Stepping into iSMART: Understanding Science-Mathematics Integration for Middle School Science and Mathematics Teachers

Stepping into iSMART: Understanding Science–Mathematics Integrationfor Middle School Science and Mathematics Teachers

Mimi Miyoung LeeUniversity of Houston

Jennifer B. ChauvotUniversity of Houston

Julie VowellTexas Wesleyan University

Shea Mosley CulpepperUniversity of Houston

Brian J. PlankisIndiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis (IUPUI)

This paper is based on an online graduate program for middle school science and mathematics teachers in Texas titledIntegration of Science, Mathematics and Reflective Teaching (iSMART). Launching the program for its first cohort in fall2010, the authors attempted to answer the following two questions in this paper: (a) How do the members of the iSMARTdesign team and the first cohort of teacher participants define science and mathematics integration with similar anddifferent emphases? and (b) How would these definitions and concerns impact the ongoing design of the program? TheiSMART design team members and the participating cohort teachers had a shared view regarding the importance ofintegration and its possible impact on student motivation. The findings also revealed that the two groups showed somedifferent points of emphasis in their definitions of integration. These issues will be addressed in the ongoing design ofthe program in the following three areas: (a) design of the second summer meeting activities, (b) greater emphasis onteacher as researcher and action research, and (c) administrative support for teacher collaboration.

As educators see the need to provide more authenticlearning contexts and corresponding approaches to teach-ing in this complex world, the issue of curricular integra-tion becomes increasingly important. If we understand thatreal-life problems do not present themselves as separatesubject topics, it is only logical for educators to find waysto help students see the interconnectedness among relatedsubject areas. In this regard, attempts have been made forintegrated instruction, most notably in the areas of scienceand mathematics.

Any exploration of previous writings advocating theneed for integrated programs in science and mathematicsquickly reveals the dearth of research based on localizedcase studies of the actual implementation of such inte-grated programs. Even for those who are convinced of theneeds for such integration, there is a noticeable lack ofclarity regarding what such integration might look like forteacher education, and, accordingly, for the teachers’actual classroom practices. This lack of guidance andunderstanding presents a huge dilemma for science-mathematics integration.

In response to these issues, this paper presents the first ina series of studies designed within a unique project aimed toprovide an online graduate program for middle gradesscience and mathematics teachers in Texas.1 The resultinggraduate-level program focuses on the Integration of

Science, Mathematics and Reflective Teaching (iSMART).Examining the current understanding and conceptualiza-tion of the science and mathematics integration by theiSMART team will provide the information and knowledgenecessary in designing the funded master’s program for thefirst cohort that commenced in 2010. It should also revealinnovative ideas and suggestions for program modificationsin the years to follow. Our initial research questions relatedto iSMART are detailed below and are followed by a briefsummary of the iSMART program.

We explored two research questions for this study: (a)How do members of the iSMART design team and the firstcohort of teacher participants define science and math-ematics integration with similar and different emphases?and (b) How would these definitions and concerns impactthe ongoing design of the program? Such questions wereraised in response to the fact that research in the field hadyet to document and address possible gaps between theassumptions of the designing team and the students at thebeginning stages of a project such as iSMART. Educatorswho are interested in creating an integrated program willbenefit from this focused investigation into participants’conceptualizations of iSMART and insights into how suchviews impacted the actual program design throughout theiterative design process. The specificity of the definitionof science and mathematics integration as well as the

School Science and Mathematics 159

inherent iSMART program goals should also prove inter-esting to those intending to create or implement similarprograms or hoping to extend iSMART to their regions. Itis equally important to understand the perspectives of thefirst cohort of iSMART teachers related to the intentionsand educational philosophy of the program as well as thechallenges that these teachers face. If the initial concernsof the first year cohort of iSMART participants are betterunderstood, reflected upon, and addressed by the designteam, the chances for program success are significantlyincreased. As a result, the possible gaps between the defi-nitions and perspectives of these two parties should also beexplored so they can be incorporated into the future designof the program.The iSMART Project: Description of the Eventsand Practices

This study is couched in a funded online science andmathematics education graduate program for middleschool science and mathematics teachers across Texas.The funding period of six years supports four cohorts of25 teachers and will result in the development of in-depthcontent and pedagogical knowledge and leadership skillsthrough reflective collaboration with online classmates.At the start of this research endeavor, the iSMARTproject had selected its first cohort of 25 teachers and waspreparing to begin instruction for the first semester. Thisstudy pulls from data collected during the initial planningyear and through the face-to-face summer orientationwith the first cohort of teachers. This analysis includes

the design stage where the researchers developed cur-ricula, designed online instruction, and prepared for par-ticipant selection. While we plan to examine variousaspects of this project during the next few years, the firststep taken for this paper focuses on the design principlesand considerations related to how we conceptualize thisonline integrated program specific to local educatorsacross the state of Texas. Figures 1 and 2 illustrate theproposed five-semester (Fall, Spring, Summer, Fall,Spring) sequence.

