Promoting science and technology in primary education: a review of integrated curricula

Studies in Science Education

Volumn 50, Issue 1, 2014, Pages 47-84

  Gresnigt, Rens ^a,b   Taconis, Ruurd ^b   van Keulen, Hanno ^b,c   Gravemeijer, Koeno ^b   Baartman, Liesbeth ^d  

^a FONTYS UNIVERSITY OF APPLIED SCIENCES   (Netherlands)

^b EINDHOVEN UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY   (Netherlands)

^c WINDESHEIM UNIVERSITY OF APPLIED SCIENCES   (Netherlands)

^d UNIVERSITY OF APPLIED SCIENCES UTRECHT   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

elementary education; implementation; integrated curricula; primary education; science; technology

Indexed keywords

EID: 84894347290     PISSN: 03057267     EISSN: 19408412     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/03057267.2013.877694     Document Type: Article

References (90)

1. Aiken, W. M. (1942). The story of the eight-year study. New York, NY: Harper & Brothers.
2. Anderson, T. H., West, C. K., Beck, D. P., Macdonell, E. S., & Frisbie, D. S. (1997). Integrating reading and science education: On developing and evaluating WEE science. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 29, 711-734.
3. Appleton, K. (2002). Science activities that work: Perceptions of primary school teachers. Research in Science Education, 32, 393-410.
4. Appleton, K. (2007). Elementary science teaching. In S. K. Abell & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (pp. 493-535). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
5. Australian Academy of Science. (2011). Summary of the Primary Connections research report data. Retrieved October 27, 2011, from http://www.science.org.au/primaryconnections/research-and-evaluation
6. Barber, J., Catz, K. N., Arya, D., & Berkeley, C. A. (2006, April). Improving science content acquisition through a combined science/literacy approach: A quasi-experimental study. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association., San Francisco, CA.
7. Beane, J. A. (1997). Curriculum integration: Designing the core of democratic education. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
8. Berlin, D. F., & Hillen, J. A. (1994). Making connections in math and science: Identifying student outcomes. School Science and Mathematics, 94, 283-290.
9. Burns, R. C. (1995). Dissolving the boundaries: Planning for curriculum integration in middle and secondary schools. Charleston, WV: Appalachia Educational Laboratory.
10. Bybee, R. W. (1997). Achieving scientific literacy: From purposes to practices. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
11. Cervetti, G. N., Pearson, P. D., Barber, J., Hiebert, E. H., & Bravo, M. (2007). Integrating literacy and science: The research we have, the research we need. In M. Pressley (Ed.), Shaping literacy achievement: Research we have, research we need (pp. 157-174). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
12. Cervetti, G. N., Pearson, P. D., Bravo, M. A., & Barber, J. (2006). Reading and writing in the service of inquiry-based science. In R. Douglas, M. Klentschy, & K. Worth (Eds.), Linking science & literacy in the K-8 classroom (pp. 221-244). Arlington, VA: NSTA Press.
13. Chin, C., & Brown, D. E. (2000). Learning in science: A comparison of deep and surface approaches. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37, 109-138.
14. Czerniak, C. M. (2007). Interdisciplinary science teaching. In S. K. Abell & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (pp. 537-559). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
15. Czerniak, C. M., Weber, W. B. J., Sandmann, A., & Ahern, J. (1999). A literature review of science and mathematics integration. School Science and Mathematics, 99, 421-430.
16. Dawson, V. (2009). Science is primary. A review of PrimaryConnections. Canberra: Australian Academy of Science.
17. Deal, D. (1994). A look at project AIMS. School Science and Mathematics, 94, 11-14.
18. Dede, C. (2010). Comparing frameworks for 21st century skills. In J. Bellanca & R. Brandt (Eds.), 21st century skills: Rethinking how students learn (pp. 51-76). Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree Press.
19. Drake, S. M. (1998). Creating integrated curriculum: Proven ways to increase student learning. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
20. Drake, S. M. (2000). Integrated curriculum: A chapter of the curriculum handbook. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
