CHAPTER 19

Interdisciplinary Science Teaching

Charlene M. Czerniak

University of Toledo

Although the topic of curriculum integration has been around for more than 100 years, its popularity among educators has been renewed in the last few years. The notion of connecting subject areas has substantial face validity, because it makes common sense. In real life, people do not separate their daily tasks into separate subjects; therefore, it seems only rational that subject areas should not be separated in our schools.

Some authors propose that the integration of subject areas helps students learn to think critically and develop a general core of knowledge necessary for success in the future (Carnegie Council on Adolescent Development, 1989). Curriculum integration advocates speak of the numerous advantages integration offers in helping students form deeper understandings, see the “big” picture, make curriculum relevant to students, build connections among central concepts, and become interested and motivated in school (Berlin, 1994; George, 1996; Mason, 1996). Advocates also maintain that curriculum integration is supported by societal reasons; traditional curriculum is not relevant to students and does not concentrate on genuine problems and issues.

Those who back curriculum integration also assert that it is anchored in psychology and human development. In defining constructivism, Brooks and Brooks (1993) remark that deep understanding is formed when students make connections between prior knowledge and new experiences—meaningful learning occurs when they see relationships among ideas. Cohen (1995) asserts that thematic teaching is supported by brain research, and Beane (1996) states that people process information through patterns and connections rather than through fragmented snippets of information.

However, after a century of calls for integrated approaches, some educators question the merit of integration and cite the paucity of research supporting it over traditional methods. Educators attempting to implement an integrated curriculum confront this critical issue and a number of other equally important ones. In this chapter, a brief history of curriculum integration is provided, and various issues are discussed, including the lack of a consistent definition of integration, the role of integration in school curriculum, advantages and disadvantages associated with integration, and problems commonly encountered in trying to implement an integrated curriculum. These issues are critical to the understanding and implementation of integration and present areas for future research that can help elucidate the value of integrated approaches.

RATIONALE

Justification can be found in the literature to support both traditional subject matter separation and integrated curriculum. Academic scholars have traditionally structured knowledge within the major disciplines recognizable today (science, mathematics, social sciences, and language arts). Some academics believe that academic disciplines are a powerful way to organize knowledge. For instance, Gardner and Boix-Mansilla (1994) declare that academic disciplines “constitute the most sophisticated ways yet developed for thinking about and investigating issues that have long fascinated and perplexed thoughtful individuals … (and) they become, when used relevantly, our keenest lenses on the world” (pp. 16–17). Educators who desire to keep subject disciplines separate fear that attempts to integrate subjects sometimes result in topics being left out of the curriculum and gaps in student understanding of important concepts. Berlin and White (1992) reported that Wingspread conference participants feared that the merging of the disciplines might cause people to lose important philosophical, methodological, and historical differences between the two subjects.

In contrast, others (e.g., Perkins, 1991) considered academic disciplines as “artificial partitions with historical roots of limited contemporary significance.” Mason (1996) described the present-day school curriculum as moribund—a regression to the factory system, where students proceed down a hallway to the next class. Mason pointed out that although our factories today have changed, our schools remain out of sync with society and real life, where knowledge and skills are not separated. Some stress that the curriculum needs be transformed because science is divided into 25,000 to 30,000 research fields, and data generated by this research is presented in over 70,000 scientific publications (Hurd, 1991). Science is no longer differentiated by distinct disciplinary lines such as biology, chemistry, geology, and physics, and demarcations between the sciences are blurred to form new fields such as geophysics and computational chemistry. Hurd recommended that science educators integrate the science curricula, because science in daily life is not separated or compartmentalized. He argued that traditional discipline-bound, fact-laden science courses are too narrow in scope to teach students how to learn in today's world, where science, technology, and societal issues are all interrelated.

McBride and Silverman (1991) summarized literature on integration of science and mathematics dating to the early twentieth century and concluded with four primary reasons for integrating the subjects:

1. Science and mathematics are closely related systems of thought and are naturally correlated in the physical world.
2. Science can provide students with concrete examples of abstract mathematical ideas that can improve learning of mathematics concepts.
3. Mathematics can enable students to achieve deeper understanding of science concepts by providing ways to quantify and explain science relationships.
4. Science activities illustrating mathematics concepts can provide relevancy and motivation for learning mathematics. (pp. 286–287)

BRIEF HISTORY

Although disciplinary knowledge has been developed for centuries and shapes the basis for exploring a particular area of knowledge, integration of subject areas has also been discussed for over 100 years. Berlin (1994) noted that since the early twentieth century the School Science and Mathematics Association has published numerous articles on the topic. In 1903, as Moore was retiring as president of the American Mathematical Society, he provided momentum to the reform efforts of that time by devoting part of his presidential address to mathematics in secondary education. He called for “the unification of pure and applied mathematics” and “the correlation of the different subjects” (Moore, 1967). Beane (1996) summarized several historical references to integration during the progressive era in U.S. education in Kilpatrick's work in the 1920s, Hopkin's efforts in 1937, and writings of John Dewey in the 1930s. A 1927 third-grade integrated unit on the study of boats on the Hudson River in New York is outlined in Cremin's (1964) book. Bean states that the word integration first appeared in Education Index in 1936.

Hurley (1999) summarized several additional periods in U.S. history where integration was used: the core curriculum in the 1940s and 1950s, the curriculum improvement projects in the 1960s and 1970s, the science-technology-society (STS) movement in the 1980s and 1990s, the middle school movement, and most recently the national standards established by various professional organizations.

For science education, the curriculum improvement projects were a particularly important period in history where curriculum integration took a foothold. Lehman (1994) stated that numerous curriculum projects were developed with the intent to integrate science and mathematics. Examples of projects (and contemporary off-shoots) designed to integrate the curriculum include the Minnesota Mathematics and Science Project (Minnemast, 1970), the Unified Science and Mathematics for Elementary Schools Project (USMES, 1973), Nuffield (1967), Lawrence Hall of Science's Great Explorations in Math and Science Project (GEMS) (Lawrence Hall of Science, 1984), Fresno Pacific College's Activities That Integrate Mathematics and Science (AIMS Educational Foundation, 1986, 1987), and the University of Chicago's Teaching Integrated Mathematics and Science Project (TIMS) (Institute for Mathematics and Science Education, 1995).

Middle School and Early Childhood Education Movement

Curriculum integration is a cornerstone of efforts aimed at creating schools focused on the developmental needs of students. The National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC) and the National Middle School Association (NMSA), organizations specializing in instructional practices appropriate for the education of young children and young and early adolescents, respectively, publish numerous materials to guide teachers in the selection and use of materials for young children and adolescents. Curriculum integration is stressed in various NAEYC reports (1987), and the NMSA book titled A Middle School Curriculum: From Rhetoric to Reality (Beane, 1993, 1997) argues for integration around personal and social concerns that interest adolescents and young adults. This We Believe (NMSA, 1982, 1995) argues for developmentally responsive middle schools where curriculum is challenging, integrative, and exploratory. Numerous NMSA resources support curriculum integration (Bean, 1997; Brazee & Capelluti, 1995; Erb, 2001; Nesin & Lounsbury, 1999; Smith, 2001; Stevenson & Carr, 1993), and the Middle School Journal devotes considerable space to articles on curriculum integration (see, for example, the November 2001 issue).