As seen in Figures 1 and 2, the program offers a balanceof content in science and mathematics education. Inaddition, iSMART provides coursework in educationalresearch as well as the required college core related tocurriculum, learning, and inquiry. The first year is fullyplanned out with a deliberate focus on science, mathemat-ics, and the integration of these two subjects. To accom-plish these goals, it explores the teachers’ classrooms aswell as their students’ thinking. The second year continuesthese themes with an additional focus on the college core,leadership, and educational research. Reflective practicesare embedded across the coursework.

Twenty-five middle school science and mathematicsteachers were selected for iSMART’s first cohort that offi-cially began in the fall of 2010. To start the program, theseteachers attended a 21/2-day, face-to-face, summer orien-tation. Of the initial participants, 10 were science teachers,14 were mathematics teachers, and one teacher taughtboth science and mathematics. iSMART teachers were

Semester 1 (6 credit hours) Semester 2 (6 credit hours)Courses Content Overview Courses Content Overview

• A focus on PR as a construct• Research about childrenís

thinking• Lesson design &

implementation• Reflections on practice• Inquiry-based instruction• Models of integration • TEKS analysis

• Teacher Change• Science/Mathematics

Curriculum Reform• Teacher Leadership• Grant writing• Research in

Science/Mathematics Education

Summer Activities

• 5 days• Face-to-face• Administrators & others included

• Show & Tell (Video, etc): Exemplars of the group• Room to Grow: Workshops• Guest speakers – Middle school science/math in industry,

business, space, medical, etc.

Developing ProportionalReasoning

Issues in Science and Mathematics Education

Teaching Middle Grades Science

Curriculum Development in Science Education

Figure 1. The first year of iSMART program.

Science–Mathematics Integration for Middle School

160 Volume 113 (4)

expected to work online collaboratively in groups of fourto five, with both science and mathematics teachers ineach group. They engaged in analyzing, writing, andimplementing integrated science and mathematics lessons.In addition, they examined theories of learning as well asmodels related to the integration of science and mathemat-ics, studied children’s thinking of science and mathemat-ics, reflected and analyzed videos of own and peers’instructional practices, and participated in leadership andresearch activities.

Theoretical Framework and PerspectivesGiven the goals and context stated previously, the design

team thought carefully about the learning theory andinstructional design approaches underlying the iSMARTmodel. Members of the iSMART design team shared per-spectives of situated cognitivists and many learning scien-tists that cognition is not a single product or process thatcan be located within the individual thinker’s mind (Barab& Squire, 2004). Context matters not as a secondary con-struct but as an integral part of cognition itself. In thisview, cognition is not an individual process that is influ-enced by the context but a social process that is madepossible only with the context. As part of this perspective,the social constructivists’ emphasis on providing authenticlearning environments and collaborative problem solvingserves as the framework for the iSMART project.

Research about the professional development of scienceand mathematics teachers (Mewborn, 2003; Spektor-Levy,Eylon, & Scherz, 2008) consistently identify conditionsthat support teacher learning. Mewborn (2003) provides aconcise summary: (a) teacher thinking needs to be thecenter of professional development sessions; (b) teachersneed to revisit the content they teach to gain insights intointerconnections among topics; (c) teachers must have

experiences that involve analyzing students’ reasoning; (d)professional development opportunities must be linked topractice; (e) teachers need collegial support; and (f) teach-ers need opportunities to reflect individually on theirteaching. These conditions are embedded throughout ourprogram.Integration of Science and Mathematics

During the past few decades, many educators havebecome increasingly interested in the connection betweenscience and mathematics instruction (Frykholm &Glasson, 2005; Hamm, 1992; Huntley, 1998; Judson &Sawada, 2000; Pang & Good, 2000; Venville, Wallace,Rennie, & Malone, 1998). Berlin and Lee’s (2005) exami-nation of several documents revealed that reform docu-ments such as Science for All Americans (Rutherford &Ahlgren, 1990) have all recommended the integration ofschool mathematics and science. The research has alsoshowed that middle school science continues to be high-lighted in integrated instructional documents, eventhough, in recent years, a greater emphasis has been placedupon secondary science and mathematics education.

A common thread within the literature related to theintegration of science and mathematics is the utilization ofmathematical methods in science instruction or employingscientific examples and methods in mathematics instruc-tion. All of this occurs while taking the necessary steps tocoordinate the curricula of the two subjects (e.g., Steen,1994). Some literature capitalizes on this view of integra-tion and provides processes for teachers to consider. Forexample, Lonning and DeFranco (1997) provide a con-tinuum model to utilize when assessing activities for theircapacity to teach an integrated science and mathematicslesson. On each end, an activity may be assessed as either“independent mathematics” or “independent science.” Themiddle of the continuum is characterized as “balanced”

Semester 4 (9 credit hours) Semester 5 (9 credit hours)Courses Content Overview Courses Content Overview

• Educational Research• Quantitative and

Qualitative Methodologies• Reflective Practice• Curriculum development

beyond science & mathematics

• Lesson design & implementation

• Reflections on practice• Inquiry-based instruction• Theories and models of teaching

& learning beyond science and mathematics

Research for Educational Leaders

Teaching K-12Environmental Education

Teacher as Researcher

Principles of Curriculum Development

Master’s Thesis

Models of Teaching and Learning

Figure 2. The second year of iSMART program.



where it is determined that the activity equally attends toappropriate science and mathematics concepts.