21. Drake, S. M. (2007). Creating standards-based integrated curriculum: Aligning curriculum, content, assessment, and instruction (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
22. Dutch Inspectorate of Education. (2005). Techniek in het basisonderwijs [Techmology in primary school] (Vol. 3). Schiedam: Inspectorate of Education.
23. Ely, D. P. (1990). Conditions that facilitate the implementation of educational technology innovations. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 23, 298-305.
24. Fogarty, R. (1991). Ten ways to integrate curriculum. Educational Leadership, 49, 61-65.
25. Fogarty, R. (2009). How to integrate the curricula (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
26. Fullan, M. (2001). The new meaning of educational change. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
27. Gavelek, J. R., Raphael, T. E., Biondo, S. M., & Wang, D. (1999). Integrated literacy instruction: A review of the literature (Vol. CIERA Report #2-001). Ann Arbor, MI: Center for the Improvement of Early Reading Achievement, University of Michigan.
28. George, P. S. (1996). The integrated curriculum: A reality check. Middle School Journal, 28, 12-19.
29. Girod, M. (2005). Science learning in the terrarium habitats unit. Seeds of science/roots of reading: Effective tools for developing literacy through science in the early grades. Burlington, VT: The Vermont Institutes.
30. Goldschmidt, P., & Jung, H. (2011a). Evaluation of seeds of science/roots of reading: Effective tools for developing literacy through science in the early grades - unit on planets and moons. Los Angeles, CA: National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing (CRESST).
31. Goldschmidt, P., & Jung, H. (2011b). Evaluation of seeds of science/roots of reading: Effective tools for developing literacy through science in the early grades - light energy unit. Los Angeles, CA: University of California, National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing (CRESST).
32. Gravemeijer, K. (2004). Local instruction theories as means of support for teachers in reform mathematics education. Hypothetical Learning Trajectories: A Special Issue of Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 6, 105-128.
33. Guthrie, J. T., McRae, A., Coddington, C. S., Lutz Klauda, S., Wigfield, A., & Barbosa, P. (2009). Impacts of comprehensive reading instruction on diverse outcomes of low- and high-achieving readers. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 42, 195-214.
34. Guthrie, J. T., McRae, A., & Klauda, S. L. (2007). Contributions of concept-oriented reading instruction to knowledge about interventions for motivations in reading. Educational Psychologist, 42, 237-250.
35. Guthrie, J. T., Wigfield, A., Barbosa, P., Perencevich, K. C., Taboada, A., Davis, M., Tonks, S. (2004). Increasing reading comprehension and engagement through concept-oriented reading instruction. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96, 403-423.
36. Hackling, M. W. (2007). Using assessment to improve teaching and learning in primary science. In V. M. Dawson & G. J. Venville (Eds.), The art of teaching primary science (pp. 164-180). London: Allen & Unwin.
37. Hackling, M. W., Peers, S., & Prain, V. (2007). Primary connections: Reforming science teaching in Australian primary schools. Teaching Science, 53, 12-16.
38. Hackling, M. W., & Prain, V. (2005). Primary connections: Stage 2 trial research report. Canberra: Australian Academy of Science.
39. Hackling, M. W., & Prain, V. (2008). Impact of primary connections on students' science processes, literacies of science and attitudes towards science. Canberra: Australian Academy of Science.
40. Haggis, S., & Adey, P. (1979). A review of integrated science education worldwide. Studies in Science Education, 6, 69-89.
41. Hanauer, D. (2005). The multiliteracy tasks of inquiry science instruction: A qualitative study of second grade classroom implementation of the 'shoreline science' science unit. Indiana, PA: Indiana University of Pennsylvania.
42. Harden, R. M. (2000). The integration ladder: A tool for curriculum planning and evaluation. Medical Education, 34, 551-557.
43. Hattie, J. (2003, October). Teachers make a difference: What is the research evidence? Paper presented at the Australian Council for Educational Research Annual Conference on Building Teacher Quality, Melbourne.
44. Hinde, E. R. (2005). Revisiting curriculum integration: A fresh look at an old idea. Social Studies, 96, 105-111.
