CREATING AN INTEGR=
ATED
SCIENCE & MATHEMATICS COLLABORATORY:&n=
bsp;
BUILDING A UNIVERSITY & SCHOOL-BASED PARTNERSHIP TO
Michelle A. Fleming, Dept. of Curriculum &
Instruction,
Frances P. Lawrenz, Dept. of Educational Psychology=
,
Randi Nelson, Dept. of Educational Policy &
Administration, University of
Abstract
This study examines the collaboration and level of integration among urban middle school science and mathematics teachers throughout the development of an integrated science and mathematics unit on measurement.. Using a specific example, this paper describes an innovation in inservice teacher education using collaboration and partnerships to facilit= ate a comprehensive approach to lesson development. Data were collected through inform= al observations, interviews and documentation of the integration and collabora= tion between the two middle school science teachers and two middle school math teachers. Additionally, the participating teachers and researchers collected data on student attitudes = and post content knowledge. Resul= ts indicated that integration of math and science curricula reinforce both teachers and students understanding in potential problem content areas and create a community of teachers that students notice. Furthermore, the integration and collaboration processes were challenging for the teachers to implement.
Building
an Integrative Community of Educators
With stand= ardized testing preeminent in current science educational reform efforts, leading organizations recommend integrating and connecting science and mathematics = in upper grade levels (AAAS, 1993, 1989; NCTM, 1989; NRC, 1996). Integration, in this sense, is def= ined as using science content in math lessons or math content in science lessons= to enhance understanding of the overall math and science content (Basista & Mathews, 2002; Huntley, 1998; Lonning & DeFranco, 1997). Judson and Sawada (2000) highlight= the inequities of instruction, teacher communication, and disintegration and incoherence of students’ conceptions in science and mathematics at the middle school level. Addition= ally, research suggests positive outcomes of science and mathematics integration, especially in terms of student engagement and enthusiasm (Austin, Hirstein, & Walen, 1997; McCliman, 1995; O’Neal, 1995). Lynch posits, “School science education must change so that science is understandable, accessible, and perhaps even enjoyable to all students in Grades K-12,” (2000, p. 9). Warren and Roseberry pres= ent the teacher as the vital decision maker with the greatest impact on student learning and “the creation of classroom communities of scientific sen= se-making,” (1995, p. 299). Therefore, wo= rking to make science and mathematics learning equitable for all students becomes the challenge for all teachers. By using a collaborative and integrative approach, teachers authentically infl= uence instruction, connect students’ understanding between content, and imp= act student attitudes toward learning science and mathematics.
Context: The Rationale and Design of the Co=
llaborative
Evaluation Communities Program
The Collab=
orative
Evaluation Communities in Urban Schools Program (CEC) was developed as a
response to the Evaluative Research and Evaluation Capacity Building (EREC)
program, developed by the National Science Foundation, in an attempt to imp=
rove
the evaluative skills of science and mathematics educators – teachers=
in
K-12 schools and graduate students.
Lynch (2000) argues that the field of science education is not
equitable, especially with low numbers of females and members of minority
ethnic groups participating in science careers, obtaining college science
degrees, and achieving high-standardized test scores in science. The field of science and math educ=
ation
is in need of expertise in the areas of content knowledge and pedagogical
knowledge, particularly to tackle these equity issues.. Graduate students at the
The Nation= al Science Education Standards (NRC, 1996) clearly state that teachers of scie= nce at every grade level must have “theoretical and practical knowledge a= nd abilities about science learning and science teaching,” (p.28). The NRC (1996) further asserts tha= t teachers impose their scientific misunderstanding on students and therefore increase students’ misconceptions about science. Lynch (2000) also points to the devaluing of cultural diversity in educational research as barriers to learning. Science and math teachers’ content knowledge is as important as their pedagogical knowledge when teaching in a middle school science or math classroom. Disparity in subject matter backgr= ound knowledge among cultural and ethnic minority students is a matter of continual concern (Orr, 1997, 1989). The CEC pr= ogram attempted to bridge this gap by using international, national, state, distr= ict, and school science and math student achievement data and to align teacher i= nquiry with the goal of improving student achievement for all students.
Scheurich,= Skrla, and Johnson refer to teachers moving “away from the isolation of teac= hers and into collaborative teaming and learning communities,” (2000, p.7)= , as teachers develop and grow through their interactions and content integration. White (2001, p.4= 66) notes that deficits in science education research remain due in part to the exclusion of the perspective provided by the classroom teacher. White states, “For research = to have a real, long-term effect on practice, it may be necessary to involve m= ore teachers in it. For that reas= on, it is disappointing to find so few authors in the research journals who state affiliation with a school,” (2001, p. 467). Collaborative research among teach= ers, professors, and graduate students was essential to the design of the CEC project. Participating teache= rs showed commitment to the project and were a vital component to the CEC as t= hey guided the evaluative investigations for the math and science content integ= ration.