Mireles (2009) provides alternative recommendationsfor teachers. Her purpose is to bring constructs forward forteachers to use as a framework when developing a scienceand mathematics integrated lesson. Her three main con-structs are language issues, parallel concepts, and miscon-nections. Language issues exist when the same words in ascience context have a different meaning in a mathematicscontext or when different words have the same meaning.Parallel concepts are big ideas in science and mathematicsthat are consistent with one another, whereas misconnec-tions occur when concepts in one discipline occur in con-tradiction to the other.

The Berlin–White Integrated Science and MathematicsModel (Berlin & White, 1994) and the work of Davison,Miller, and Metheny (1995) both provide a broaderunderstanding of integration that go beyond the notion ofusing mathematics in a science context or looking forwhere science and mathematics content may overlap.Berlin and White (1994) identify six aspects for consid-ering integration. These aspects are (a) ways of learning,(b) ways of knowing, (c) process and thinking skills, (d)content knowledge, (e) attitudes and perceptions, and (f)teaching strategies. Similarly, Davison et al. (1995)discuss different meanings of integration with corre-sponding examples. The characterizations they provideare discipline-specific integration, content-specific inte-gration, process integration, methodological integration,and thematic integration.

Utilizing literature in the field from Lonning andDeFranco (1997), Mireles (2009), Berlin and White(1994), and Davison et al. (1995), iSMART teachers areprovided with models of integration to build from andadapt for their specific classrooms. No one model is advo-cated. Teachers are expected to reflect upon, discuss, anddevelop their own understandings of what integration willmean in their classrooms. This working definition of inte-gration acknowledges conditions within the existingdiscipline-based education and accountability system inTexas, making it feasible to expect change along a numberof dimensions for the participating teachers. West,Vasquez-Mireles, and Coker (2006) suggested that, as away to promote the integration of mathematics andscience, states provide correlations between science andmathematics concepts in a teacher-friendly format. Theyalso recommended that school districts give professionaldevelopment opportunities, materials, and assistance withcourse scheduling. iSMART strives toward providing thisnecessary support.

Online InstructionIn addition to being informed by the literature on

teacher professional development, the iSMART designteam also relied on the research and practice related toonline and blended learning. As is evident in daily newsand myriad recent research reports, online learning isexploding both in K-12 (Project Tomorrow andBlackboard Inc., 2009; Watson & Ryan, 2006) as well asin higher education settings (Allen & Seaman, 2010). Asonline courses become more prevalent, educators areincreasingly paying closer attention to various concernsand issues related to online instruction (e.g., training andsupport, access, funding, learning outcomes, quality,copyright, plagiarism, assessment, etc.).

In accordance to this trend, teacher professional devel-opment efforts are increasingly becoming online orblended. As such, one of the key factors differentiatingiSMART from previous science–mathematics integrationprograms and initiatives is the flexible and pervasive use ofweb-based technology. For instance, iSMART utilizes syn-chronous chats as well as asynchronous discussions withcohort teachers to discuss and review content and exampleswhile also providing an assortment of links to high-qualityonline resource materials and portals. Unlike previous pro-grams which relied primarily on paper or CD-based mate-rials to foster the integration of science and mathematicscontent, web-based content can be more quickly andcost-effectively disseminated to cohort participants andthen shared, discussed, and modified within and acrossdepartments, schools, school districts, and beyond. Manycontent integration opportunities and associated researchquestions, therefore, while still based in similar theoreticalfoundations, are highly distinct from the past.

From this rich technology integration effort spring tolife many research topics and questions. The web-basedinstruction topics particularly relevant to the iSMARTproject and teacher training or professional developmentrelate to the design of online learning environments forteachers (Bird, 2007; Cates & Kulo, 2009) as well asteacher learning and specific needs and challenges inonline courses (Polly & Hannafin, 2010). Additional topicsof interest across content areas and disciplines include thecomparison of asynchronous and synchronous lectureformats (Skylar, 2009) and social presence and connect-edness within online programs and courses (Slagter vanTryon & Bishop, 2009). The present study was conducted,in part, with the intent of adding to the literature on onlineand blended learning at the general level. We also hoped toreveal specific issues vital in reforming mathematics andscience education.


162 Volume 113 (4)

MethodsThe data used in this paper came from two sources: (a)

interviews of the iSMART design team comprised offaculty members in the College of Education at the Uni-versity of Houston and doctoral students working asresearch assistants on the project, and (b) survey data fromall 25 teachers of the first cohort of the iSMART project.In terms of the iSMART design team interviews, eightparticipants were interviewed face to face for 30–45minutes each. The interviews were audio-taped and tran-scribed. These interviews as well as the survey data wereanalyzed using Carspecken’s (1996) reconstructive analy-sis that included coding for major themes and peer debrief-ing to increase trustworthiness. Member check strategieswere also used for the interview data.

ResultsQ1. How Do the Members of the iSMART DesignTeam and the First Cohort Teacher ParticipantsDefine Science and Mathematics Integration withSimilar and Different Emphases?

