This article was downloaded by: [York University Libraries]On: 21 November 2014, At: 00:14Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

European Journal of ScienceEducationPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tsed19

A study of teaching and learningprocesses in integrated scienceclassroomsR. G. Hacker a & M. J. Rowe ba The University of Western Australia , Nedlands, Australiab University of Wales , Swansea, UKPublished online: 25 Feb 2007.

To cite this article: R. G. Hacker & M. J. Rowe (1985) A study of teaching and learningprocesses in integrated science classrooms, European Journal of Science Education, 7:2,173-180, DOI: 10.1080/0140528850070208

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0140528850070208

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information(the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor& Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warrantieswhatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of theContent. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions andviews of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. Theaccuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independentlyverified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liablefor any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages,and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly inconnection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes.Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expresslyforbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

EUR. J. Sci. EDUC., 1985, VOL. 7, NO. 2, 173-180

A study of teaching and learningprocesses in integrated science classrooms

R. G. Hacker, The University of Western Australia, Nedlands, Australia,and M. J. Rowe, University of Wales, Swansea, UK

Twelve biology graduates and 12 physics graduates were observed, each teaching threebiology and three physics topics as part of a co-ordinated, integrated science curriculum.For each teacher-class and for each discipline taught, behavioural profiles were recordedand then classified according to a typology of approaches to science teaching.

A contingency table analysis confirmed substantial changes in teaching and learning pro-cesses when the topics studied were outside the teacher's specialist discipline area. It wasconcluded, for the sample studied, that informational approaches were twice as likely to beencountered when the teacher was teaching outside his discipline area and that thisincrease was at the expense of more effective problem-solving and inquiry approaches.

Introduction

Haggis and Adey (1979) observe that integrated science education is arapidly developing and expanding educational field. They report only 30to 40 integrated science courses worldwide in 1968, yet, in a review ofintegrated science education worldwide carried out just ten years later,they describe a proliferation of integrated science education with data col-lected on 130 courses. They comment specifically on the rapid and wide-spread development of integrated science education at the lower secondarylevel (approximately 12 to 15 year olds or grades 7 to 9) with the greatestnumber of integrated science courses being implemented at this level.

Various authors (UNESCO 1971, 1973, 1975 and 1977; Brown, 1977;and Smith 1982) acknowledge the difficulties involved in reaching a con-sensus on the definition of integrated science. Of the various meaningswhich have been ascribed to integrated science and the various definitionswhich have been proposed, perhaps Blum's (1973) integration matrix pro-vides the most useful operational classification system. This matrix hastwo axes which represent scope and intensity. Scope of integration is thenumber of disciplines, scientific or otherwise, which are combined to formthe integrated science curriculum. Intensity of integration is a measure ofthe extent to which the separate disciplines are blended.

Blum (1973) describes three levels of intensity of integration, whichare coordination, combination and amalgamation. A coordinated sciencecurriculum is one where separate units of the blended disciplines (forexample, physics, chemistry and biology) can still be identified, but theyhave been linked together to give a continuous curriculum with its ownstructure. Combination involves the development of major units organized

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

Lib

rari

es]

at 0

0:14

21

Nov

embe

r 20

14

174 RESEARCH REPORTS

around headings taken from the different disciplines. An amalgamatedcurriculum takes a theme or problem from the environment as its inte-grating principle. Using Blum's classification, Haggis and Adey (1979)show that the majority of integrated science curricula which they exam-ined have a level of scope of integration of three science disciplines. Theirdata concerning intensity of integration are incomplete.

Brown (1977) provides a useful table of classification of arguments foran integrated science curriculum, in terms of the sorts of outcomesexpected from such a course and the sorts of constraints under which thecourse must be implemented. Conditions for effective teaching and learn-ing are listed as major arguments for integration, although as Hamilton(1975) and Smith (1982) point out, these are largely untested assertions;teaching and learning processes in integrated science lessons have not beensubjected to rigorous empirical investigation. Commenting on a UNESCOpublication on integrated science teaching, Hamilton observes:

Its pages are pervaded by a number of unexamined assumptions. For example, thevirtues of integrated science are held to be self-evident. Inevitably, then, it is imag-ined that its advent would be widely welcomed in any school curriculum. A furtherassumption is that the emergence of integrated science has been a natural develop-ment - linked with changes within the disciplines.