The
Due to science and mathemat= ics standardized achievement disparities among ethnic-minority groups and by ge= nder at this particular school, the teachers chose to focus on integrating scien= ce and mathematics through a unit on measurement. Assuming integration enhances stud= ent engagement and enthusiasm, the teachers anticipated that integration would = lead to greater positive perceptions for all students in the classroom.
Program
Implementation
Using Parsons’s evaluative inquiry model (2002), the university professors, graduate students, and participating teachers launched the CEC program duri= ng the spring of 2005. Parsons&#= 8217;s model posits that teachers must inquire about their influential role in the classroom, especially in terms of promoting student achievement. The following timeline and descrip= tion of CEC activities illustrate this process.
Spring= 2005. The university professors, graduat= e students, and teachers examined international, national, state and district data in m= ath and science during the CEC kickoff meeting at the end of March. Focusing on the TIMSS, SAT-10 and = MCA data, the teachers reflected on their current practices. The CEC group met once a month in = April and May to generate challenge statements, which were presented as opportuni= ties to do something new at their school. Example challenge statements included students’ entry at the school and integration of math and science curriculum and instruction. At the beginning of June, prior to= the end of the academic school year, the CEC developed and administered a questionnaire to the seventh and eighth grade students, and analyzed and synthesized the data. Finding= that merely 36% of the seventh and eighth graders had started in first grade at = this particular school, the teachers discussed the data in terms of implications= for their instructional and curricular decisions.
Summer = 2005. Over the summer, the CEC met for a two-day workshop to allow teachers time to explore math and science standar= ds and research studies on integration of math and science. Teachers integrated math and scien= ce pedagogy and content through a unit on measurement, to enhance a sense of collaboration and to establish common expectations for their students.
Fall 20= 05. In the middle of August and again = at the beginning of September, the CEC met to position and plan the inquiry. With the implementation of the teachers’ integrative math and science units on measurement during the months of September and October, the CEC developed and implemented a variet= y of assessment instruments. Surve= ys were developed and administered to students to collect information on their= attitudes and beliefs towards science and math at the beginning and at the end of the measurement unit. Additionall= y, teachers’ lessons and assessments were discussed during informal interviews and scheduled monthly meetings to guide the teachers to make data-based decisions about math and science integration in their classrooms.
Methodology
The methods
employed to complete the measurement inquiry set forth by the teachers of t=
he
Student= Surveys. Using a Likert-like scale, 285 stu= dents were quantitatively measured before and after the measurement unit. Questions for surveys came from pr= evious science and math education research on attitudes (Lawrenz, 2005). The post survey contained all of t= he questions found on the pre test with additionally more specific questions a= bout attitudes in math and science, as well as parental involvement and interest= in math and science. Paired t-te= sts of the pre and post surveys were run to compare pretest and posttest scores and see if students’ attitudes changed as a result of the collaboration a= nd integration. Using analysis of variance (ANOVA), the CEC team of researchers and teachers factored by grad= e level, gender, ethnicity and student-reported parental involvement to examine particular groups’ preferences.
Observa=
tions
and Teacher Interviews.
Observations of classrooms procedures, assessments, teachers, and
students were done informally by the graduate students and researchers.
Results
&= nbsp; Students. Although attitudes tended to incre= ase towards science and mathematics, no significant differences from the pre to post surveys overall were found. The pre and post surveys were administered in a three week period of time, making it difficult for the teachers to change students’ attitu= des towards these content areas. Students reported similar attitudes towards science before and after= the inquiry, showing little effect of the integration and collaboration process= in the quantitative data.
&= nbsp; However during classroom observations, students in general remarked that they knew = the teachers were working together to combine science and mathematics through measurement. The majority of students indicated that collaboration between the teachers was taking place= and that this was made the two classes “interesting” or “exciting” for them.
&= nbsp; The teachers reported that the integrated performance assessment showed students’ misconceptions related to squared and cubed units and significant figures in answers had not changed due to their instructional efforts.
Teach=
er
Collaboration
&= nbsp; Teachers were observed at various points throughout the study, always informally at meetings and during conversations about the project. The teachers shared that they had = rarely, if ever, collaborated in the past on curriculum within or between grade levels. At the beginning of t= he inquiry, teachers were surprised to learn how much overlap there was in measurement content between math and science in each grade level. Teachers found that they all converted units, had topics related to mass, volume, and length, and taught measurement using tools. Teachers became excited as they em= barked on their first collaborative unit. There was not much collaboration between the two grade levels, but rather the seventh grade teachers created a separate unit from the eighth g= rade teachers. However, the eighth= grade teachers were inspired by the seventh grade teachers to utilize their performance assessment. The e= ighth grade science teacher exclaimed, “I just wanted to see how our eighth graders would do.”