The Shared Perspective. In defining science and math-ematics integration, the members of the iSMART designteam pointed to the following five issues as highly impor-tant: (a) finding connections between science and math-ematics for the teachers; (b) focusing on the similaritybetween processes of inquiry and problem-solving, notjust on the content; (c) taking into consideration the statecurriculum standards and corresponding assessments; (d)using integration to motivate middle school children; and(e) being flexible with the integration process.

Natural Connections between the Two Subjects. Help-ing teachers see the connections between the disciplineswas the main issue in math–science content integration.Jennifer Chauvot, who is the principal investigator of thisgrant project and the head of the mathematics educationteam, defined the integration as “using mathematics as atool to solve problems that are in a science context.” JohnRamsey, the head of the science education team, pointed tothe close ties between the two subjects as follows: “[m]ath-ematics is really the twin sister of science because it servesin the interpretation of data to get at the physical events.”As teacher educators who strongly believe in constructiv-ism, both Chauvot and Ramsey view the benefits of learn-ing the two subjects in an integrated manner as reflectiveof real-life problems.

The first step of thinking about the integration usuallystarts with knowing one’s own content well. Without thedeep content knowledge in one’s main area (i.e., sciencefor the science teachers, math for math teachers), it could

be difficult for the teacher to see the points of connectionwith the other subject. Xiaobao Li, an assistant professorin mathematics education, also emphasized the impor-tance of one’s own content knowledge in finding connec-tions to the other subject. Knowing materials on the deeperlevel in a meaningful way as a necessary first step infinding the connection was also mentioned by WhitneyGrese, a former Teach for America teacher and a currentgraduate assistant in the iSMART project. Focusing on theprocess as well as the contents in integration was deemedhighly important in finding the connections. This issue willbe discussed in the following section. In addition, Li notedthe need to distinguish between the integration of scienceconcepts and mathematics concepts as compared with theintegration of scientific processes and mathematical pro-cesses (or scientific thinking and mathematical thinking).

As Chauvot points out, integration of the two subjectsdoes not necessarily mean co-teaching or even trying tointegrate content or activities all the time. It is more aboutunderstanding science and mathematics as separate disci-plines but with many points of connection: such as pairingup osmosis and proportional reasoning. The recent topic ofoil spills can also serve as a good case for studying scienceand mathematics together.

Not surprisingly, this perspective was clearly shared bythe iSMART cohort participants.

The term “connection” was by far the most frequentlyused term to describe integration by the iSMART cohortteachers. Here are some examples of how the teacherswere defining integration in their own words:

Integrating math and science instruction means howthe two are interwoven together in all facets andaspects of world around us. Math is language in whichscientists communicate with each other.

I think integrating math and science means that youare using ideas from one area to enhance the learningin another, as well as showing where the two areasnaturally marry.

Integrating the two means creating a connection insuch a way that the understanding of one subject leadsto the understanding of the other.

As seen in these examples, it was clear that the teacherswere aware of the natural connection between science andmathematics in terms of the content. In effect, they con-sidered it extremely important to help students see theconnections, thereby preparing them for real-world



applications of concepts. In presenting this connectedcontent, some teachers proposed lessons “that continue inboth classrooms” so they can “understand that math leadsto science and vice-versa.” And when asked about thepossible benefits of the integration for the students, theiSMART teachers mentioned better retention of informa-tion and more relevance to the real-world experiences. Oneof the teachers noted, “[d]oing something is much morememorable than just hearing about it. Integrating the twosubjects can really help the students understand the subjectbetter by making the ideas more concrete and relatable.”

If introduced to a same concept in both classes, thestudents would be able to retain information better andconnect the knowledge more easily to everyday experi-ences. This idea of “double reinforcement” was mentionedby many teachers. They expected that, with such anapproach, the students are likely to have more “buy-in.”

Taking the State Test Standards into Consideration.The iSMART team feels very confident that the iSMARTcohort teachers will not have any difficulty seeing thevalue of integration in principle. However, the state teststandards (i.e., Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills[TEKS]) and the corresponding state assessments (i.e.,Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills [TAKS]) canbe significant concerns for these teachers in terms of actu-ally implementing integration lessons. Such apprehen-sions are especially salient given the recent focus onteachers’ performance tied specifically to students’ testscores. As state mandates are passed and future goals arecreated, the pressure for the teachers is also increasing. Inthis regard, it was important for the iSMART team to beable to “sell” to the teachers the importance of the inte-gration as tied directly to student performance. Unless theteachers are convinced that teaching the subjects in anintegrated way will help their students perform better inboth subjects, integration turns into just another “goodidea,” but nothing more. Ramsey, a 30-year veteranscience teacher educator was concerned about the “epi-sodic curriculum” defined narrowly by the local commit-tee and argued that, “We [should] let the topics, we[should] let inquiry and problem solving and [we shouldlet] projects control or determine what stops we make onthe path for knowing something.”