45. Hurd, P. D. H. (1998). Scientific literacy: New minds for a changing world. Science Education, 82, 407-416.
46. Hurley, M. M. (2001). Reviewing integrated science and mathematics: The search for evidence and definitions from new perspectives. School Science and Mathematics, 101, 259-268.
47. Jacobs, H. H. (Ed.). (1989). Interdisciplinary curriculum: Design and implementation. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
48. James, R. K., Lamb, C. E., Householder, D. L., & Bailey, M. A. (2000). Integrating science, mathematics, and technology in middle school technology-rich environments: A study of implementation and change. School Science and Mathematics, 100, 27-35.
49. Keys, P. M. (2003). Primary and secondary teachers shaping the science curriculum: The influence of teacher knowledge (PhD diss.). Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane.
50. Lawrence Hall of Science. (2012). Seeds of science/roots of reading: Program overview. Retrieved December 2012 from http://scienceandliteracy.org/sites/scienceandliteracy.org/files/ProgramOverview.pdf
51. Léna, P. (2006). Erasmus lecture 2005 from science to education: The need for a revolution. European Review, 14, 3-21. doi:10.1017/S1062798706000020
52. Levitt, K. E. (2002). An analysis of elementary teachers' beliefs regarding the teaching and learning of science. Science Education, 86(1), 1-22.
53. Lewis, T. (2006). Design and inquiry: Bases for an accommodation between science and technology education in the curriculum? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43, 255-281.
54. Martin, M. O., Mullis, I. V. S., Foy, P., & Stanco, G. M. (2012). TIMSS 2011 international results in science. Chestnut Hill, MA: TIMSS & PIRLS International Study Center, Boston College.
55. Morgan, D. L. (1996). Focus groups. Annual Review of Sociology, 22, 129-152.
56. Morgan, D. L., & Spanish, M. T. (1984). Focus groups: A new tool for qualitative research. Qualitative Sociology, 7, 253-270.
57. Muhr, T., & Friese, S. (2004). User's manual for ATLAS.ti 5.0. Berlin: ATLAS.ti Scientific Software Development GmbH.
58. Mulholland, J., & Wallace, J. (2005). Growing the tree of teacher knowledge: Ten years of learning to teach elementary science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42, 767-790.
59. Munier, V., & Merle, H. (2009). Interdisciplinary mathematics-physics approaches to teaching the concept of angle in elementary school. International Journal of Science Education, 31, 1857-1895.
60. Murphy, C., & Beggs, J. (2005). Primary science in the UK: A scoping study. Final report to the Wellcome Trust. London: Wellcome Trust.
61. OECD. (2007). Pisa 2006: Science competencies for tomorrow's world. Executive summaryParis: Author.
62. Orpwood, G. (2007). Assessing scientific literacy: Threats and opportunities. In C. Linder, L. Östman, & P.-O. Wickman (Eds.), Promoting scientific literacy: Science education research in transaction: Proceedings of the Linnaeus tercentenary symposium (pp. 120-129). Uppsala: Uppsala University, Geotryckeriet.
63. Osborne, J., & Dillon, J. (2008). Science education in Europe: Critical reflections. London: The Nuffield Foundation.
64. Osborne, J., Simon, S., & Collins, S. (2003). Attitudes towards science: A review of the literature and its implications. International Journal of Science Education, 25, 1049-1079.
65. Pinto, R. (2005). Introducing curriculum innovations in science: Identifying teachers' transformations and the design of related teacher education. Science Education, 89(1), 1-12.
66. Rennie, L. J., Venville, G. J., & Wallace, J. (2010). Learning science in an integrated classroom: Finding balance through theoretical triangulation. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 43, 139-162.
67. Rennie, L. J., Venville, G. J., & Wallace, J. (2012a). Integrating science, technology, engineering, and mathematics: Issues, reflections, and ways forward. New York, NY: Routledge.
68. Rennie, L. J., Venville, G. J., & Wallace, J. (2012b). Knowledge that counts in a global community: Exploring the contribution of integrated curriculum. London: Routledge.
69. Rocard, M., Csermely, P., Jorde, D., Lenzen, D., Walwerg-Henriksson, H., & Hemmo, V. (2007). Science education now: A renewed pedagogy for the future of Europe. Luxemburg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.
70. Rohaan, E., & Van Keulen, H. (2011). What everyone should know about science and technology. In M. J. de Vries, H. van Keulen, S. Peters, & J. Walma van der Molen (Eds.), Professional development for primary teachers in science and technology (pp. 35-47). Rotterdam: Sense.
