2
Paradigm Shift to Interdisciplinary Teaching in Science: History and Conceptual Framework
Hye Sun You
The University of Texas at Austin
1912 Speedway Stop D5500
SZB 462H, Austin, TX 78712-1608
Email:
Cell: (512)-413-0177
Paradigm Shift to Interdisciplinary Teaching in Science: History and Conceptual Framework
Abstract
Interdisciplinary teaching in science is characterized as a perspective that integrates two or more sub-disciplines into seamless and coherent connections in order to enable students to recognize various sides of science phenomena, make relevant connections, generate meaningful associations, and develop high-order thinking. While interdisciplinary approach has recently been receiving much attention from science educators, little consideration has been given to how teachers’ knowledge integration among science topics can support students’ learning. Knowledge integration refers to the process of linking ideas and organizing connections to develop a cohesive understanding of scientific phenomena. Teachers could further understand science through knowledge integration processes. To provide an effective and supportive interdisciplinary teaching, science teachers should be equipped with more interdisciplinary knowledge rather than limited and fragmented knowledge of science. This study attends to this issue by adapting lateral curriculum knowledge framework and expert-novice schema theory regarding knowledge integration. I proposed a new notion of teachers’ content knowledge through knowledge integration perspective and described how integrated knowledge of teachers affects their interdisciplinary teaching practices and eventually, student learning. This research would conduce a theoretical approach for the creation of appropriate and productive professional development programs that may foster the dynamic process of knowledge integration across various disciplines including science in the near future.
Key words: interdisciplinary teaching, integrated teacher knowledge, knowledge integration, and professional development
Today, the word 'interdisciplinary learning' is widely used throughout educational fields corresponding to grade levels K-12 and college students due to a growing awareness of the inherent values and benefits of interdisciplinary learning. Contemporary scholars have also regarded interdisciplinary approach as an essential alternative method for learning (Boix Mansilla & Duraising, 2007; Boix Mansilla, Miller, & Gardner, 2000; Boix Mansilla & Gardner, 2006; Clarke & Russell, 1997; Jacob, 1989; Klein, 2002). Currently in Korea, STEAM education, a combination of STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, Mathematics) and Arts, has been implemented for the purpose of increasing both students’ interests and academic outcome. In the U.S., educators have begun to recognize the importance and benefits of interdisciplinarity among various disciplines, and interests in a necessity for interdisciplinary-oriented curriculum are rapidly growing.
Over the past few years, evidence supporting interdisciplinary learning has been found in several science standard documents at the national level. The teaching standards for grades K-12, published by the National Science Teachers' Association (1998), revealed the influences of integrated curriculum instruction. The National Science Education Standards (NRC, 1996) stated, “Schools must restructure schedules so that teachers can use blocks of time, interdisciplinary strategies and field experiences to give students many opportunities to engage in serious scientific investigation as an integral part of their science learning” (p.44). Documents such as Benchmarks for Science Literacy (AAAS, 2009) suggested that science must be taught in a way that creates connections between science-related subjects and other fields of studies due to the fact that the basic foundations of science research occurs at the interface of other disciplines. The Framework for K-12 Science Education: Practices, Crosscutting Concepts, and Core Ideas (National Research Council [NRC], 2012, hereafter referred to as “the framework”) and the Next Generation Science Standards ([NGSS], Lead States, 2013) revamped and refined itself on a national level during a time when science education was going through major changes. From an interdisciplinary perspective, one of the intents of the framework is to provide a K–12 science standard framework of interdisciplinary learning, bringing a more holistic view and meaningful association of various specific core concepts in science. Additionally, the NGSS presented a solution through the integration of scientific fields by raising the status and bar of engineering and technology on par with other science fields in order to assimilate multiple concepts in a smooth manner. The trends in educational reform toward interdisciplinary learning are more likely to approach teachers with a new perspective of interdisciplinary teaching. Cone et al. (1998) described interdisciplinary teaching as an approach that integrates two or more subject areas into a meaningful association in order to enhance and enrich students learning within each subject area. Especially, one of the primary justifications for interdisciplinary learning and teaching for science is founded in nature itself. Science disciplines are not isolated from one another and such separation creates an artificial way in which science is taught, not a reflection of its true nature. Making connections between fragmentations of knowledge structure presented within separate science subjects and assimilating those to learn and perceive our natural world is a rational method for interdisciplinary teaching (Wenner, 1976). Interdisciplinary teaching is more than an organizational strategy of thinking about the way in which the knowledge is used.