Another issue regarding the state testing concerns theexisting difference between the requirements for the twosubject tests. Middle school students in Texas are tested inmathematics more frequently than in science, meaningthat mathematics teachers might feel more risk in tryingout something new. While 4–8 grade students are testedevery year in mathematics, they are only tested in science

in 5th and 8th grade. Moreover, science scores only impactschool rankings under the state accountability system,Academic Excellence Indicator System, whereas math-ematics scores are considered in both the state and national(No Child Left Behind [NCLB]) accountability systems.When asked about the possible obstacles for integration,the teachers most frequently mentioned “time,” closelyfollowed by “state testing.” This was not surprising. Suchsentiments are reflected in the quotes below.

TAKS. There is so much curriculum to cover in such ashort amount of time—especially for 8th grade. Thereis not a lot of time to add in information from anothersubject when you are pushing them to get throughunits so quickly.

TEKS and TIME!!! The objectives dictated in publicschools by the state of Texas do not align to encourage[the] integration of math and science.

As the state tests and the standards are presented sepa-rately by subject, the teachers were concerned about theextra effort and time that they saw as necessary forintegration.

As previously stated, iSMART program developers aresensitive to the need of teachers to align their instruction tomandated state standards (TEKS). The awareness of teach-ers’ concerns for state testing meant that the iSMARTteam needed to design its curriculum in a way that pro-vided clear links to the TEKS standards. To that end, thefollowing table outlines some of the connections betweenthe math and science standards in Texas for 6th grade (seeTable 1). While not exhaustive, it does reflect the team’seffort to align the science and mathematics content, as wellas highlight the bridges between mathematical processesand scientific processes, in order to facilitate integration.

“Providing the Hook”: Using Integration to MotivateStudents. The obvious reason for advocating science andmathematics integration is its impact on student learning,not for the sake of test scores. The need for integrationamong disciplines to better serve the students was empha-sized as early as in 1916 by Dewey (McGinnis &Roth-McDuffie, 1999). The more recent wave of construc-tivists (Ronis, 2007; Roth, 1993) has also pointed to theimportance of providing instruction where real-life prob-lems are presented in authentic contexts. Integratedinstruction can provide motivation or a “hook” for stu-dents who are not interested in the other subject. It can alsomake their knowledge for each subject deeper withobvious as well as subtler connections. The iSMART team


164 Volume 113 (4)

suggested the co-planning between the science and math-ematics teachers as a good first step toward the implemen-tation of such integration.Different Emphases between the Two Groups.

The cohort participant teachers’ concern: Impor-tance of communication and collaboration between thetwo subject teachers. Integration meant to some teachers“teaching the two [subjects] together” in a manner that“continue[s] in both classrooms” where teachers “mustplan units that address both subjects.” Through this kind ofco-teaching model, the teachers are expected to “presentconcepts using common language, similar methods” so thestudents can “see how it applies to more than one subject.”The teachers commented on the importance of successfulcollaboration with the other subject teachers as well as theadministrator’s support. One teacher noted that the inte-gration would result in more communication between theteachers which can also help them better understand thestudents.

The iSMART Design Team’s FocusEmphasis on the Similar Processes of Inquiry:

“Problem-Solving or Inquiry-Based”. In addition to thesubject integration, the iSMART design team membersmentioned the connections between science education and

mathematics education issues, challenges, and approa-ches. Chauvot pointed to the fact that science and math-ematics educators have experienced the same strugglesand challenges historically, trying to move preservice andpracticing teachers away from the conception of “Teachingis telling,” and toward more student-centered instruction.In this regard, both science and mathematics educatorshave argued for the need for curriculum development thatincorporates constructivism. However, given that mostpracticing teachers seem to be unaware of this commonshift toward student-centered curricula, helping bothscience and mathematics teachers become more cognizantof this common history is necessary.

All of the iSMART members noted that the teachersmight initially be concerned with a lack of content knowl-edge about the subject they do not typically teach. Thereare at least two related issues concerning this point: (a) thescience–mathematics integration should not be just aboutthe content knowledge but also about the method ofinquiry, and (b) the initial “lack” of knowledge in one (orat times both) of these areas can offer a useful platform tofocus on the method of inquiry. As a former elementarymathematics teacher and a current mathematics educationfaculty at this university, Shea Culpepper noted in her

Table 1An Example of Comparison of Math and Science State Standards

6th grade math TEKS 6th grade science TEKS

(8) The student solves application problemsinvolving estimation and measurement of length,area, time, temperature, volume, weight, andangles. The student is expected to:A. estimate measurements (including

circumference) and evaluate reasonablenessof results;

B. select and use appropriate units, tools, orformulas to measure and to solve problemsinvolving length, area, time, temperature,volume and weight; and

A. convert measures within the samemeasurement system (customary and metric)based on relationships between units.

(4) The strands(C) Force, motion and energy. Students will investigate the

relationship between force and motion using a variety of means,including calculations and measurements.

(B) Knowledge and skills(4) Scientific investigation and reasoning. The student knows how to use a

variety of tools and safety equipment to conduct science inquiry. Thestudent is expected to:(A) Use appropriate tools to collect, record, and analyze information,

including journals/notebooks, beakers, Petri dishes, meter sticks,graduated cylinders, hot plates, test tubes, triple beam balances,microscopes, thermometers, calculators, computers, timingdevices, and other equipment as needed. . .