National Standards

In the last decade, almost all national reform efforts have stressed the need to make connections among subject areas (National Council of Teachers of English, 1996; National Council of Teachers of Mathematics [NCTM], 1989, 2000; National Council for the Social Studies [NCSS], 1994; National Research Council [NRC], 1989; NRC, 1996; National Science Teachers Association [NSTA], 1996; Rutherford & Ahlgren, 1990). Integration or thematic instruction is often used as a key idea in school reform efforts. The BSCS group (1994) summarized in a questionnaire ten common reform strands, and thematic instruction is one of the common elements of reform. For example, Crane (1991) described a restructured high school science curriculum focused on four themes of change, interactions, energy, and patterns. Similarly, Greene (1991) described a science-centered reform at the elementary school level.

In the early 1990s, the NSTA's Scope, Sequence and Coordination project (NSTA, 1992) recommended replacing traditional high school discipline curricula with four years of integrated science. In 1996, NSTA published a position statement on interdisciplinary learning in grades PreK–4 that represented the thinking of members of a variety of professional organizations (NCTM, NCTE, IRA, NSTA, NCSS, Speech Communication Association, and Council for Elementary Science International) that met to develop guidelines for integrating curriculum. This position statement addressed some of the matters raised by Berlin and White's (1994) integrated science and mathematics model, because it focused on ways of learning and knowing, process and thinking skills, content knowledge, attitudes and perceptions, and teaching strategies.

The national standards movement in the last ten years has once again increased emphasis on integration. Science for All Americans states, “The alliance between science and mathematics has a long history, dating back centuries. Science provides mathematics with interesting problems to investigate, and mathematics provides science with powerful tools to use in analyzing them” (pp. 16–18). The National Science Education Standards (NRC, 1996) maintain, “Curricula often will integrate topics from different subject-matter areas—such as life and physical sciences—from different content standards—such as life sciences and science in personal and social perspectives—and from different school subjects—such as science and mathematics, science and language arts, or science and history” (p. 23). The Science Education Teaching Standards (NRC, 1996) declare, “Schools must restructure schedules so that teachers can use blocks of time, interdisciplinary strategies and field experiences to give students many opportunities to engage in serious scientific investigation as an integral part of their science learning” (p. 44). Finally, the Science Education Content Standards (NRC, 1996) state, “The standard for unifying concepts and processes is presented for grades K–12, because the understanding and abilities associated with major conceptual and procedural schemes need to be developed over an entire education, and the unifying concepts and processes transcend disciplinary boundaries” (p. 104).

NCTM (2000) emphasizes, “School mathematics experiences at all levels should include opportunities to learn about mathematics by working on problems arising in contexts outside of mathematics. These connections can be to other subject areas and disciplines as well as to students’ daily lives” (p. 65).

The National Council for the Social Studies (NCSS, 1994) cautions against integration for its own sake, stressing, “Unless [programs] are developed as plans for accomplishing major social studies goals, such programs may focus on trivial or disconnected information” (pp. 165–166), but NCSS has also published resources promoting integration that is in alignment with the NCSS Standards. For example, Sandmann and Ahern's (2002) book, Linking Literature with Life, is a resource for integrating the NCSS standards and children's literature for middle grades. The Science-Technology-Society (STS) movement in the 1980s and 1990s also renewed the call for integration, with particular emphasis on the societal implications of science and technology.

Elementary educators viewed the whole language movement in the 1990s as a way to integrate across content areas (Willis, 1992). Others advocate the use of language arts strategies to help teachers develop science literacy (Akerson, 2001; Dickinson & Young, 1998). Dickinson and Young (1998) comment that science and language arts goals are complementary, and language arts can provide the tools for science inquiry.

Some educators claim that technology serves as a catalyst for integration across the curriculum (Berger, 1994), and recent studies suggest that technology has enhanced integration between science and mathematics by facilitating collaboration, providing real-world contexts for problem solving, removing limits on instructional time, and offering students opportunities to apply knowledge to real problems (Pang & Good, 2000).

Focus in Teacher Education

One criticism of teaching in an integrated fashion is that teachers aren't prepared to teach this way. Hurley (2003) mentioned that although there have been appeals for integrated approaches for years, it is only a recent development that integrated methods courses have been offered at universities. The need to be skilled in integrated approaches is underscored in the National Science Education Standards, which state, “Integrated and thematic approaches to curriculum can be powerful; however they require skill and understanding in their design and implementation” (p. 213).

With teacher education in mind, Hurley conducted a study examining the presence, value, and reasoning behind universities offering integrated science and mathematics methods courses. The reasons those universities reported offering integrated methods courses include new state and national standards, program reorganization, constructivist reforms, and the literature on integration. Akerson (2001) also affirms that educators have implemented integrated curricular ideas into their methods courses at universities in an effort to help teachers meet the state and national standards. Beane (1996) declared that integration is now found in university courses and even college degrees.

UNFOCUSED DEFINITION

Despite the plea for integration, many have argued that few empirical research studies support the assertion that integrated approaches are more effective than traditional, discipline-based teaching. A summary of articles from the 1991 Wing-spread conference on integration found that of 423 articles summarized, 99 were related to theory and research, and only 22 were research-based articles (Berlin, 1994). Lederman and Niess (1997) echoed concerns that research supporting the use of integrated instruction or thematic curricula is almost nonexistent. Czerniak, Weber, Sandmann, and Ahern (1999) summarized literature on the integration of science and mathematics with other subject areas and concluded that there are few empirical studies to support the notion that an integrated curriculum is any better than a well-designed traditional curriculum.

A possible explanation for the dearth of empirical research on integration is a conceptual one that clouds the generation of research questions. At the fundamental level, a common definition of integration does not seem to exist that can be used as a basis for designing, carrying out, and interpreting results of research. Davison, Miller, and Metheny (1995) appealed for a definition of integration, stating, “Few educators would argue about the need for an interwoven, cross-disciplinary curriculum, but to many, the nature of the integration in many interdisciplinary projects is not readily apparent. A more pervasive problem is that integration means different things to different educators” (p. 226). Hurley (2001, 2003) concluded after a comprehensive study, however, that an agreed-upon definition of integration could not be found.

Despite Davison, Miller, and Metheny's (1995) request for clarification, this elusiveness is evident in the sheer number of words used to convey integration: interdisciplinary, multidisciplinary, transdisciplinary, thematic, integrated, connected, nested, sequenced, shared, webbed, threaded, immersed, networked, blended, unified, coordinated, and fused. Lederman and Niess's (1997) editorial in School Science and Mathematics explained that many educators use the terms integrated, interdisciplinary, and thematic synonymously, and this only compounds the confusion and limits the ability to adequately research the topic.

The tendency to use the words integrated, interdisciplinary, and thematic synonymously may be a result of the fact that little agreement exists regarding the definition of integration. Berlin and White (1992) reported that a group of 60 scientists, mathematicians, science and mathematics educators, teachers, curriculum developers, educational technologists, and psychologists assembled at a conference funded by the National Science Foundation (NSF) were unable, after three days of deliberation, to reach a consensus on the definition of integration of science and mathematics. The group proposed an operational definition: “Integration infuses mathematical methods in science and scientific methods into mathematics such that it becomes indistinguishable as to whether it is mathematics or science” (p. 341).

