Interdisciplinary Science Teaching

Handbook of Research on Science Education

Volumn , Issue , 2013, Pages 537-559

  Czerniak, Charlene M ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TOLEDO   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 85145535696     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.4324/9780203824696-22     Document Type: Chapter

References (109)

1. AIMS Educational Foundation. (1986). Activities integrating math and science. Fresno, CA: Author.
2. AIMS Educational Foundation. (1987). Math _ science: A solution. Fresno, CA: Author.
3. Akerson, V. L. (2001). Teaching science when your principal says, “Teach language arts.” Science and Children, 38(7), 42-47.
4. Arredondo, D. E., and Rucinski, T. T. (1996). Integrated curriculum: Its use, initiation and support in Midwestern schools. Mid-Western Educational Researcher, 9(2), 37-44.
5. Barab, S. A., and Landa, A. (1997). Designing effective interdisciplinary anchors. Educational Leadership, 54(6), 52-55.
6. Basista, B., and Mathews, S. (2002). Integrated science and mathematics professional development programs. School Science and Mathematics, 102(7), 360-370.
7. Basista, B., Tomlin, J., Pennington, K., and Pugh, D. (2001). Inquiry-based integrated science and mathematics professional development program. Education, 121(3), 615-624.
8. Beane, J. A. (1993, 1997). Amiddle school curriculum: From rhetoric to reality. Columbus, OH: National Middle School Association.
9. Beane, J. (1995). Curriculum integration and the disciplines of knowledge. Phi Delta Kappan, 76, 616-622.
10. Beane, J. (1996). On the shoulders of giants! The case for curriculum integration. Middle School Journal, 28, 6-11.
11. Beane, J. A. (1997). Curriculum integration: Designing the core of democratic education. New York:Teachers College Press.
12. 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.
13. Berlin, D. (1994). The integration of science and mathematics education: Highlights from the NSF/SSMAWingspread conference plenary papers. School Science and Mathematics, 94(1), 32-35.
14. Berlin, D. F., and Hillen, J. A. (1994). Making connections in math and science: Identifying student outcomes. School Science and Mathematics, 94(6), 283-290.
15. Berlin, D., and White, A. (1992). Report from the NSF/SSMAWingspread conference: Anetwork for integrated science and mathematics teaching and learning. School Science and Mathematics, 92(6), 340-342.
16. Berlin, D., and White, A. (1994). The Berlin-White integrated science and mathematics model (BWISM). School Science and Mathematics, 94(1), 2-4.
17. Bragow, D., Gragow, K. A., and Smith, E. (1995). Back to the future: Toward curriculum integration. Middle School Journal, 27, 39-46.
18. Brazee, E. N., and Capelluti, J. (1995). Dissolving boundaries: Toward an integrative curriculum. Columbus, OH: National Middle School Association.
19. Briscoe, C., and 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.
20. Brooks, J. G., and Brooks, M. G. (1993). In search of understanding: The case for constructivist classrooms. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
21. Brown, W. R., and 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.
22. BSCS. (1994). Innovations in science education survey instrument. Colorado Springs, CO: Author.
23. Canady, R. (1995). Block scheduling: A catalyst for change in high schools. Princeton, NJ: Eye on Education.
24. Canady, R., and Rettig, M. (1996). Teaching in the block: Strategies for engaging active learners. Princeton, NJ: Eye on Education.
25. 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.
26. Cleland, J. V., Wetzel, K. A., Zambo, R., Buss, R. R., and 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.
27. Cohen, P. (1995). Understanding the brain: Educators seek to apply brain research. ASCD Education Update, 37(7), 1, 4-5.
28. Crane, S. (1991). Integrated science in a restructured high school. Educational Leadership 49(2), 39-41.
29. Cremin, L. (1964). The transformation of the school. New York: Vintage Press.
30. Czerniak, C. M., Lumpe, A. T., and Haney, J. J. (1999) Teacher’s beliefs about thematic units in science. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 10(2), 123-145.
31. Czerniak, C. M., Weber, W., Sandmann, A., and Ahern, J. (December, 1999). A literature review of science and mathematics integration, School Science and Mathematics, 99(8), 421-430.
32. Davison, D. M., Miller, K. W., and Metheny, D. L. (1995). What does integration of science and mathematics really mean? School Science and Mathematics, 95(5), 226-230.
33. Deeds, D. G., Allen, C. S., Callen, B. W., and 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.
34. Dickinson, V. L., and Young, T. A. (1998). Elementary science and language arts: Should we blur the boundaries? School Science and Mathematics, 98(6), 334-339.