Both Welch (1975) and Smith (1982) lament the lack of suitable researchdata concerned with teaching and learning processes in integrated scienceclassrooms. In a comprehensive literature search, Welch found only sevensubstantial studies of integrated science programmes, six of these involv-ing the comparatively low level of scope of integration of just chemistryand physics. He concluded that there was virtually no empirical evidenceto support the integration of chemistry and physics over the teaching ofthe differentiated science disciplines.

The overwhelming majority of integrated science courses has beenimplemented on the basis of one teacher for the entire integrated sciencecurriculum with a particular class. The developers of Nuffield CombinedScience (Nuffield Foundation 1970) favour this principle when theystate :

Even though the specialist teacher might feel uncertain about his competence outsidehis own discipline, it was accepted from the outset that the best possible unificationand reconciliation of the wide range of subject matter would be achieved by oneteacher dealing with one class. . . . The principle of one teacher working with oneclass will mean that a teacher with a main interest in one branch of science is encour-aged to look carefully at another. In doing this he will have to look at its structure,nomenclature and development, and will begin to appreciate some of the problemswhich a child experiences coming into contact with new ideas and words.

It is clear that science teachers do not share curriculum developers' enthu-siasm for teaching outside their specialist discipline areas. Brown et al.(1976) report that arguments against integration were much more numer-ous than arguments in favour, when science teachers were surveyed. Tea-chers stressed factors such as their inability to teach unfamiliar materialwell or interestingly; stress and anxiety; and difficulties in trying to assessthe potential of pupils in subject areas other than their own specialist dis-cipline areas.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

Lib

rari

es]

at 0

0:14

21

Nov

embe

r 20

14

TEACHING AND LEARNING PROCESSES 175

The empirical study reported here aims to probe teaching and learn-ing processes in integrated science classrooms at the lower secondary level.The behaviours of experienced science teachers and children in theirclasses are examined, both when the teacher is teaching his own specialistdiscipline and when teaching another science discipline, as part of a coor-dinated, integrated science curriculum. The study seeks to address thequestion as to whether effective teaching patterns are adopted when thescience teacher is teaching outside his specialist discipline area and toexamine and quantify possible changes in teaching and learning processeswhen the science teacher moves from his specialist science discipline toanother science area.

Experimental details

Instrument

The Science Lesson Analysis System (SLAS) has been described elsewhere(Hacker 1982). A users' manual, observer training procedures and obser-ver reliability assessment procedures are provided.

Using the SLAS instrument (see figure 1), each classroom behaviour is clas-sified according to both its form and function. The rows of the instrumentprovide 12 categories for recording the function of the behaviour, which isthe intellectual demand actually placed on a child in the class, rather thanthe teacher's intent. These categories reflect Schwab's (1960 and1964) scholarly analysis of the scientific enterprise, including categoriescommonly associated with both the syntactic and substantive, and thestable and fluid aspects of science. They might be regarded as either anexpanded version of the categories developed by Eggleston, Galton andJones (1975) or as a condensed version of Klopfer's (1971) taxonomies ofscientific behaviours. In this context, problem-solving is defined as a con-vergent activity, where one correct solution is perceived by the child asbeing acceptable to the teacher. The columns of the instrument providenine categories for recording the form of the interaction.

When a classroom observer has judged both the form and function ofa particular classroom behaviour, the appropriate cell of the SLAS matrix isselected. A sign system for recording information is employed and eachcell of the matrix is marked present or absent in a three minute timeperiod in the classroom. This empirically determined time period rep-resents a compromise between the need for the most detailed record pos-sible and the limitations on the speed with which a trained observer is ableto classify behaviours in a reliable way.