(8) Force, motion, and energy. The student knows force and motion arerelated to potential and kinetic energy. The student is expected to:(C) calculate average speed using distance and time measurements;

and(D) measure and graph changes in motion.

(9) Force, motion, and energy. The student knows that the Law ofConservation of Energy states that energy can neither be created nordestroyed, it just changes form. The student is expected to:(B) Verify through investigations that thermal energy moves in a

predictable pattern from warmer to cooler until all the substancesattain the same temperature such as an ice cube melting

Note. Only a portion of the math and science standards is listed here for comparison purposes.



interview that the current instructional system needs topay as much attention to the process as to the content inteaching mathematics.

I am more concerned with kids developing mathemati-cal ways of thinking and being in the world than I amwith them just memorizing a bunch of content. I meanthe content is important but I feel if they can developthe process skills and the mathematical mindset andways of thinking, then they can always regenerate thecontent that they’ve forgotten or lost. Ok, so I thinkabout that in terms of science, you know, the body ofscience content knowledge forever growing, I mean,there’s no way to ever know it all. . . . So if we teachkids, sort of scientific way of thinking and being in theworld as opposed to prioritizing the facts and thecontent in science. . . .

Julie Vowell, a science education instructor for iSMART,went on to describe an example that demonstrates thecommonality between the way her fellow science teacherfocuses on the more inquiry-based approach to teaching thesolar system and her own way of “problematizing” and“making sense out of ” the metric system which extendsinstruction beyond the simple memorization. As an addi-tional example, Vowell pointed to the important differencebetween teaching “addition as content” versus “addition asa problem solving opportunity.”

“Clearing the Cobwebs”: Being Flexible with the Inte-gration. Approaching integration as a continuum wasimportant to the iSMART team. When asked if they candefine a “perfect” integration, the participants answeredthat there is no such “state” as a perfect integration.Overall, the iSMART team members were focused onfinding ways to help teachers make the comfortable firststep toward the idea of integration. In this regard, thefollowing three suggestions were made: (a) communicateto the iSMART teachers that they are not expected to befully knowledgeable about the content of the subject areathey do not teach; (b) identify the readily usable connec-tions between science and mathematics and provide just-in-time help throughout the semester; and (c) look formore resources on the integration of science education andmathematics education.Q2. How Do the Definitions and Concerns of theiSMART Design Team and its First CohortParticipant Teachers Impact the Ongoing Design ofthe Program?

At the time of this report, the first cohort of the programhad just begun their two-year commitment within

iSMART. While we continue to formatively evaluate theprogram, our preliminary findings about the similar anddifferent emphases of the various program-related defini-tions will be addressed in the ongoing design of theprogram. The three primary issues or topic areas we willaddress are noted below.

The Design of the Second Summer Meeting Activi-ties: Providing More Effective and Timely Communi-cation Opportunities. Each cohort participates in twoface-to-face summer meetings: the three-day orientationbefore the start of the program and the five-day summermeeting after finishing the first year of the program. Thedifferent emphases and concerns between the iSMARTdesign team members and the participating teachers dis-cussed previously will be incorporated in the design ofthesummermeetingactivitiesandsessions.For instance, the“show and tell” session will provide an opportunity for theteachers to share their ideas and actual implementation ex-periences with the other cohort members and the iSMARTdesign instructional team. During this session, the iSMARTinstructors will guide the cohort participants through morediscussions related to the issues regarding the mode ofinquiry, expanding the idea of integration beyond contentintegration and toward common pedagogical knowledge.

The first cohort members’ second summer meeting willpurposefully be designed to overlap with the three-daysummer orientation of the second, incoming cohort. Weare hoping that such a design will foster a community ofpractice (Wenger, 1998) among the experienced members(the first cohort) and the novices (the second cohort).Additionally, we are planning focus group interviews andconcept map activities so that both the iSMART designteam and the cohort participants can gauge the growth ofunderstanding on science and mathematics integration.

Greater Emphasis on Teacher as Researcher andAction Research: Encouraging the Implementation ofand Reflection on Research-Related Ideas. One impor-tant component of the iSMART program is its emphasis onreflective practice. We believe that the teachers’ main con-cerns regarding actual implementation can be mitigatedwhen they have an opportunity to investigate them from aresearcher’s perspective. Following the five-day summermeeting, the cohort teachers will take quantitative andqualitative research methods courses preparing them fortheir required masters’ theses. By then, the teachers willhave already started thinking about one or more authenticproblems based on their own school context, demograph-ics, and the subsequent challenges. The teachers will alsobe encouraged to seek and write grants in areas such asSTEM education. By doing so, the teachers are expected


166 Volume 113 (4)

to have a better understanding of theories and rationalesbehind the concept of integration that in turn could betterfacilitate their actual integration efforts.