Historical references to integration (Hopkins, 1937, as cited in Beane, 1996) defined integration as problem-centered, integrated knowledge. Beane (1996) used four characteristics to define integration: (a) curriculum that is organized around problems and issues that are of personal and social significance in the real world, (b) use of relevant knowledge in the context of topic without regard for subject lines, (c) knowledge that is used to study an existing problem rather than for a test or grade level outcome, and (d) emphasis placed on projects and activities with real application of knowledge and problem solving. He maintained that other forms of integrated curriculum (such as parallel disciplines or multidisciplinary curricula) still focus on separate content areas and, therefore, are not fully integrated.

To distinguish between integration and other terms, Lederman and Niess (1997) defined integration as a blending of science and mathematics to the point that the separate parts are indiscernible. The metaphor of tomato soup was used: The tomatoes cannot be distinguished from the water or other ingredients in the soup. They defined interdisciplinary as a blending of science and mathematics where connections are made between the subjects, but the two subjects remain identifiable. The metaphor used is chicken noodle soup, where you can still distinguish the broth, chicken, and noodles. Jacobs (1989) described interdisciplinary as “a knowledge view and curriculum approach that consciously applies methodology and language from more than one discipline to examine a central theme, issue, problem, topic, or experience.” Lederman and Niess (1997) defined thematic as a unifying topic used to transcend traditional subject boundaries.

INTEGRATED CURRICULUM DESIGN

Educators espousing integration have provided a variety of curriculum design options. Beane (1995) recommended that curriculum integration must have social meaning, and, therefore, design begins with “problems, issues and concerns posed by life itself” (p. 616). The notion of organizing a science and mathematics curriculum around projects as a relevant way to connect science, mathematics, and events outside of the classroom was a consensus of the NSF-sponsored Wingspread conference (Berlin & White, 1992). Venville, Wallace, Rennie, and Malone (1998) identified technology-based projects, competitions, and local community projects as forms of curriculum integration. More recently project-based science has been suggested as a methodology for curriculum integration because its key features (driving questions, student engagement in investigations, communities of learners collaborating together, use of technology, and creation of artifacts) are all congruent with integrated approaches. Rakow and Vasquez (1998) stated, “Project-based integration may be the most authentic form of cross-curricular integration because it involves students in real-world learning experiences. In project-based integration, students investigate real issues in real contexts.”

Jacobs is well known for her work on curriculum integration. In 1989, she presented a continuum of curriculum design options that move from discipline-based to parallel disciplines, multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary units or courses, integrated day, and complete program integration. Underhill's (1995) editorial illustrated six perspectives on science and mathematics integration that echo some of the alternatives presented in Jacob's (1989) continuum: math and science are disjointed; there is some overlap between science and math; math and science are the same; math is a subset of science; science is a subset of math; and there is major overlap between science and mathematics. Brown and Wall (1976) presented a similar vision of science and mathematics integration in which mathematics and science (on opposite ends of the continuum) are taught for their own sake; science is guided by math; math is guided by science; or science and mathematics are blended with each other.

Davison, Miller, and Metheny (1995) identified five different models of integration: discipline specific (i.e., two or more branches of science—integrating life and chemical science), content specific (combining related objects from several disciplines—combining mathematics with science), process (using skills such as collecting data, analyzing data, and reporting results to examine real-life situations), methodological (i.e., the learning cycle model as a good way to solve problems in science), and thematic (selecting a theme, such as sharks, and teaching academic concepts around the theme). Projects such as AIMS and GEMS are good commercial examples of curricula that focus on integrating science and mathematics by using process skills, such as observing, classifying, and analyzing (Roebuck & Warden, 1998).

A similar continuum of integration for science and mathematics, ranging through independent mathematics, mathematics focus, balanced mathematics and science, science focus, and independent science, was developed by Lonning and DeFranco (1997) and Lonning, DeFranco, and Weinland (1998). They suggested that readers should ask two questions when planning an integrated curriculum: “What are the major mathematics and science concepts being taught in the activity?” and “Are these concepts worthwhile? That is, are they key elements in the curricula and meaningful to students?” (p. 214). Likewise, Huntley (1998) presented a mathematics and science continuum on which the ends of the spectrum represent separate subject area teaching and the center represents integration of the two subjects. However, Huntley extended the Lonning and DeFranco model by emphasizing that the center point, integration, occurs only when science and mathematics are dealt with in a synergistic fashion. Francis (1996) extended the mathematics and science continuum by proposing a connections matrix that integrated mathematics and science standards to integrate the curriculum.

Hurley (2001) conducted a study to determine the types of integration that have historically been used and found five major types of integration: sequenced (science and mathematics are planned and taught one preceding the other); parallel (science and mathematics are planned and taught together); partial (the subjects are taught separately as well as integrated); enhanced (one of the subjects is the major discipline being taught and the other is added to enhance the other); and total (science and mathematics are taught equally together). She found that no form of integration ever totally dominated in any period of history from the 1940s to 1990s.

RESEARCH ON INTEGRATION

Most of the literature on curriculum integration could be characterized as testimonials, how-to's, or unit/activity ideas. For example, a thematic approach is used in all K–8 classrooms where teachers report student excitement and the teacher's cooperative spirit (Peters, Schubeck, & Hopkins, 1995). School Science and Mathematics Integrated Lessons (SSMILES) are published in School Science and Mathematics. For example, McDonald and Czerniak (1998) describe activities developed to integrate science and mathematics around the theme of sharks. Descriptions abound of integrated methods, units, and processes used with preservice and inservice teachers and K–12 students (Francis & Underhill, 1996; Sandmann, Weber, Czerniak, and Ahern, 1999; Stuessy, 1993). Some articles discuss integrated arts and science undergraduate courses (Deeds, Allen, Callen, & Wood, 2000).

In the last five years, a greater amount of research-based literature has surfaced focusing on integration. Concerned with the lack of empirical evidence supporting the integration of science and mathematics, Hurley (2001) used mixed methodology to review 31 studies with reported outcomes conducted between 1935 and 1997. She used Study Effect Meta-analytic (SEM) methods to review the quantitative aspects of these studies, and she used grounded theory to analyze the qualitative portions of these studies. Hurley's review found quantitative evidence favoring integration and qualitative evidence revealing the existence of multiple forms of integration. Most of the published empirical research studies on integration reviewed in this chapter support its use. A number of K–12 studies sustain the notion that integration helps students learn, motivates students, and helps build problem-solving skills. Studies regarding teachers’ reactions to integration focus on teacher beliefs and attitudes, subject matter knowledge, and obstacles faced when in the implementation of integrated approaches.

Student Achievement and Affective Gains

Meier, Nicol, and Cobbs (1998) state, “Without evidence that integration will produce improved student performance in mathematics and science, little change can be expected” (p. 439). This call for research that provides evidence of student performance through the use of integration has been met somewhat in the last few years.

Green (1991) reported that student achievement scores significantly improved after a year-long restructuring to connect science to all subject areas. Seventy-eight percent of students had improved NAEP scores in science, exceeding the NAEP nationwide figures. Teachers and principals also reported success with educationally disadvantaged students and indicated that real-world integration accelerated the rate of language acquisition for bilingual students. Stevenson and Carr (1993) reported increased student interest and achievement in integrated instruction. Similarly, Vars (1991) and Beane (1995) reported that interdisciplinary programs produced higher standardized achievement scores than did separate-subject curriculum. These authors also acknowledged that the interdisciplinary curriculum is frequently embedded into other reforms such as block scheduling and multi-age grouping, and therefore it is difficult to separate the effects of integration from those of other reform strategies. Zwick and Miller (1996) found that Native American students using an outdoor-based integrated science curriculum outperformed their peers using a traditional curriculum on the California Achievement Test 85 (CAT). Similarly, McGehee (2001) described the development of a problem-solving framework for interdisciplinary units used with minority students in a northern Arizona summer academy that found evidence of student success based on artifacts from student projects.