One copy of the SLAS matrix is completed for each three minute timeperiod of observation. For a particular classroom, these data are summedover the total period of observation by taking each row and column of thematrix in turn and computing the proportion of the matrices with an entryin that row or column. This procedure results in the observational datafrom a particular classroom being summarized as a profile of 23 probabil-

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

Lib

rari

es]

at 0

0:14

21

Nov

embe

r 20

14

THE SCIENCE LESSON ANALYSIS SYSTEM

VERBAL INTERACTIONS NON-VERBAL INTERACTIONS

With Resource Materials

TEACHER - INITIATEDA B C

STUDENT - INITIATEDD E

SCIENCEMATERIALSF G

MULTI-MEDIAMATERIALS

H I

THE INTELLECTUAL ABILITYBEING PRACTISED:

1. Acquiring, recalling orconfirming facts

2. Delineating scientific concepts,principles or theoretical models

3. Identifying problems

4. Solving concrete problems

c Solving problems by applying scientificconcepts, principles or models

Making or testing hypothesis or' speculation

., Identifying or describing apparatus,equipment or materials

„ Describing or practising conventional' experimental procedures

Designing novel experimentalprocedures

10.Making, describing or recordingobservations

- . Interpreting observed or recorded' data

12 Inferring from observed or recordeddata

QU

ES

TIO

NS

answ

ered

by:

STA

TEM

EN

Tco

ncer

ned

with

:

DIR

EC

TIV

E fo

rth

e pu

rpos

e o

f:

RE

FER

RA

Lto

tea

cher

for

the

purp

ose

of:

CO

NS

ULT

ATI

ON

with

stu

dent

fo

rth

e pu

rpos

e o

f:

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

TEA

CH

ER

inte

ract

s fo

rth

e pu

rpos

e o

f:

STU

DE

NT

inte

ract

s fo

rth

e pu

rpos

e of:

TEA

CH

ER

inte

ract

s fo

rth

e pu

rpos

e o

f:

STU

DE

NT

inte

ract

s fo

rth

e pu

rpos

e o

f:

Figure 1. The Science Lesson Analysis System.

aM

>

31

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

Lib

rari

es]

at 0

0:14

21

Nov

embe

r 20

14

TEACHING AND LEARNING PROCESSES 177

ities; a subset of nine are related to the likelihoods of interactions ofvarious forms occurring in that classroom and a subset of 12 are related tothe frequencies with which children engage in the intellectual behavioursbuilt into the instrument.

Sample

Data were collected from 24 classrooms. Twelve teachers were biologygraduates and 12 were physics graduates; each teacher had completed apre-service teacher education programme involving preparation for teach-ing integrated science at the lower secondary level and their specialist dis-ciplines at the upper secondary level. Teachers with at least six yearsexperience of teaching a coordinated, integrated science curriculum wereselected for the study.

Each teacher was observed with the same lower secondary schoolclass for the duration of the study. Classes of fourteen-year-olds (year 9)were selected. Class size averaged 28 and each class comprised approx-imately equal numbers of girls and boys. Classes were generallyunstreamed but where streaming was in evidence, a class from the middleability range was selected.

Each of the 24 teacher/class units were observed studying threebiology topics (flowering plants, insects and vertebrates) and then threephysics topics (electricity, heat and liquids). Six lessons were observed foreach topic; these lessons comprised the introductory lesson for the topic;four lessons randomly selected during the teaching of the topic; and theconcluding lesson.

Procedure

The principals of the schools involved provided access to science teacherswho were asked to participate in the study. To allow time for the class toadjust to the presence of an observer in the classroom, a few lessons wereobserved prior to those needed for the study. Data from these initiallessons were discarded. Data were collected so as to reflect the teacher'snormal usage of laboratory or classroom facilities; during class experi-ments, small group discussions or other individualized activities data werecollected from a number of groups in turn to ensure the representativenessof the information recorded for the whole class.

