. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, State University of New York at Albany.
  24. International Technology Education Association (ITEA). (1996). Technology for all Americans: A rationale and structure for the study of technology. Reston, VA: Author.
  25. International Technology Education Association (ITEA). (2000). Standards for technological literacy: Content for the study of technology. Reston, VA: Author.
  26. Korean Education Development Institute (KEDI) (Ed.). (1983). Integrated curriculum: Theory and practice. Seoul, KOREA: Kyoukkwahaksa Co.
  27. LaPorte, J. E., & Sanders, M. (1993). Integrating technology, science, and mathematics in the middle school. The Technology Teacher, 52(6), 17-21.
  28. LaPorte, J. E., & Sanders, M. (1996). Technology science mathematics: Connection activities binder. (Vol. 52). Peoria, IL: Glencoe/McGraw-Hill.
  29. Lehman, J. R. (1994). Integrating science and mathematics: Perceptions of preservice and practicing elementary teachers. School Science and Mathematics, 94(2), 58-64. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1949-8594.1994.tb12293.x
  30. Lehman, J. R., & McDonald, J. L. (1988). Teachers'perceptions of the integration of mathematics and science. School Science and Mathematics, 88(8), 642-649. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1949-8594.1988.tb11868.x
  31. Lee, H., Rim, H., & Moon, J. (2010). A study on the design and implementation of mathematics and science integrated instruction. The Mathematical Education, 49(2), 175-198.
  32. Lonning, R. A., & DeFranco, T. C. (1997). Integration of science and mathematics: A theoretical model. School Science and Mathematics, 97(4), 212-215. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1949-8594.1997.tb17369.x
  33. Lonning, R. A., DeFranco, T. C., & Weinland, T. P. (1998). Development of theme-based, interdisciplinary, integrated curriculum: A theoretical model. School Science and Mathematics, 98(6), 312-319. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1949-8594.1998.tb17426.x
  34. Meier, S. L., Cobbs, G., & Nicol, M. (1998). Potential benefits and barriers to integration. School Science and Mathematics, 98(8), 438-445. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1949-8594.1998.tb17436.x
  35. Miller, K., Davison, D., & Metheny, D. (1993). Integrating mathematics and science at the middle level. The Montana Mathematics Teacher, 6, 3-7.
  36. Miller, K. W., & Davison, D. (1998). Is thematic integration the best way to reform science and mathematics education? Science Educator, 7(1), 7-12.
  37. Ministry of Education (MOE). (1997). Education in Korea: 1997-1998. Seoul, KOREA: Author.
  38. Ministry of Education, Science and Technology (MEST). (2009). 2009 revised national curriculum. Seoul, KOREA: Author.
  39. National Academy of Engineering. (2002). Diversity in engineering: Managing the workforce of the future. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
  40. National Academy of Engineering. (2004). The engineer of 2020: Visions of engineering in the new century. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
  41. National Academy of Engineering. (2005). Educating the engineer of 2020: Adapting engineering education to the new century. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
  42. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM). (1989). Curriculum and evaluation standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.
  43. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM). (1991). Professional standards for teaching mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.
  44. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM). (1995). Assessment standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.
  45. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM). (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, Inc.
  46. National Research Council (NRC). (1996). National science education standards. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.
  47. National Science Teachers Association. (1992). Scope, sequence and coordination of secondary school science. Vol. 1. The content core: A guide for curriculum developers. Washington, DC: Author.
  48. National Science Teachers Association. (1997). NSTA pathways to the science standards: Guidelines for moving the vision into practice, Elementary school edition. Arlington, VA: Author.
  49. Pang, J., & Good, R. (2000). A review of the integration of science and mathematics: Implications for further research. School Science and Mathematics, 100(2), 73-81. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1949-8594.2000.tb17239.x
  50. Ross, J. A., & Hogaboam-Gray, A. (1998). Integrating mathematics, science, and technology: Effects on students. International Journal of Science Education, 20(9), 1119-1135. https://doi.org/10.1080/0950069980200908
  51. Roth, W. (1992). Bridging the gap between school and real life: Towards an integration of science, mathematics, and technology in the context of authentic practice. School Science and Mathematics, 92, 307-317. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1949-8594.1992.tb15596.x
  52. Roth, W. (1993). Problem-centered learning for the integration of mathematics and science in a constructivist laboratory: A case study. School Science and Mathematics, 93(3), 113-122. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1949-8594.1993.tb12207.x
  53. Son, Y., & Lee, H. (1999). A theoretical study to formulate the direction of integrated science education. Journal of the Korean Association for Research in Science Education, 19(1), 41-61.
  54. Stevens, C., & Wenner, G. (1996). Elementary preservice teachers'knowledge and beliefs regarding science and mathematics. School Science and Mathematics, 96(1), 2-9. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1949-8594.1996.tb10204.x
  55. Venville, G., Wallace, J., Rennie, L. J., & Malone, J. (1998). The integration of science, mathematics, and technology in a disciplinebased culture. School Science and Mathematics, 98(6), 294-303. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1949-8594.1998.tb17424.x
  56. Yu, K. S. (1983). Integration guide for lower elementary school. In Korean Education Development Institute (Ed.), Integrated curriculum: Theory and practice (pp. 163-185). Seoul, KOREA: Kyoukkwahaksa Co.

Cited by

  1. 과학과 실과(기술·가정) 교육과정에 제시된 '시스템'과 '에너지' 핵심 개념의 연계성에 대한 국제 비교 연구 vol.42, pp.1, 2011, https://doi.org/10.21796/jse.2018.42.1.27