Mix It Up: Teachers' Beliefs on Mixing Mathematics and Science

Abstract

This paper defines correlation, describes the Mix It Up program, discusses the teachers' beliefs about the value of correlating mathematics and science prior to program participation, and identifies problems teachers associated with correlation before and during the program. Teachers' beliefs about the value of correlation and about the problems associated with correlation are based on results from both quantitative and qualitative methods used to evaluate the program. Results indicate that teachers believe correlating mathematics and science strengthens students' content knowledge in mathematics and science, bridges the gap between mathematics and science, enhances motivation, and increases students' flexibility in problem solving. Additionally, the areas identified by teachers to be most problematic were time, planning for instruction as a team, and exposure to correlation in the past. The most important finding from the program evaluation indicates that although teachers did not identify content knowledge weaknesses before participating in the program, they did recognize gaps in their own content knowledge during program participation, and more importantly they made connections among these gaps, classroom instruction, and their own students' performance in mathematics and science.

Beyond the Transcript: Factors Influencing the Pursuit of Science and Mathematics Coursework

“…Consistent with research on self‐efficacy (Bandura, 1997; Enochs, Smith, & Huinker, 2000; Riggs & Enochs, 1990; Woolfolk & Hoy, 1990), behaviors such as risk taking and the use of innovation in the classroom are related to high levels of self‐efficacy (Ashton, 1985; Ashton & Webb, 1986). Those with high science and math self‐efficacy are more likely to use student‐centered approaches and math‐science integration (Berlin & Lee, 2005; Czerniak, 1990; Offer & Vasquez‐Mireles, 2009), a finding also evident in this study. Learning how to employ innovative ways to deliver content was a common theme in the data transcripts, reflected in this excerpt:…”

How much professional development is needed with educative curriculum materials? It depends upon the intended student learning outcomes

“…The intended student learning outcomes in this study (quantitative predictions and qualitative predictions) are areas in which students receiving traditional instruction in inheritance have been shown to struggle (Schuchardt & Schunn, ; Stewart, ). However, teachers are much more comfortable with and have received more extensive training in the conceptual underpinnings of inheritance (the biological mechanisms) that underlay both types of predictions, and are less comfortable with and have received less training in the mathematical concepts associated with the quantitative predictions (Cox et al., ; Furner & Kumar, ; Offer & Mireles, ; Sorgo, ). Thus, it is reasonable to suppose that to achieve the same effect of PD on student learning in qualitative and quantitative predictions, teachers may need more time spent on the quantitative underpinnings.…”

“…Many science teachers have little background in mathematics (National Research Council, ) and they have usually only been exposed to science instruction where mathematics was included as algorithmic procedures to be memorized (Dancy & Henderson, ; Watanabe & Huntley, ). Therefore, when asked to think about ways to include mathematics in science instruction, they tend to generate mathematics as inscription or mathematics as tool approaches (Lee, Chauvot, Vowell, Culpepper, & Plankis, ; Offer & Mireles, ).…”

Development of an Instrument to Assess and Deliberate on the Integration of Mathematics into Student‐Centered Science Learning

“…A review of literature revealed that in several cases when professional development strongly targeted integration, little was systematically reported about the range of quality of integration occurring in classrooms. Most commonly, researchers have (a) used traditional surveys to measure content and pedagogical knowledge (Cady & Rearden, ); (b) examined artifacts from students that represent the products of integrated instruction (Budgen, Wallace, Rennie, & Malone, ); or (c) used data collection methods such as interviews, field notes, and journals to study changing teachers' beliefs and attitudes (Douville, Pugalee, & Wallace, ; Jones, Lake, & Dagli, ; Matthews, Adams, & Goos, ; Offer & Mireles, ).…”

“…() when stating “a common definition of integration does not exist that can be used as a basis for designing, carrying out, and interpreting results of research” (p. 422). Various terms used to refer to integration include the following: blended, connected, correlation, cross‐disciplinary, cross‐curricular, interdependent, interdisciplinary, multidisciplinary, and unified (Berlin & Lee, ; Frykholm & Glasson, ; Hurley, ; Offer & Mireles, ). Attempting to move beyond singular definition, Lonning and DeFranco () developed a continuum model to characterize the nature of the relationship between the mathematics and science being taught.…”