Results and discussion

For each teacher/class unit studied, two SLAS profiles were computed.First, a profile was computed using all the SLAS matrices coded whilst thethree biology topics were being studied. A profile was then computedbased on the matrices coded whilst physics topics were being studied.This procedure resulted in 48 behavioural profiles, comprising two pro-files for each of the 24 teacher/class units observed.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

Lib

rari

es]

at 0

0:14

21

Nov

embe

r 20

14

178 RESEARCH REPORTS

Each of these profiles was classified according to a typology ofapproaches to science teaching reported elsewhere (Hacker 1984). Theprocedure adopted was to calculate a simple distance coefficient betweenthe profile and the median profile of each group characterized in the typo-logical study. The profile was then assigned to its correct typologicalgroup on the basis of the lowest numerical value resulting from these dis-tance coefficient calculations. In this way, each of the 48 behavioural pro-files was classified as a 'problem-solving', 'informational' or 'inquiry'approach, on the basis of similarity of the behavioural profile with medianprofiles of the groups of the typology. The results of this classification areshown in table 1.

The hypothesis that the distribution of classroom profiles across thesethree approaches when the teacher was teaching his specialist disciplinewas different from the distribution when teaching the other discipline wastested via a contingency table analysis (Nie et al. 1975). A chi-squareresult of 16-62 on 2 degrees of freedom supported this hypothesis{p< 0-001).

The results of the study confirm substantial, quantitative changes inclassroom teaching and learning processes when a science teacher movesoutside his specialist discipline area. For the sample studied, informationalapproaches were twice as likely to be encountered in classrooms where thetopic studied was outside the teacher's specialist discipline area and thischange was at the expense of the likelihood of problem-solving or inquiryapproaches being employed.

This change was particularly marked for the specialist physics tea-chers; only two of these 12 teachers employed an informational approachwhen teaching physics topics, whereas ten selected informational teachingstrategies when teaching biology topics. It is also noteworthy that biologyteachers maintained their preferences for informational approaches acrossboth the biology and physics topics.

Galton and Eggleston (1979) emphasize the lack of support for theeffectiveness of informational approaches when compared with problem-

Table 1. Classification of the behavioural profiles.

1234

Teacher'sspecialty

BiologyPhysicsBiologyPhysics

Own <(1

Other(3

; Topicsstudied

BiologyPhysicsPhysicsBiology

discipline+ 2)

discipline+ 4)

TEACHING APPROACH

Problemsolver

3742

10

6

Informer

728

10

9

18

Inquirer

2300

5

0

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

Lib

rari

es]

at 0

0:14

21

Nov

embe

r 20

14

TEACHING AND LEARNING PROCESSES 179

solving and inquiry approaches employed with children of lower second-ary school age. They also point towards the poor attitudes to sciencewhich result from children learning science in this way.

It has been demonstrated, for the sample studied, that lower levels ofintellectual engagement can be expected when lower secondary schoolscience teachers work outside their specialist disciplines when teachingintegrated science. The authors of Nuffield Combined Science (NuffieldFoundation 1970) were clearly aware of these potential problems whenthey point out: 'there is the special danger that having prepared very thor-oughly, a teacher may be tempted to 'tell all', instead of holding back andguiding children's work and thoughts with the knowledge which prep-aration will have brought.'

Those concerns were borne out by the results of this study. Non-practical, informational approaches predominated in the classroom whenteachers moved outside their area of specialism, even though they hadreceived appropriate pre-service teacher education and had each spent aminimum of six years teaching an integrated science curriculum.

Brown (1977) may have been mistaken when she attributed scienceteachers' concerns for their inability to teach integrated science well orinterestingly to hostile attitudes of teachers who have specialized trainingin separate science subjects. All of the science teachers participating in thisstudy had received appropriate training in teaching integrated science andwere also thoroughly experienced in teaching an integrated science curric-ulum. The assumptions that the problems of integrated science can beattributed to inappropriate training or to a lack of experience of integratedscience teaching, are clearly untenable for the sample studied.