Collaborat= ion at the two grade levels was different. The seventh grade teachers created a unit where measurement tools created in science class were used and reinforced in math class. The eighth grade teachers asked the students to gather data in science class that was then analyzed in math cla= ss. Observably, the teachers worked to= gether and discussed ideas both between grade levels and within their grade level.=
After coll= ecting and analyzing the student surveys, teachers were presented with the graphic= al data. The seventh grade math teacher said, “The data is interesting, it will be useful when we do more”. Overall the teac= hers were observed to be interested in the data and expressed that they thought = it was a worthwhile effort.
Discussion
The streng= th in teacher collaboration really extends to the theories of how people should w= ork together. Palincsar et al (20= 01) assert that teachers need strong content knowledge in order to adequately explain concepts to their students. Collaborating with colleagues and feeling peer and administrative support, teachers should be interactive in nature versus individualized and text-based (Palincsar et al, 2001). The participating teachers collaborated on integrative lessons that targeted active strategies and encouraged student participation in their classrooms. However by the en= d of the integration and collaboration processes, the participating teachers mov= ed to conducting individualized, non-integrative units of study. Even with the support of outside assistance from the researchers, graduate students, and administrators, the teachers did not see the value of further integrating content areas, claimi= ng it was too challenging due to their time constraints, extra planning effort= s, arrangement of the students, and organization of the class schedules.
The theme = of building relationships and communication between cultures is evident as Del= pit states, “What should we be doing?&nb= sp; The answer, I believe, lies not in a proliferation of new reform programs but in some basic understandings of who we are and how we are connected to and disconnected from one another,” (1988, p. xv). The underlying assumption of this = study was that science and mathematics teacher collaboration and integration woul= d produce greater student enthusiasm and higher engagement in science and mathematics= . Through collaborative relationship= s and communication among teachers, pedagogy and learning would be enhanced. In order to examine this assumptio= n, the study examined the attitudes of middle school students before and after the integration of a measurement unit, students’ perceptions and concepti= ons of measurement, and the teachers’ documented (see Appendix A) = and informally observed collaboration and integration processes.. However, this assumption was not v= alid due to a variety of unforeseen tensions or challenges.
Future = Teacher Collaboration. The concep= t of integrating math and science is vaguely defined in both the literature and research, to some extent echoing the attempted focus of integration between= the participating teachers in this study. Integration of math and science was difficult for the teachers to de= fine and put into practice. At a n= ovice level, teachers were able to bridge science and mathematics instruction and curriculum for a one week period of time.&= nbsp; However time constraints, incompatible teaching schedules, unshared preparation, hierarchical tensions among the teachers, disorganized materia= ls and curricular obligations were unanticipated obstacles for implementing th= ese integrated lessons and collaborative experiences.
Factors th= at facilitate integration include a strong collegial support system, strong administrative support, and adequate financial support. Factors that limit integration of curriculum include time, lack of instructional and curricular models, and h= igh achievement expectations (Huntley, 1998). Examples of the teachers’ facilitation of this integration inq= uiry included active participation in summer workshop and the before and after school meetings, participants’ enthusiasm for sharing their content e= xpertise, their dynamic guidance throughout the inquiry process, and their eagerness = to gather and view the data. Tea= chers have begun thinking more purposefully about the use and impact of data. They have started asking thoughtful questions about their students’ learning and collecting data that will lead to these answers. Further research needs to be collected on teachers’ perceptions of collaborat= ion and the impact of collaboration and the use of data to make instructional a= nd curricular decisions over time.
References
American Association for the
Advancement of Science.
(1989). Science for=
all
Americans..
American
Association for the Advancement of Science. (1993). Project 2061:
Benchmarks
for science literacy.
Austin, J. D= ., Hirstein, J., & Walen, S. (1997). Integrated mathematics interfaced with
science.
Basista, B.,= & Mathews, S. (2002).. Integrated Science and Mathematics Professional
Development Programs. School Science a= nd Mathematics, 102(7), 359-370.
Caracelli, V=
. J.,
& Greene, J. C. (1993).
evaluation designs. Educational Evalu= ation & Policy Analysis, 15(2), 195-207.