Studies that examined student gains made in curriculum improvement projects or a commercial integrated curriculum convey positive results. Shann (1977) explored the effect of the Unified Science and Mathematics for Elementary Schools (USMES) program and noted an increase in students’ content knowledge and problem-solving skills. Additionally, there was an increase in students’ self-worth, socialization ability, and excitement for learning. Goldberg and Wagreich (1989) report increased academic achievement in the Teaching Integrated Mathematics and Science (TIMS) program. Similarly, Berlin and Hillen (1994) report increased cognitive, motivational, and attitudinal outcomes for fourth-, fifth-, and sixth-graders using the Activities Integrating Mathematics and Science (AIMS) program.

A number of studies focused on affective gains made in the use of integrated curricula. Friend (1985) reported that students exhibited an appreciation of science as a result of an integrated mathematics/science program. McComas (1993) and Bragow, Gragow, and Smith (1995) confirmed that thematic units had a positive impact on student attitudes and interest in school. Barb and Landa (1997) state that when focused on a problem worth solving, interdisciplinary units motivate students to learn. Integrated science and reading instruction was also found to affect motivation (Guthrie, Wigfield, & VonSecker, 2000).

Hurley (2001) conducted a comprehensive study of integrated curricula from the early twentieth century to the present. Small student achievement effect sizes were found for both science and mathematics in studies from the 1930s to 1950s, and medium effect sizes were found for studies in the 1960s and 1970s (mostly curriculum improvement projects). Small effect sizes were found for studies published in the 1980s and 1990s. Student achievement effects were higher for science than for mathematics in integrated courses, especially when mathematics was used to enhance science or when the two subjects were totally integrated. Student achievement effects were higher for mathematics when mathematics was planned in sequence with science, but the subjects were taught separately—first mathematics and then science. Qualitative analyses found positive evidence for integration, attendance, student enthusiasm, and student engagement.

Hurley's (2001) meta-analyses of the effect of each type of integration on student achievement revealed differences. Sequential instruction resulted in positive effect sizes for science and mathematics, with mathematics effect sizes being larger. Parallel (but separate) integration had negative effect sizes for both science and mathematics, indicating that students achieved more in traditional instruction. Partially integrated and partially separate integration had small positive effects for science and mathematics. Enhanced instruction had a medium positive effect size for science and small effect sizes for mathematics. Total integration of science and mathematics had a large effect size for science and a small effect size for mathematics.

It may be more difficult to flesh out the effectiveness of integration on college-age students because of the limited number of integrated programs in universities, but McComas and Wang (1998) summarized a few studies of college-age students that demonstrated greater achievement or interest in science when it was presented as an integrated program rather than a traditional sequence.

Teacher Knowledge and Attitudes

A number of studies examined teachers’ knowledge of and attitudes toward using integrated strategies. Although integrated techniques have been used for years in pre-K–12 schools, the integrated teacher education methods course at the university level is a more recent phenomenon. Nonetheless, studies can be found at both the preservice and inservice levels, but the findings for the effectiveness of integration are mixed.

Preservice Teachers

Conclusions from earlier studies of preservice teachers were based more on anecdotal examinations than outcome measures. For example, Lehman and McDonald (1988) studied the perceptions of preservice teachers toward integrated mathematics and science and found that preservice teachers had a greater familiarity with integration than practicing teachers, and mathematics teachers were concerned with covering the curriculum if they used an integrated approach. Lonning and DeFranco (1994) developed an integrated science and mathematics methods course, and anecdotal surveys and course evaluations indicated that students’ attitudes toward the course were positive and students were enthusiastic about the course. Haigh and Rehfeld (1995) described the integration of a secondary mathematics and science methods course, and they report that surveys of students’ opinions were generally favorable. Although the authors describe how they evaluated the course, no evidence is provided as to the merits of integration over separate courses.

Briscoe and Stout (1996) describe the integration of math and science through a problem-centered methods course. Using data from qualitative analyses, the authors describe problems preservice teachers had with problem solving, but it is unclear whether or how these were different from learning problem solving in separate mathematics and science methods courses. Kotar, Guenter, Metzger, and Overholt (1998) describe a teacher education model for curriculum integration that they used at California State University, Chico, but no evidence is provided about the effectiveness of the model. Conversely, Stuessy and Naizer (1996) report gains in reflection and problem solving after students completed an integrated mathematics and science methods course.

In a study of a team-taught middle-level mathematics and science methods course, Koirala and Bowman (2003) found that preservice teachers appreciated the emphasis on integration and had a better understanding of integration. An absence of integration was sometimes found because some science and mathematics concepts did not lend themselves to integration. As a result, students were frustrated at the tension between subjects. Furthermore, students at some middle schools seldom taught in an integrated fashion in their field experiences or student teaching, and these students tended to lose their appreciation for integration. In contrast, Hart (2002) studied preservice teachers’ beliefs and practice after participating in an integrated mathematics/science methods course and found that beliefs and teachers’ reported classroom teaching behaviors were consistent with program and reform goals.

Hurley (2003) studied methods course offerings and found that most universities reported that their integrated science and mathematics methods courses were summer courses, grant-funded projects, or experimental. Few universities had integrated courses at the time of study, but several had integrated science and mathematics Master's degree programs. Hurley's study found that surveyed universities’ reported successes included teachers gaining science and mathematics concepts and reasoning, positive preservice teacher attitudes and enthusiasm, improvement in higher order thinking skills in science, improved teacher reflectivity, and success in connecting theory to practice. Failures and challenges included difficulties in communication among teaching partners, lower higher order thinking skills in math, teachers’ lack of content knowledge to integrate, overcoming influence of supervising teachers in field experiences, mathematics attitudes transferring to science, concern about coverage of curriculum, and challenges with enacting reforms.

Inservice Teachers

Few studies on inservice teacher education focused on teacher knowledge or pedagogical skill. More commonly, studies reported teacher beliefs and attitudes. Again, findings are mixed regarding the effectiveness of integrated strategies.

In one of the few studies on teacher knowledge and instructional skill, Basista, Tomlin, Pennington, and Pugh (2001) evaluated an integrated professional development program and found significant gains in understanding of content and confidence to implement integrated science and mathematics in their teaching. Similarly, Basista and Mathews (2002) discovered that a professional development program for middle grades science and mathematics teachers (intensive summer institute, academic year support, and administrator workshops) increased teachers’ content and integration knowledge, increased pedagogical knowledge and implementation, increased administrator awareness of science and mathematics standards, and helped support teachers as they implemented practices during the school year. Teachers in a collaborative professional development project that integrated science with mathematics, using language arts and technology, displayed increased levels of competence and confidence in the use of technology to teach science and mathematics (Cleland, Wetzel, Zambo, Buss, & Rillero, 1999).

Differential effects on students were found, depending on how the teacher implemented integrated curriculum and instruction. Waldrip (2001) found that primary teachers perceived that they implemented integration in their classrooms, but the actual level of implementation influenced the students’ learning. Use of a science theme without strong connections to language and mathematics was less effective, whereas strong connections to other subject areas helped studies attain a deeper level of understanding.