35. Erb, T. O. (2001). This we believe… and now we must act. Westerville, OH: National Middle School Association.
36. Francis, R. W. (1996). Connecting the curriculum through the national mathematics and science standards. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 7(1), 75-81.
37. Francis, R., and Underhill, R. G. (1996). A procedure for integrating math and science units. School Science and Mathematics, 96(3), 114-119.
38. 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.
39. Gardner, H., and Boix-Mansilla, V. (1994). Teaching for understanding within and across the disciplines. Educational Leadership, 51, 14-18.
40. George, P. S. (1996). The integrated curriculum: A reality check. Middle School Journal, 28, 12-19.
41. Goldberg, H., and Wagreich, P. (1989). Focus on integrating science and math. Science and Children, 26(5), 22-24.
42. Greene, L. C. (1991). Science-centered curriculum in elementary school. Educational Leadership, 49, 42-51.
43. Guthrie, J. T., Wigfield, A., and VonSecker, C. (2000). Effects of integrated instruction on motivation and strategy use in reading. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92(2), 331-341.
44. Haigh, W., and Rehfeld, D. (1995). Integration of secondary mathematics and science methods courses: A model. School Science and Mathematics, 95(5), 240-247.
45. 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.
46. 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.
47. Hurd, P. D. (1991). Why we must transform science education. Educational Leadership, 49(2), 33-35.
48. 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.
49. 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.
50. 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.
51. Institute for Mathematics and Science Education. (1995). Teaching integrated mathematics and science (TIMS). Chicago: University of Illinois at Chicago, Author.
52. Jacobs, H. H. (1989). Interdisciplinary curriculum: Design and implementation. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
53. Keys, P. (2003). Teachers bending the science curriculum. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Philadelphia.
54. Koirala, H. P., and 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.
55. Kotar, M., Guenter, C. E., Metzger, D., and Overholt, J. L. (1998). Curriculum integration: A teacher education model. Science and Children, 35(5), 40-43.
56. Lawrence Hall of Science. (1984). Great explorations in math and science (GEMS). Berkeley, CA: University of California at Berkeley, Author.
57. Lederman, N. G., and 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.
58. Lehman, J. R. (1994). Integrating science and mathematics: Perceptions of preservice and practicing elementary teachers. School Science and Mathematics, 94(2), 58-64.
59. Lehman, J. R., and McDonald, J. L. (1988). Teachers’ perceptions of the integration of mathematics and science. School Science and Mathematics, 88(8), 642-649.
60. Lonning, R. A., and DeFranco, T. C. (1994). Development and implementation of an integrated mathematics/science preservice elementary methods course. School Science and Mathematics, 94(1), 18-25.
61. Lonning, R. A., and DeFranco, T. C. (1997). Integration of science and mathematics: A theoretical model. School Science and Mathematics, 97(4), 212-215.
62. Lonning, R. A., DeFranco, T. C., and Weinland, T. P. (1998). Development of theme-based, interdisciplinary, integrated curriculum: Atheoretical model. School Science and Mathematics, 98(6), 312-319.
63. Mason, T. C. (1996). Integrated curricula: Potential and problems. Journal of Teacher Education, 47(4), 263-270.
64. McBride, J. W., and Silverman, F. L. (1991). Integrating elementary/middle school science and mathematics. School Science and Mathematics, 91(7), 285-292.
65. 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.
66. McComas, W. F., and 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.
67. McDonald, J., and Czerniak, C. M. (November, 1998). Scaling sharks. School Science and Mathematics, 98(7), 397-399.
68. McGehee, J. J. (2001). Developing interdisciplinary units: A strategy based on problem solving. School Science and Mathematics, 101(7), 380-389.
69. Meier, S. L., Nicol, M., and Cobbs, G. (1998). Potential benefits and barriers to integration. School Science and Mathematics, 98(8), 438-447.
70. Merrill, C. (2001). Integrating technology, mathematics, and science education: Aquasi-experiment. Journal of Industrial Teacher Education, 38(3), 45-61.
71. Minnesota Mathematics and Science Project. (1970). Minneapolis, MN: Minnesota School Mathematics and Science Center.