Delpit, L. (1988). Introduc= tion; Skills and Other Dilemmas of a Progressive Black
Educator; The Silenced Dialogue: Po=
wer
and Pedagogy in Educating Other People’s Children (pp. xi-47). In Other People’s Childre=
n:
Cultural Conflict in the Classroom.&nb=
sp;
Greene, J. C= ., Caracelli, V. J., & Graham, W. F. (1989). Toward a conce= ptual
framework = for mixed-method evaluation designs. Educational Evaluation & Policy Analysis, 11(3), 255-274.
Haury, D. L. (2003) Fundamental Skills in Science: Measurement.
ERICCle= aringhouse for Science Mathematics and Environmental Education. ED482721. =
Huntley, M.A= . (1998). Design and implementation of a fra= mework for defining
integrated mathematics and science education. <= /span>School Science and Mathematics, 98(6), 320-327.
Huntley, M. A. (1998) Theoretical and Empirical Investig= ations of Integrated
Mathematic= s and Science Education in the Middle Grades.&nb= sp; ERDS. ED420525.
Hurley, M. M= . (2001). Reviewing integrated science and mathematics: The search for
evidence a=
nd
definitions from new perspectives. <=
/span>School
Science and
Mathema= tics, 101(5), 259-268.
Judson, E., = & Sawada, D. (2000). Examining the effects of a reformed junior high
school sci= ence class on students’ math achievement. School Science and Mathematics,= 100(8), 419-425.
Lawrenz, F. (2005).
Instrum= ents. Retrieved August, 2005. http://educati= on.umn.edu/CAREI/CETP/Instruments.htm.
Lawrenz, F. (2005).
Instrum= ents (CAREI). Retrieved August, 2005. http://education.umn.edu/CAREI/SI/instruments.html
Lonning, R. = A., & DeFranco, T. C. (1997).= Integration of science and mathema= tics: A
theoretical model. School Science and Mathematics, 97(4), 212-215.
Lynch, S. J. (2000). Equity and Science Education Re=
form..
Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.
Mattern, N., & Schau, C= . (2002) Gender Differences in Science Atti= tude- Achievement
Relationsh= ips Over Time Among White Middle-School Students. Journal of Research in Science Tea= ching. 39(4), 324-340.
McCliman, R. D. (1995). The effect of two instructional methodologies of
interdisci= plinary and traditional schedules and gender on the academic
achievemen= t of ninth graders. Dissertation Abstracts International, 56(3), 883A.
(University Microfilms No. AAC 95-22599).
National Council of Teacher=
s of
Mathematics. (1989). Curriculum and evaluation
standar=
ds for
school mathematics.
National Research Council.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> (1996). National Science Education Stan= dards.
O’Neal= , E. N. (1995). An evaluation of an interdisciplin= ary science course designed to
help at-ri= sk students. Dissertation Abs= tracts International, 56(8), 3071A.&nb= sp;
(University Microfilms No. AAC 95-43130).
Orr, E.
W. (1989, 1997). Chapter 1: Introduction; Chapter 3: Subtraction. In=
Twice
as
Less: Black English and the Performance of Black Stud=
ents
in Mathematics and Science (pp. 17-4=
7,
63-68).
Palincsar,
A. et al (2001).. Making science accessible to all: Results of a des=
ign
experiment in inclusive classrooms. Learning Disab= ility Quarterly, 24, 15-32.
Parsons,
B.A. (2002). Evaluative Inquiry: Using
Evaluation To Promote Student
Success=
.
Rosser, S. V. (1995). Introduction: Reaching the Majority, Retaining Women in the
Pipeline.<=
span
style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> Teaching the Majority.
Scheurich,
J.J., Skrla, L., Johnson, J.F. (2000). Thinking carefully about equity and
accountability. Phi Delta Kappan, December, 29= 3-299
Warren,
B. & Rosebery, A.S. (1995). Equity in the future tense: Redefining relationship=
s
among teachers, students, and science in linguistic m=
inority
classrooms. In W. G. Secada, E. Fennema & L. B. Adajian (Eds.), New
Directions for Equity in Mathematics Education (pp. 298-328).
Webb, E. J., Campbell, D. T=
.,
Schwartz, R. D., & Sechrest, L.
(1996). Unobtrusive=
measure=
s:
Nonreactive research in the social sciences.
Weinburgh, M. H. (2000). Gender, Ethnicity, and Grade Level= as Predictors of
Middle Sch= ool Students’ Attitudes toward Science.&= nbsp; ERDS. ED 442662.
White, R. (Ed.), Handbook of the Research on Tea=
ching,
4th edition (pp. 457-471). American Educational Research
Association: Corporate Author. Appendix=
A: CEC Project TimelineCEC Proje=
ct
Timeline for Year 1