Administrative Support: Understanding the LocalChallenges of iSMART Teachers. It is clear that theiSMART teachers consider the support from the othersubject matter teachers as an extremely important factorin the success of integration. Support includes some formof co-planning and possibly co-teaching of the two sub-jects in the iSMART teachers’ own schools. Consideringthat most of the first cohort teachers (except for one totwo cases) have enrolled individually and not as a pairinto the iSMART program, it becomes their responsibilityto go back to their respective schools and work with othermathematics and science teachers who are not membersof the iSMART cohort. Needless to say, this situationdemands support of the other math and science teachers,and, perhaps more importantly, the support of the schooladministrator(s). The iSMART design team is planningin-classroom observations as part of formative evalua-tion. During these visits, the iSMART team faculty willmeet with the administrators asking for their continuoussupport as well as providing any information that theymight be interested regarding the iSMART program andany integration efforts under way as well as future plansin general.

DiscussionMultiple interpretations of what is meant by the integra-

tion of science and mathematics persist in the prevailingliterature (e.g., Isaacs, Wagreich, & Gartzman, 1997; Pang& Good, 2000). The findings from this study add a morecontextualized and localized discussion about conceptual-izing integration of science and mathematics to the exist-ing body of literature. As seen in the previous section, thedescriptions of integration used by the iSMART designteam and the first year cohort teachers echoed those usedin Steen’s (1994) discussion of integration of science andmathematics. Steen recommends the following: employ-ing mathematical methods thoroughly in science instruc-tion and employing scientific examples and methodsthoroughly in mathematics instruction, taking the neces-sary steps to coordinate the curricula of the two subjects.From our analysis of the interviews and the survey data,we have identified three main areas for discussion andfuture research.

1. The iSMART teachers, according to our initialsurvey, were mostly focused on the content of the twosubjects when considering integration. The level ofcontent knowledge of the subject matter in which they

were not the experts seemed to affect the teacher’s confi-dence in integration. When giving examples, the teachersprimarily focused on the cases where the content of thetwo subjects would be mostly naturally connected. Such acontent-intensive focus, and the corresponding stress thatsurrounded it, was interesting to note when compared withthe teacher educators’ vantage point as well as the generalprogram conceptualizations of the iSMART team. Whilecontent still mattered, the iSMART team members were asfocused on the inquiry process as they were on science ormathematics content that was embedded in it. It will beimportant for the iSMART design team to follow anddocument if and how the teachers’ understanding of inte-gration changes and grows throughout the program.

2. It was clear that a successful model of integrationrequires significant degrees of collaboration among teachereducators of science and mathematics education. While thescience and mathematics teacher educators of the hostuniversity have always worked closely as one administra-tive cluster, the iSMART project actually marks the firstsystematic collaboration between the science and math-ematics teacher educators. Such teacher educators canprovide guidance on integration that goes beyond just theintegration of content knowledge but also of the associatedpedagogical content and pedagogical knowledge (Berlin &White, 1994) and the leadership skills for successful col-laboration across previously separate subject areas.The design of the iSMART program is structured in ways toprovide opportunities for iSMART teachers to comparewhat these pedagogical concepts mean and look like inscience and mathematics classrooms as they view their ownand others’ instructional practices and develop materialsfor their classrooms. Furthermore, focusing on ways ofknowing, thinking processes and skills, and attitudes andperceptions, as described by Berlin and White (1994),helped teachers attend to similarities and differencesregarding how children make sense of science and math-ematics concepts and the scientific and mathematical pro-cesses that should be evident in middle school classrooms.

3. It should be noted that these 25 members of the firstcohort of iSMART represent teachers who were alreadyinterested in science–mathematics integration. In additionto understanding how these teachers work with the stu-dents in integrated instruction, we need to investigate thedevelopment of these individuals into teacher leaders whocan help other teachers in these integration efforts. A keygoal or task for iSMART project is to work with otherteachers who might not be so open and interested in theintegration due, at least in part, to the many obstaclesmentioned earlier.



ConclusionIn this paper, we have examined how the integration of

science and mathematics is conceptualized by theiSMART design team members as well as by the cohortteachers at this early stage of the program. Many importantissues mentioned by the teacher educators interviewedwere, not too surprisingly, also shared by the participatingteachers. For instance, both the teachers and the iSMARTdesign team members were well aware of possible benefitsof teaching science and mathematics in an integratedmanner for the students. They positively viewed thisattempt to provide more authentic learning environmentswhere real-life situations are introduced more naturally.They also agreed that the teachers did not receive optimalsupport in their current educational system for such inte-gration and authentic forms of learning; instead, thesystem too often emphasized separate subject tests androte learning.

The design of an online science–mathematics integra-tion master’s program that might be replicated by otherinstitutions and organizations can play a key role in thedevelopment of educational policies and program in thefuture. It is important at this early stage of the program thatwe understand the challenges that the teachers perceive sowe can provide a model of integration that can minimizethose concerns. Concurrently, we also need to investigatemore closely the individual districts and school contextsthat will impact not only the current participation ofscience and mathematics teachers but also the expansionof iSMART principles and activities. The marker ofsuccess for the program like iSMART is the integration ofscience and mathematics on a much larger scale that dem-onstrates an impact on student learning. How, where, andin what degrees the components of iSMART could bescalable are among the questions the iSMART team isattempting to answer in the coming years.