71. Romance, N. R., & Vitale, M. R. (1992). A curriculum strategy that expands time for in depth elementary science instruction by using science based reading strategies: Effects of a year long study in grade four. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29, 545-554.
72. Romance, N. R., & Vitale, M. R. (2001). Implementing an in-depth expanded science model in elementary schools: Multi-year findings, research issues, and policy implications. International Journal of Science Education, 23, 373-404.
73. Romance, N. R., & Vitale, M. R. (2008, November 12). Perspectives for improving school instruction and learning: An interdisciplinary model for integrating science and reading in grades K-5. Paper presented at the Committee on Education Workshop on Education Lecture Series, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL.
74. Shulman, L. S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57(1), 1-23.
75. Thijs, A. M., & Van Den Akker, J. J. H. (2009). Curriculum in development. Enschede: SLO, Netherlands Institute for Curriculum Development.
76. Traianou, A. (2006). Understanding teacher expertise in primary science: A sociocultural approach. Rotterdam: Sense.
77. Turner, S., & Ireson, G. (2010). Fifteen pupils' positive approach to primary school science: When does it decline? Educational Studies, 36, 119-141.
78. Tytler, R., & Osborne, J. (2012). Student attitudes and aspirations towards science. In B. Fraser, K. Tobin, & C. McRobbie (Eds.), Second international handbook of science education (pp. 597-625). Dordrecht: Springer.
79. van Aalderen-Smeets, S. I., Walma van der Molen, J. H., & Asma, L. J. (2012). Primary teachers' attitudes toward science: A new theoretical framework. Science Education, 96, 158-182.
80. Van Boxtel, C. (Ed.). (2009). Vakintegratie in de mens- en maatschappijvakken [Integration in the humanities]. Enschede: Printpartners Ipskamp.
81. Vars, G. F. (1996). Effects of interdisciplinary curriculum and instruction. In P. S. Hlebowitsh & W. G. Wraga (Eds.), Annual review of research for school leaders (pp. 147-164). Reston, VA: National Association of Secondary School Principals & Scholastic.
82. Vars, G. F., & Beane, J. A. (2000). Integrative curriculum in a standards-based world (EDO-PS-00-6). Washington, DC: Office of Educational Research and Improvement (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 441 618).
83. Venville, G. J., Rennie, L. J., & Wallace, J. (2012). Curriculum integration: Challenging the assumption of school science as powerful knowledge. In B. Fraser, K. Tobin, & C. McRobbie (Eds.), Second international handbook of science education (pp. 737-749). Dordrecht: Springer.
84. Venville, G. J., Wallace, J., Rennie, L. J., & Malone, J. A. (1998). The integration of science, mathematics, and technology in a discipline based culture. School Science and Mathematics, 98, 294-302.
85. Venville, G. J., Wallace, J., Rennie, L. J., & Malone, J. A. (1999). Science, mathematics and technology: Case studies of integrated teaching. Perth: Curtin University of Technology, Education Department of Western Australia.
86. Venville, G. J., Wallace, J., Rennie, L. J., & Malone, J. A. (2002). Curriculum integration: Eroding the high ground of science as a school subject? Studies in Science Education, 37, 43-84.
87. Vos, M. A. J. (2010). Interaction between teachers and teaching materials: On the implementation of context-based chemistry education (Doctoral disssertation). Eindhoven:Eindhoven School of Education, Eindhoven University of Technology.
88. Wang, J., & Herman J. (2005). Evaluation of seeds of science/roots of reading project: Shoreline science and terrarium investigations. Los Angeles, CA: University of California, National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing & Center for the Study of Evaluation (CSE).
89. Wopereis, I. G., Kirschner, P. A., Paas, F., Stoyanov, S., & Hendriks, M. (2005). Failure and success factors of educational ICT projects: A group concept mapping approach. British Journal of Educational Technology, 36, 681-684.
90. Wraga, W. (1996). A century of interdisciplinary curricula in American schools. In P. S. Hlebowitsh & W. G. Wraga (Eds.), Annual review of research for school leaders (pp. 118-145). Reston, VA: National Association of Secondary School Principals & Scholastic Publishing Company.