To a greater extent, the research on inservice teachers focused on their beliefs, attitudes, and perceived barriers of integration. Watanabe and Huntley (1998) reported that mathematics and science educators in a NSF-funded project had many of the same beliefs about integration as other classroom teachers. Middle-level mathematics and science teachers thought that connecting mathematics and science helps students with tangible examples of mathematics, that math helps students become familiar with science relationships, and that connections provide relevancy and incentive for students.

Teachers in a Maryland NSF-funded project saw some barriers to integrated instruction, including the conflict over time in the school day and coverage of content, students not desiring to see connections between the subjects, the teacher's lack of subject matter knowledge in both subjects, and teachers feeling uncomfortable with teaching the subject for which they were not originally prepared or certified (Watanabe & Huntley, 1998). Likewise, Keys (2003) reported that despite holding similar beliefs, elementary teachers used integration to compensate for lack of knowledge to teach science, whereas secondary teachers did not consider integration because it limited the amount of time needed to cover the curriculum. Wieseman and Moscovici (2003) also describe the challenges that inservice teachers face when implementing interdisciplinary approaches.

Czerniak, Lumpe, and Haney (1999) found that teachers generally have positive beliefs concerning the use of thematic units, but negative attitudes toward integration also exist. In general, K–12 teachers believed that thematic units in the classroom have the ability to foster student excitement and interest in learning science. Although some teachers believe that integration can make science more meaningful to students because students see connections between the sciences and other subject areas, others were concerned that thematic units would water down the curriculum. Teachers were concerned that it would be time consuming and difficult to use thematic units, especially because integrated curriculum materials are not abundant. The teachers specified that a number of variables would be needed (but unlikely to be available) to help them use thematic units (resources including funding, curriculum materials, supplies and equipment; staff development; less emphasis on testing and assessment; team teaching; administrative support; and a course of study that stressed integration). Although not surprising, it was revealed that teachers of lower grade levels have greater intentions to implement thematic units in their classrooms than teachers of upper grade levels.

Finally, in a study conducted among 400 schools in Missouri, Arredondo and Rucinski (1996) discovered differences among rural and low-SES schools regarding curriculum integration. They found that a high percentage of rural, low-SES schools are not involved in any type of curriculum integration. In schools where there is a high use of integrated curriculum, teachers reported greater involvement in decision-making processes at the school—perhaps indicating their involvement in school reform efforts.

DISADVANTAGES OF CURRICULUM INTEGRATION

Critics of integration purport that there is insignificant evidence to support the belief that integrated approaches are any more effective than traditional, separate subjects. George (1996) summarized assertions about integration not corroborated by research:

1. Addresses the real-life concerns of students better than traditional curriculum
2. Presents greater opportunities for problem solving
3. Promotes student's independent learning
4. Offers more effective involvement with the environment and society
5. Provides more opportunities for student involvement in planning the curriculum along with the teacher
6. Allows teachers more opportunity to be “facilitators of learning”
7. Permits learning in greater depth; makes deeper connections
8. Presents students with opportunities to capitalize on prior learning more effectively
9. Allows for more application of curriculum outcomes to real life
10. Supplies more concrete experiences for slower learners or more enrichment opportunities for more able students
11. Encourages greater transfer or retention of learned information
12. More effectively rejuvenates and energizes career teachers with new experiences
13. Helps provide greater achievement, personal development, or harmonious group citizenship

From a theoretical perspective, Lederman and Niess (1997) commented that research on integrated instruction seems to demonstrate that science and mathematics instruction is severely restricted because the concepts included are narrowed to a specific framework. Evidence of this, they stated, is the disappointing achievement results associated with the STS approach. The argument was made that each discipline possesses unique conceptual, procedural, and epistemological differences that cannot be addressed through an integrated approach, and thus it is preferred that connections be made among topics, with each subject area retaining its own identity.

Roth's (1994) experience teaching a fifth-grade unit around the theme of 1492 supports Lederman and Niess's assertions. Roth's experiences were frustrating, because the science content was confined to the theme, and attempts to integrate science into the theme often distorted and diminished the science content she hoped to teach. Davison, Miller, and Metheny (1995) asked the following questions in reference to concerns about integration of mathematics and science: “1) To what extent can these integration efforts represent bona fide integration of science and mathematics? 2) To what extent has the integration of science and mathematics been merely cosmetic?” (p. 226).

Mason (1996) listed a number of logistical problems that may be disadvantages for using integrated strategies. For instance, mathematics concepts are sequential, and adding mathematics concepts as bits and pieces in the curriculum could confuse students if they lack the prerequisite knowledge and skills. In other words, adding mathematics here and there for the sake of integrating might leave wide gaps in the subject matter and student understanding. Additionally, Mason described a typical example of integration at the elementary school level, such as “the rain forest,” and argued that students are typically asked to graph the number of endangered species. He cast doubt on the value of making dozens of graphs. Mason also asserts that many teachers, in an effort to force integration, trivialize the content. For example, “A poem about photosynthesis may not help one understand photosynthesis as a process, or poetry as a genre” (p. 266). Gardner and Boix-Mansilla (1994) concur with Mason by stating that prerequisite skills are often needed before students can use an integrated curriculum, and schools typically do not have time to both teach skills and put them in an integrated curriculum.

Thus, if integration becomes contrived and formed around trivial themes, children may not have the prerequisite background. The Professional Standards for Teaching Mathematics state, “The content is unquestionably a critical consideration in appraising the value of a particular task” (NCTM, 1991). Despite the fact that NCTM stresses content, Roebuck and Warden (1998) declare that few curriculum materials use the content of science or mathematics as a focus of integration. Lonning and DeFranco (1997) maintain that integration is justified only when connecting science and mathematics concepts enhances the understanding of the subject areas. To avoid a shallow curriculum that lacks meaning, they suggest that some concepts and skills are better taught separately. They advised that teachers should avoid forced integration. Similarly, the National Council for the Social Studies (1994) warned:

Integrative aspects have the potential for enhancing the scope and power of social studies. They also, however, have the potential for undermining its coherence and thrust as a curriculum component that addresses unique citizen education goals. Consequently, programs that feature a great deal of integration of social studies with other school subjects—even programs ostensibly built around social studies as the core of the curriculum—do not necessarily create powerful social studies learning. Unless they are developed as plans for accomplishing major social studies goals, such programs may focus on trivial or disconnected information. (pp. 165–166)

Several research studies support the claim that integration is no more effective than well-planned traditional curricula. St. Clair and Hough (1992) stated that few studies support interdisciplinary curriculum results in gains in student achievement. Similarly, Merrill (2001) found no significant achievement gains in high school students exposed to an integrated technology, mathematics, and science curricula.

Obstacles to Enacting Integrated Units

One of the true tests of any educational idea is that it can be successfully implemented in schools. McBride and Silverman (1991) cautioned that a number of problems must be addressed before integrated instruction becomes commonplace:

1. In most schools, students formally encounter the science and mathematics curricula organized and taught as separate subjects.
2. More instructional time is required to teach mathematics concepts through science concepts.
3. Classroom management can be more complicated when students are engaged in integrated science and mathematics activities than when they are solely engaged in whole class mathematics instruction.
4. Many teachers do not have science materials to utilize in mathematics instruction.
5. Few teachers have access to or are aware of curriculum materials that integrate science and mathematics.