ReferencesAllen, I. E., & Seaman, J. (2010). Learning on demand: Online education in

the United States, 2009. Retrieved from The Sloan Consortium websitehttp://www.sloan-c.org/publications/survey/pdf/learningondemand.pdf

Barab, S., & Squire, K. (2004). Design-based research: Putting a stake in theground. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(1), 1–14.

Berlin, D. F., & Lee, H. (2005). Integrating science and mathematicseducation: Historical analysis. School Science and Mathematics, 105(1),15–24.

Berlin, D. F., & White, A. L. (1994). The Berlin-White Integrated Science andMathematics Model. School Science and Mathematics, 94(1), 2–4.

Bird, L. (2007). The 3 “C” design model for networked collaborativee-learning: A tool for novice designers. Innovations in Education andTeaching International, 44(2), 153–167.

Carspecken, P. (1996). Critical ethnography in educational research: A theo-retical and practical guide. New York: Routledge.

Cates, W. M., & Kulo, V. (2009). Avoiding the perils of “teacher-proof ”online design: A content analysis. Computers in the Schools, 26,48–62.

Davison, D. M., Miller, K. W., & Metheny, D. L. (1995). What does integra-tion of science and mathematics really mean? School Science and Math-ematics, 95(5), 226–230.

Frykholm, J., & Glasson, G. (2005). Connecting science and math instruction:Pedagogical context knowledge for teachers. School Science and Math-ematics, 105(3), 127–141.

Hamm, M. (1992). Achieving scientific literacy through a curriculum con-nected with mathematics and technology. School Science and Mathemat-ics, 92(1), 6–9.

Huntley, M. A. (1998). Design and implementation of a framework for defin-ing integrated mathematics and science education. School Science andMathematics, 98(6), 320–327.

Isaacs, J., Wagreich, P., & Gartzman, M. (1997). The quest for integration:School mathematics and science. American Journal of Education, 106,179–206.

Judson, E., & Sawada, D. (2000). Examining the effects of a reformed juniorhigh school science class on students’ math achievement. School Scienceand Mathematics, 100(8), 419–425.

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

McGinnis, J. R., & Roth-McDuffie, A. (1999, January). An action researchperspective of making connections between science and mathematics in ascience methods course. Paper presented at the Association for the Educa-tion of Teachers of Science, Austin, Texas, 1999.

Mewborn, D. S. (2003). Teaching, teachers’ knowledge, and their professionaldevelopment. In J. Kilpatrick, W. G. Martin, & D. Schifter (Eds.), Aresearch companion to Principles and Standards for School Mathematics(pp. 45–53). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.

Mireles, S. V. (2009). Correlating mathematics and science. MathematicsTeaching in the Middle School, 15(2), 100–107.

Pang, J., & Good, R. (2000). A review of the integration of science andmathematics: Implications for further research. School Science and Math-ematics, 700(2), 73–81.

Polly, D., & Hannafin, M. (2010). Reexamining technology’s role in learner-centered professional development. Educational Technology Research andDevelopment, 58, 557–571.

Project Tomorrow and Blackboard Inc. (2009). Learning in the 21st Century:2009 Trends Update. Retrieved from http://www.tomorrow.org/speakup/learning21Report_2009_Update.html

Ronis, D. (2007). Problem-based learning for math and science: Integratinginquiry and the Internet. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Roth, W. M. (1993). Problem-centered learning or the integration of math-ematics and science in a constructivist laboratory: A case study. SchoolScience and Mathematics, 93(3), 113–122.

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

Skylar, A. A. (2009). A comparison of asynchronous online text-based lec-tures and synchronous interactive Web conferencing lectures. Issues inTeacher Education, Fall, 69–84.

Slagter van Tryon, P. J., & Bishop, M. J. (2009). Theoretical foundations forenhancing social connectedness in online learning environments. DistanceEducation, 30(3), 291–315.

Spektor-Levy, O., Eylon, B., & Scherz, Z. (2008). Teaching communicationskills in science: Tracing teacher change. Teaching and Teacher Education,24(2), 462–477.

Steen, L. A. (1994). Integrating school science and mathematics: Fad or folly?Appeared in NSF/SSMA Wingspread Conference Plenary Papers, Donna F.Berlin, Editor. Columbus, Ohio: National Center for Teaching and Learn-ing, pp. 7–12.


168 Volume 113 (4)

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

Watson, J., & Ryan, J. (2006). Keeping pace with K-12 online learning: Areview of state-level policy and practice. Retrieved from National Councilfor Online Learning website http://www.nacol.org/docs/KeepingPace07-color.pdf

Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity.Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University.

West, S., Vasquez-Mireles, S., & Coker, C. (2006). Math and/or scienceeducation: Separate or integrate? Journal of Mathematic Science andMathematics Education, 1(2), 11–18.

Authors’ Note1This program is generously funded through The

Greater Texas Foundation. The opinions expressed in thisreport are those of the authors and do not necessarilyreflect the views of The Greater Texas Foundation.



Documents

Stepping into iSMART: Understanding Science-Mathematics Integration for Middle School Science and Mathematics Teachers