The authors of the Schools Council Integrated Science Project (SCISP1973) also acknowledge problems in teaching integrated science when theyobserve: 'One of the major problems facing many teachers is in the teach-ing of work which is outside their particular disciplines. How can thephysicist teach those areas which are primarily biological ?'

The results of this study suggest that the answer to this question maybe, 'badly'! However, the SCISP authors advocate some sort of team teach-ing as a possible solution to this problem, particularly during the teacher'searly days of integrated science teaching. Smith (1982) is somewhat lesscharitable when he suggests that bandwagons have always been present ineducation and that integrated science curricula may have been more suc-cessful than most in catching the unwary.

References

BLUM, A. 1973, Towards a rationale for integrated science teaching. New Trends in Inte-grated Science Teaching, Volume 2 (UNESCO, Paris).

BROWN, S. A. 1977, A review of the meanings of, and arguments for, integrated science.Studies in Science Education, Vol. 4, pp. 31-62.

BROWN, S. A., MCINTYRE, D. I., DREVER, E. and DAVIEW; J. K. 1976, Innovations inintegrated science in Scottish secondary schools. Stirling Educational MonographsNo. 2. (Department of Education, The University of Stirling).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

Lib

rari

es]

at 0

0:14

21

Nov

embe

r 20

14

180 TEACHING AND LEARNING PROCESSES

EGGLESTON, J. F., GALTON, M. J. and JONES, M. E. 1975, A Science Teaching ObservationSchedule (Macmillan Education, London).

GALTON, M. J. and EGGLESTON, J. F. 1979, Some characteristics of effective science teach-ing. European Journal of Science Education, Vol. 1, pp. 75-85.

HACKER, R. G. 1982, The Science Lesson Analysis System. Research Report, (Departmentof Education, University of Western Australia).

HACKER, R. G., 1984, A typology of approaches to science teaching in schools. EuropeanJournal of Science Education, Vol. 5, pp. 1-15.

HAGGIS, S. and ADEY, P. 1979, A review of integrated science education worldwide. Studiesin Science Education, Vol. 6, pp. 69-89.

HAMILTON, D. 1975, Integrated science and the politics of innovation. Studies in ScienceEducation, Vol. 2, pp. 174-178.

KLOPFER, L. E. 1971, Evaluation of learning in science. B. S. Bloom, J. T. Hastings and G.F. Madaus (eds.). A Handbook on Formative and Summative Evaluation of StudentLearning (McGraw-Hill, New York).

NIE, N. H., HULL, C. H., JENKINS, J. G., STEINBRENNER, K. and BENT, D. H. 1975, Sta-

tistical Package for the Social Sciences (McGraw-Hill, London).NUFFIELD FOUNDATION 1970, Nuffield Combined Science: Teachers' Guide I (Longman/

Penguin Books, London).SCHWAB, J. J. 1960, What do scientists do? Behavioural Science, Vol. 5, pp. 1-27.SCHWAB, J. J. and BRANDWEIN, P. F. 1964, The Teaching of Science (Harvard University

Press, Cambridge, MA).SCISP 1973, Patterns: Teachers Handbook (Longman/Penguin Books, London).SMITH, H. L. 1982, Integrated Science: A Review. The Australian Science Teachers

Journal, Vol. 28, pp. 37-42.UNESCO 1971, New Trends in Integrated Science Teaching, Volume 1 (UNESCO, Paris).UNESCO 1973, New Trends in Integrated Science Teaching, Volume 2 (UNESCO, Paris).UNESCO 1975, New Trends in Integrated Science Teaching, Volume 3 (UNESCO, Paris).UNESCO 1977, New Trends in Integrated Science Teaching, Volume 4 (UNESCO, Paris).WELCH, W. W. 1975, Evaluation and decision-making in integrated science. A paper pre-

sented to UNESCO Symposium on 'Evaluation of Integrated Science Education',Oxford, December.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

Lib

rari

es]

at 0

0:14

21

Nov

embe

r 20

14