Meier, Nicol, and Cobbs (1998) also pointed out that there are a number of barriers to integration: the content barrier (science and mathematics topics don't always integrate well without one subject leaving gaps), teacher knowledge barrier (secondary teachers prepared in one subject, state licensure often isn't integrated, elementary teachers have limited subject matter knowledge about how to integrate), teacher belief barrier (inservice teachers think the curriculum is already crowded; preservice teachers don't know about integrated curriculum; and math teachers are less likely to integrate than science teachers), school structure barriers (schedules, different teachers without common planning time, tracking students, supplies/materials, and assessment), and curriculum barriers (standardized tests cover separate subjects, don't measure higher order thinking skills associated with integration).

Lehman (1994) discovered that in spite of positive perceptions about integration, teachers’ views do not carry over into their practice. Teachers often believed there was no time to add integrated ideas into an already overcrowded curriculum, and they were not aware of integrated resources. Similarly, Watanabe and Huntley (1998) reported that although teachers in the Maryland Collaborative for Teacher Preparation had positive attitudes about connecting science and mathematics, some had problems enacting the curriculum. Some teachers were concerned with the amount of time it took to infuse integration into an already crammed curriculum. To counter the content coverage concern, Beane (1995) maintains that the separate subject curriculum is already too dense and not everything is covered now. He argued that curriculum integration allows the most important and powerful ideas in the discipline to surface. Pang and Good (2000) mention that the current U.S. curriculum is already fragmented and unfocused, and therefore any attempts to integrate a coherent content would be difficult.

Concerns about time may be related to the structure of the school day—especially in high schools where the organization does not allow time or structure to integrate (Jacobs, 1989; Venville, Wallace, Rennie, & Malone, 1998). Unless teachers team teach (an approach popular in middle schools), they rarely have the opportunity to work with other teachers outside of their discipline (Mason, 1996). More recently, block scheduling is seen as a format that allows for reforms such as integration (Canady & Rettig, 1996).

In summarizing Lynn A. Steen's presentation at the 1991 Wingspread conference, Berlin (1994) cited inadequate teacher preparation as one cause for lack of integration. Steen declared that few science teachers, with maybe the exception of chemistry and physics teachers, have enough mathematical background to integrate advanced mathematics with science, and few mathematics teachers would be able to teach even one science subject area. Similarly, Lehman (1994) stated that less than 50% of 221 preservice and inservice teachers surveyed believed they had sufficient content background to integrate science and mathematics. Mason (1996) also suggested that many teachers do not know how to create an integrated curriculum, and, thus, teacher education may be one problem contributing to the limited implementation of integrated curriculum (Roebuck & Warden, 1998). Generally, preservice teachers do not take integrated classes in their general studies, and they do not experience integrated methods. As a result, they do not know how to integrate across the curriculum (Mason, 1996). In most states, teachers (especially secondary teachers) are licensed in specific disciplines and, therefore, do not possess the knowledge needed to integrate with other subject areas.

Student assessment is viewed as an impediment to enacting an integrated curriculum, since standardized tests measure, for the most part, disciplinary knowledge (Berlin & White, 1992; Mason, 1996). Although the standards movement (NCTM, NRC, NCSS, NCTE/IRA) is moving along disciplinary lines, it encourages integration. Standards and tests, however, do not exist for integrated ideas, and as a result, national trends will likely fail to support integration—especially with testing guidelines established in the No Child Left Behind legislation (http://www.nochildleftbehind.gov).

Finally, a few studies indicate that curriculum integration poses difficulties for teachers that might affect the quality of instruction. McGehee (2001) summarized problems that occurred among instructors teaching together and found that instructors needed to work out issues among themselves (i.e., some dominating lectures and separating their subject area). Hurley (2001) discovered that integration of science and mathematics took more time, was a challenge to teachers, and resulted in less time being spent on mathematics. She also observed that integrated courses developed by classroom teachers were less effective in affecting student achievement than commercially designed curriculum materials.

CONCLUSION

A number of implications can be drawn from this literature review. These implications provide foci for science educators to provide leadership in clarifying issues, challenging basic assumptions, and solving problems associated with integrating science with other subject areas. In spite of a plethora of literature about the benefits of curriculum integration and some recent research-based studies to support this belief, additional research would be useful to verify these benefits and determine whether the results can be used to inform school-based practices.

There continues to be a lack of consensus regarding the definition of integration. Models presented in the October 1998 special issue of School Science and Mathematics provide a catalyst for this discussion, but the debate continues (Hurley 2001, 2003; Pang and Good, 2000). Elucidation of definitions may help science educators eliminate confusion when discussing curriculum and instructional approaches that endeavor to integrate curriculum. Moreover, a clear-cut definition could provide the stimulus for the design and completion of further research regarding the impact of integrated curriculum.

A few STS and project-based curriculum projects focus on issues as a means to integrate across the curriculum and make science relevant to real life. However, most integrated curricula, particularly commercial curricula, concentrate on process skills and give little attention to using science or mathematics content as the curriculum's central focus. Thus, the implication is that educators continue to search for good curriculum materials that provide sufficient, high-quality science and mathematics content.

Problems regarding the structure of the school day need to be overcome before integration becomes commonplace in schools. In the last few years, many U.S. schools turned to block scheduling as a way to provide teachers, particularly at the middle, junior, and high school levels, with larger portions of time to teach (Canady, 1995; Canady & Rettig, 1996). The block schedule typically provides a 90-minute segment of time rather than the traditional 45- or 50-minute class periods, and this format may give teachers the time needed to integrate the curriculum.

Hurley (2003) identified some benefits of teacher education models designed to prepare teachers to integrate the curriculum but also noted that integrated methods courses are atypical. A few new studies support curriculum integration in professional development models (Basista, Tomlin, Pennington, & Pugh, 2001; Basista & Mathews, 2002). To better prepare preservice and inservice teachers to design and implement integrated units, they must be familiar with state and national reform recommendations, receive instruction in the integration of science and mathematics, and learn about integrated curriculum resources. It is also important that teachers experience courses where team teaching is used so that they have a better understanding of the collaborative processes needed to enact integrated strategies (Lehman, 1994; Mason, 1996).

The pressure of high-stakes standardized tests continues to be a limiting factor in implementing an integrated curriculum, and recent No Child Left Behind legislation may only exacerbate the problem. Because most standardized tests examine content separately, educators are doubtful about whether the knowledge and skills learned in an integrated fashion would transfer to these tests. One may conclude that for integration to be widely accepted in a standards environment, either standardized tests need to measure knowledge and skills associated with learning in an integrated manner or integrated units developed commercially and by teachers need to contain assessments consistent with those in the standards and on high-stakes tests.

It is paradoxical that despite the interest in integrated approaches over the last 100 years, standards today for each discipline remain separate (e.g., NCTM, NRC's National Science Education Standards, NCTE/IRA, and NCSS). If progress is to be made in moving integrated instruction into the mainstream, discussions need to occur among leaders of professional organizations to establish standards for integrating content areas.

Finally, Pang and Good (2000) perhaps best summarize the challenges surrounding attempts to integrate across the curriculum and the need for additional research:

These issues suggest that integration of mathematics and science is one of the most daunting tasks educators face. There is no magic formula for completing the task except collaborative efforts among various disciplines and personnel. The more communication is opened about successes and failures of integration, the more significant progress can be made toward identifying what teachers are expected to teach and students are expected to learn through integrated curricula. In order to help all students become more scientifically and mathematically literate, a goal most reform documents advocate, more focused attention about integration of curriculum and instruction is necessary. (p. 78)

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Thanks to Carl Berger and Robert Lonning who reviewed this chapter.