72. Moore, E. H. (1967). On the foundations of mathematics. Mathematics Teacher 60, 360-374. Areprint of his 1902 retiring presidential address to the American Mathematical Society, originally published in Science (1903), 402-424.
73. 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.
74. National Council for the Social Studies. (1994). Curriculum standards for social studies.Washington, DC: Author.
75. National Council of Teachers of English. (1996). Standards for the English language arts. Urbana, IL: Author; Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
76. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (1989). Curriculum and evaluation standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.
77. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (1991). Professional standards for teaching mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.
78. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.
79. National Middle School Association. (1982, 1995). This we believe. Columbus, OH: Author.
80. National Research Council. (1989). Everybody counts: A report to the nation on the future of mathematics education. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
81. National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
82. National Science Teachers Association. (1992). The content core. Washington, DC: Author.
83. National Science Teachers Association. (1996). NSTA board endorses new position statement on interdisciplinary learning, PreK-grade 4. NSTA Reports, 6, 8.
84. Nesin, G., and Lounsbury, J. (1999). Curriculum integration: Twenty questions-with answers. Atlanta, GA: Georgia National Middle School Association.
85. Nuffield Foundation Science Teaching Project. (1967). London: Longmans.
86. Pang, J. S., and Good, R. (2000). A review of the integration of science and mathematics: Implications for further research. School Science and Mathematics, 100(2), 73-82.
87. Perkins, D. (1991). Educating for insight. Educational Leadership, 49, 4-8.
88. Peters, T., Schubeck, K., and Hopkins, K. (1995). A thematic approach: Theory and practice at the Aleknagik school. Phi Delta Kappan, 76, 633-636.
89. Rakow, S. J., and Vasquez, J. (1998). Integrated instruction: A trio of strategies. Science and Children, 35(6): 18-22.
90. Roebuck, K. I., and Warden, M. A. (1998). Searching for the center on the mathematics-science continuum. School Science and Mathematics, 98(6), 328-333.
91. Roth, K. J. (1994). Second thoughts about interdisciplinary studies. American Educator, 18(1), 44-48.
92. Rutherford, J., and Ahlgren, A. (1990). Science for all Americans. New York: Oxford University Press.
93. Sandmann, A. L., and Ahern, J. F. (2002). Linking literature with life. Silver Spring, MD: National Council for the Social Studies.
94. Sandmann, A., Weber, W., Czerniak, C., and Ahern, J. (Fall, 1999). Coming full circuit: An integrated unit plan for intermediate and middle grade students, Science Activities 36(3), 13-20.
95. Shann, M. H. (1977). Evaluation of an interdisciplinary, problem-solving curriculum in elementary science and mathematics, Science Education, 61(4), 491-502.
96. Smith, C. (2001). Addressing standards through curriculum integration. Middle School Journal, 33(2), 5-6.
97. St. Clair, B., and Hough, D. L. (1992). Interdisciplinary teaching: A review of the literature. ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. 373 056. Jefferson City, MO.
98. Stevenson, C., and Carr, J. (1993). Integrated studies: Dancing through walls. New York: Teachers College Press.
99. 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.
100. Stuessy, C. L., and Naizer, G. L. (1996). Reflection and problem solving: Integrating methods of teaching mathematics and science. School Science and Mathematics, 96(4), 170-177.
101. Underhill, R. (1995). Editorial. School Science and Mathematics, 95(5), 225.
102. Unified Science and Mathematics for Elementary Schools Project. (1973). Newton, MA: Educational Development Center.
103. Vars, G. F. (1991). Integrated curriculum in historical perspective. Educational Leadership, 49, 14-15.
104. Venville, G., Wallace, J., Rennie, L. J., and Malone, J. (1998). The integration of science, mathematics, and technology in a discipline-based culture. School Science and Mathematics, 98(6), 294-302.
105. Waldrip, B. (2001). Primary teachers’ views about integrating science and literacy. Investigating:Australian Primary and Junior Science Journal, 17(1), 38-41.
106. Watanabe, T., and 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.
107. Wieseman, K. C., and 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.
108. Willis, S. (November 1992). Interdisciplinary learning: Movement to link the disciplines gains momentum. ASCD Curriculum Update, 1-8.
109. Zwick, T., and 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.