REFERENCES

AIMS Educational Foundation. (1986). Activities integrating math and science. Fresno, CA: Author.

AIMS Educational Foundation. (1987). Math + science: A solution. Fresno, CA: Author.

Akerson, V. L. (2001). Teaching science when your principal says, “Teach language arts.” Science and Children, 38(7), 42–47.

Arredondo, D. E., & Rucinski, T. T. (1996). Integrated curriculum: Its use, initiation and support in Midwestern schools. Mid-Western Educational Researcher, 9(2), 37–44.

Barab, S. A., & Landa, A. (1997). Designing effective interdisciplinary anchors. Educational Leadership, 54(6), 52–55.

Basista, B., & Mathews, S. (2002). Integrated science and mathematics professional development programs. School Science and Mathematics, 102(7), 360–370.

Basista, B., Tomlin, J., Pennington, K., & Pugh, D. (2001). Inquiry-based integrated science and mathematics professional development program. Education, 121(3), 615–624.

Beane, J. A. (1993, 1997). A middle school curriculum: From rhetoric to reality. Columbus, OH: National Middle School Association.

Beane, J. (1995). Curriculum integration and the disciplines of knowledge. Phi Delta Kappan, 76, 616–622.

Beane, J. (1996). On the shoulders of giants! The case for curriculum integration. Middle School Journal, 28, 6–11.

Beane, J. A. (1997). Curriculum integration: Designing the core of democratic education. New York: Teachers College Press.

Berger, C. F. (1994). Breaking what barriers between science and mathematics? Six myths from a technological perspective. In D. F. Berlin (Ed.), NSF/SSMA Wingspread conference: A network for integrated science and mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 23–27). School Science and Mathematics Association Topics for Teachers Series (No. 7). Bowling Green, OH: School Science and Mathematics Association.

Berlin, D. (1994). The integration of science and mathematics education: Highlights from the NSF/ SSMA Wingspread conference plenary papers. School Science and Mathematics, 94(1), 32–35.

Berlin, D. F., & Hillen, J. A. (1994). Making connections in math and science: Identifying student outcomes. School Science and Mathematics, 94(6), 283–290.

Berlin, D., & White, A. (1992). Report from the NSF/SSMA Wingspread conference: A network for integrated science and mathematics teaching and learning. School Science and Mathematics, 92(6), 340–342.

Berlin, D., & White, A. (1994). The Berlin-White integrated science and mathematics model (BWISM). School Science and Mathematics, 94(1), 2–4.

Bragow, D., Gragow, K. A., & Smith, E. (1995). Back to the future: Toward curriculum integration. Middle School Journal, 27, 39–46.

Brazee, E. N., & Capelluti, J. (1995). Dissolving boundaries: Toward an integrative curriculum. Columbus, OH: National Middle School Association.

Briscoe, C., & Stout, D. (1996). Integrating math and science through problem centered learning in methods courses: Effects on prospective teachers’ understanding of problem solving. Journal of Elementary Science Education, 8(2), 66–87.

Brooks, J. G., & Brooks, M. G. (1993). In search of understanding: The case for constructivist classrooms. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Brown, W. R., & Wall, C. E. (1976). A look at the integration of science and mathematics in the elementary school—1976. School Science and Mathematics, 76(7), 551–562.

BSCS. (1994). Innovations in science education survey instrument. Colorado Springs, CO: Author.

Canady, R. (1995). Block scheduling: A catalyst for change in high schools. Princeton, NJ: Eye on Education.

Canady, R., & Rettig, M. (1996). Teaching in the block: Strategies for engaging active learners. Princeton, NJ: Eye on Education.

Carnegie Council on Adolescent Development, Task Force on Education of Young Adolescents (1989). Turning points: Preparing American youth for the 21st century: The report of the task force on education of young adolescents. Washington, DC: Carnegie Council on Adolescent Development.

Cleland, J. V., Wetzel, K. A., Zambo, R., Buss, R. R., & Rillero, P. (1999). Science integrated with mathematics using language arts and technology: A model for collaborative professional development. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching 18(2), 157–172.

Cohen, P. (1995). Understanding the brain: Educators seek to apply brain research. ASCD Education Update, 37(7), 1, 4–5.

Crane, S. (1991). Integrated science in a restructured high school. Educational Leadership 49(2), 39–41.

Cremin, L. (1964). The transformation of the school. New York: Vintage Press.

Czerniak, C. M., Lumpe, A. T., & Haney, J. J. (1999) Teacher's beliefs about thematic units in science. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 10(2), 123–145.

Czerniak, C. M., Weber, W., Sandmann, A., & Ahern, J. (December, 1999). A literature review of science and mathematics integration, School Science and Mathematics, 99(8), 421–430.

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.

Deeds, D. G., Allen, C. S., Callen, B. W., & Wood, M. W. (2000). A new paradigm in integrated math and science courses: Finding common ground across disciplines. Journal of College Science Teaching, 30(3), 178–183.

Dickinson, V. L., & Young, T. A. (1998). Elementary science and language arts: Should we blur the boundaries? School Science and Mathematics, 98(6), 334–339.

Erb, T. O. (2001). This we believe … and now we must act. Westerville, OH: National Middle School Association.

Francis, R. W. (1996). Connecting the curriculum through the national mathematics and science standards. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 7(1), 75–81.

Francis, R., & Underhill, R. G. (1996). A procedure for integrating math and science units. School Science and Mathematics, 96(3), 114–119.

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.

Gardner, H., & Boix-Mansilla, V. (1994). Teaching for understanding within and across the disciplines. Educational Leadership, 51, 14–18.

George, P. S. (1996). The integrated curriculum: A reality check. Middle School Journal, 28, 12–19.

Goldberg, H., & Wagreich, P. (1989). Focus on integrating science and math. Science and Children, 26(5), 22–24.

Greene, L. C. (1991). Science-centered curriculum in elementary school. Educational Leadership, 49, 42–51.

Guthrie, J. T., Wigfield, A., & VonSecker, C. (2000). Effects of integrated instruction on motivation and strategy use in reading. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92(2), 331–341.

Haigh, W., & Rehfeld, D. (1995). Integration of secondary mathematics and science methods courses: A model. School Science and Mathematics, 95(5), 240–247.

Hart, L. C. (2002). Preservice teachers’ beliefs and practice after participating in an integrated content/methods course. School Science and Mathematics, 102(1), 4–14.

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.

Hurd, P. D. (1991). Why we must transform science education. Educational Leadership, 49(2), 33–35.

Hurley, M. M. (1999). Interdisciplinary mathematics and science: Characteristics, forms, and related effect sizes for student achievement and affective outcomes. Doctoral dissertation, University at Albany, State University of New York.

Hurley, M. M. (2001). Reviewing integrated science and mathematics: The search for evidence and definitions from new perspectives. School Science and Mathematics, 101(5), 259–268.

Hurley, M. M. (2003). The presence, value, and reasoning behind integrated science and mathematics methods courses. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Philadelphia.

Institute for Mathematics and Science Education. (1995). Teaching integrated mathematics and science (TIMS). Chicago: University of Illinois at Chicago, Author.

Jacobs, H. H. (1989). Interdisciplinary curriculum: Design and implementation. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Keys, P. (2003). Teachers bending the science curriculum. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Philadelphia.

Koirala, H. P., & Bowman, J. K. (2003). Preparing middle level preservice teachers to integrate mathematics and science: Problems and possibilities. School Science and Mathematics, 103(3), 145–154.

Kotar, M., Guenter, C. E., Metzger, D., & Overholt, J. L. (1998). Curriculum integration: A teacher education model. Science and Children, 35(5), 40–43.

Lawrence Hall of Science. (1984). Great explorations in math and science (GEMS). Berkeley, CA: University of California at Berkeley, Author.

Lederman, N. G., & Niess, M. L. (1997). Integrated, interdisciplinary, or thematic instruction? Is this a question or is it questionable semantics? School Science and Mathematics, 97(2), 57–58.

Lehman, J. R. (1994). Integrating science and mathematics: Perceptions of preservice and practicing elementary teachers. School Science and Mathematics, 94(2), 58–64.

Lehman, J. R., & McDonald, J. L. (1988). Teachers’ perceptions of the integration of mathematics and science. School Science and Mathematics, 88(8), 642–649.

Lonning, R. A., & DeFranco, T. C. (1994). Development and implementation of an integrated mathematics/science preservice elementary methods course. School Science and Mathematics, 94(1), 18–25.

Lonning, R. A., & DeFranco, T. C. (1997). Integration of science and mathematics: A theoretical model. School Science and Mathematics, 97(4), 212–215.

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.

Mason, T. C. (1996). Integrated curricula: Potential and problems. Journal of Teacher Education, 47(4), 263–270.

McBride, J. W., & Silverman, F. L. (1991). Integrating elementary/middle school science and mathematics. School Science and Mathematics, 91(7), 285–292.

McComas, W. F. (1993). STS education and the affective domain. In R. E. Yager (Ed.), What research says to the science teacher, 7: The science, technology, and society movement (pp. 161–168). Washington, DC: National Science Teachers Association.

McComas, W. F., & Wang, H. A. (1998). Blended science: The rewards and challenges of integrating the science disciplines for instruction. School Science and Mathematics, 98(6), 340–348.

McDonald, J., & Czerniak, C. M. (November, 1998). Scaling sharks. School Science and Mathematics, 98(7), 397–399.

McGehee, J. J. (2001). Developing interdisciplinary units: A strategy based on problem solving. School Science and Mathematics, 101(7), 380–389.

Meier, S. L., Nicol, M., & Cobbs, G. (1998). Potential benefits and barriers to integration. School Science and Mathematics, 98(8), 438–447.

Merrill, C. (2001). Integrating technology, mathematics, and science education: A quasi-experiment. Journal of Industrial Teacher Education, 38(3), 45–61.

Minnesota Mathematics and Science Project. (1970). Minneapolis, MN: Minnesota School Mathematics and Science Center.

Moore, E. H. (1967). On the foundations of mathematics. Mathematics Teacher 60, 360–374. A reprint of his 1902 retiring presidential address to the American Mathematical Society, originally published in Science (1903), 402–424.

National Association for the Education of Young Children. (1987). Developmentally appropriate practice in early childhood programs serving children from birth through age 8. Washington, DC: Author.

National Council for the Social Studies. (1994). Curriculum standards for social studies. Washington, DC: Author.

National Council of Teachers of English. (1996). Standards for the English language arts. Urbana, IL: Author; Newark, DE: International Reading Association.

National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (1989). Curriculum and evaluation standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.

National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (1991). Professional standards for teaching mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.

National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.

National Middle School Association. (1982, 1995). This we believe. Columbus, OH: Author.

National Research Council. (1989). Everybody counts: A report to the nation on the future of mathematics education. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

National Science Teachers Association. (1992). The content core. Washington, DC: Author.

National Science Teachers Association. (1996). NSTA board endorses new position statement on interdisciplinary learning, PreK-grade 4. NSTA Reports, 6, 8.

Nesin, G., & Lounsbury, J. (1999). Curriculum integration: Twenty questions—with answers. Atlanta, GA: Georgia National Middle School Association.

Nuffield Foundation Science Teaching Project. (1967). London: Longmans.

Pang, J. S., & Good, R. (2000). A review of the integration of science and mathematics: Implications for further research. School Science and Mathematics, 100(2), 73–82.

Perkins, D. (1991). Educating for insight. Educational Leadership, 49, 4–8.

Peters, T., Schubeck, K., & Hopkins, K. (1995). A thematic approach: Theory and practice at the Aleknagik school. Phi Delta Kappan, 76, 633–636.

Rakow, S. J., & Vasquez, J. (1998). Integrated instruction: A trio of strategies. Science and Children, 35(6): 18–22.

Roebuck, K. I., & Warden, M. A. (1998). Searching for the center on the mathematics-science continuum. School Science and Mathematics, 98(6), 328–333.

Roth, K. J. (1994). Second thoughts about interdisciplinary studies. American Educator, 18(1), 44–48.

Rutherford, J., & Ahlgren, A. (1990). Science for all Americans. New York: Oxford University Press.

Sandmann, A. L., & Ahern, J. F. (2002). Linking literature with life. Silver Spring, MD: National Council for the Social Studies.

Sandmann, A., Weber, W., Czerniak, C., & Ahern, J. (Fall, 1999). Coming full circuit: An integrated unit plan for intermediate and middle grade students, Science Activities 36(3), 13–20.

Shann, M. H. (1977). Evaluation of an interdisciplinary, problem-solving curriculum in elementary science and mathematics, Science Education, 61(4), 491–502.

Smith, C. (2001). Addressing standards through curriculum integration. Middle School Journal, 33(2), 5–6.

St. Clair, B., & Hough, D. L. (1992). Interdisciplinary teaching: A review of the literature. ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. 373 056. Jefferson City, MO.

Stevenson, C., & Carr, J. (1993). Integrated studies: Dancing through walls. New York: Teachers College Press.

Stuessy, C. L. (1993). Concept to application: Development of an integrated mathematics/science methods course for preservice elementary teachers. School Science and Mathematics, 93(2), 55–62.

Stuessy, C. L., & Naizer, G. L. (1996). Reflection and problem solving: Integrating methods of teaching mathematics and science. School Science and Mathematics, 96(4), 170–177.

Underhill, R. (1995). Editorial. School Science and Mathematics, 95(5), 225.

Unified Science and Mathematics for Elementary Schools Project. (1973). Newton, MA: Educational Development Center.

Vars, G. F. (1991). Integrated curriculum in historical perspective. Educational Leadership, 49, 14–15.

Venville, G., Wallace, J., Rennie, L. J., & Malone, J. (1998). The integration of science, mathematics, and technology in a discipline-based culture. School Science and Mathematics, 98(6), 294–302.

Waldrip, B. (2001). Primary teachers’ views about integrating science and literacy. Investigating: Australian Primary & Junior Science Journal, 17(1), 38–41.

Watanabe, T., & Huntley, M. A. (1998). Connecting mathematics and science in undergraduate teacher education programs: Faculty voices from the Maryland Collaborative for Teacher Preparation. School Science and Mathematics, 98(1), 19–25.

Wieseman, K. C., & Moscovici, H. (2003). Stories from the field: Challenges of science teacher education based on interdisciplinary approaches. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 14(2), 127–143.

Willis, S. (November 1992). Interdisciplinary learning: Movement to link the disciplines gains momentum. ASCD Curriculum Update, 1–8.

Zwick, T., & Miller, K. (1996). A comparison of integrated outdoor education activities and traditional science learning with American Indian students. Journal of American Indian Education, 35(2), 1–9.