When the swing of the educational pendulum moves in a direction that is more favorable to interdisciplinary education, students are required to be equipped with more integrated knowledge and its corresponding understandings across two or more specific disciplines, rather than having limited and fragmented knowledge. However, students have problems of synthesizing different disciplines and their interdisciplinary understanding does not occur spontaneously. It is true that interdisciplinary education could be achieved through considerable amount of help and guidance from the teachers. Thus, teachers would not only need to develop complex understandings of specific concepts but also recognize a concept by mapping a variety of domains and noticing meaningful patterns of information between each one for high-quality interdisciplinary teaching. The roles of science teachers, in regards with interdisciplinary instruction, is to help the students deal with complex problems and natural phenomena of the real world that are not easily comprehensible or resolvable from a single disciplinary framework. Students who have encountered instructions that cover a multitude of issues and problems corresponding to real-life contexts, through relevant scientific disciplines and connections, are motivated to broaden conceptions through the process of knowledge integration (Beane, 1995). It is ultimately believed that teachers’ knowledge towards interdisciplinarity will aid students in advancing cognitive development including a high-order thinking from integrated knowledge, which eventually would improve their academic performance (Goldsmith & Kraiger, 1997). Newell (1998, 2002) argued that the key goals of interdisciplinary education is to develop high-order thinking: freedom of inquiry, critical thinking deductive reasoning, reasoning by analogy, and synthetic thinking through integrated education. Horton (1981) also has argued that interdisciplinary teaching may lead students to a more meaningful learning experience, enabling them to reach higher levels of scientific literacy. Thus, rather than teaching students to think solely through a single disciplinary point of view, it is clear that science teachers should enable students to organize and understand knowledge from multiple scientific fields of study. The PISA (Programme for International Student Assessment) 2012 (OECD, 2013) showed that American students performed slightly above the mean (500) with 508 points in problem solving. Although the competency has been improved, there is still a demand in U.S. education for development of methods to improve students’ performances when the compared average performances from Asian countries such as Singapore (562) or South Korea (561) are significantly higher. Although the 2012 PISA study reported that the largest achievement gap in problem solving between the U.S. and the highest performing Asian countries was found on tasks where students need to demonstrate high order thinking such as organizing and integrating the information in order to formulate their understanding. Interdisciplinary science teaching will have the potential for enhancing the students’ problem solving abilities. By focusing on interdisciplinary science topics and problems rather than an isolated discipline, science teachers could have an increased opportunity for students to reinforce their process of problem solving.
This paper aims to explore historical and current trends on interdisciplinary learning and teaching, and also further contextualize and review key literature to comprehend the nature of knowledge integration for interdisciplinary teaching. This theoretical study is not intended to build a general model about the interdisciplinary instruction of science teachers, but rather to provide an opportunity for them to consider what interdisciplinarity is and develop their own integrated knowledge and educational practices.
This paper is guided by two research questions:
(1) What are the historical and current trends in interdisciplinary learning and teaching in science education?
(2) What are the nature of an epistemic perspective and conceptual frameworks in regards to explaining science teachers’ knowledge integration for interdisciplinary teaching?
The review is comprised in the following way: Part 1 dealt with Shulman’s and other scholars’ notion of teacher knowledge, and emphasized lateral curriculum knowledge as a precursor of integrated knowledge. In this section, a body of literature presented how the components of teacher knowledge are conceptualized in multiple ways according to several researchers. Part 2 described the historical and current perspectives of interdisciplinary teaching and learning within American education. Part 3 compared a schema structure regarding knowledge integration between expert and novice teachers. Part 4 described some empirical literature that presents the ways they utilized knowledge integration frameworks. Lastly, I concluded with an insight related to a further and deeper understanding, in which professional development can contribute to an enhancement of knowledge integration of science teachers.
Conceptual Framework
Conceptualization of Teacher Knowledge
Since the 1960s scholars and policymakers in the U.S. and other countries have constantly strived to uncover optimal answers to questions pertaining to the kinds of knowledge that are of highest priority and are a necessity for teachers to obtain. Additionally, researchers have focused on the definition and classification of teachers’ knowledge domains (Gess-Newsome, 1999; Grossman, 1990; Magnusson et al., 1999; Shulman, 1986, 1987). Recent researches have tried to document and portray teachers’ knowledge (Lee et al., 2008; Loughran et al., 2001, 2008), and further investigated how the domains of teachers’ knowledge interacts with one another and how they impact the overall teaching/learning experience (Park & Chen, 2012). A rich body of literature presented the complex and multifaceted nature of teachers’ knowledge through its various classification for differing purposes. There are strong tendencies to see knowledge that teachers have as two different categories: ‘subject-matter knowledge’ and ‘pedagogical knowledge’. This would be before Shulman’s PCK became generally known. However, Shulman (1986) had argued another knowledge category area in need to be an addition to existing knowledge such as ‘subject matter knowledge’ and ‘pedagogical knowledge’, pointing out that only two knowledge areas are not enough to represent the teachers’ ability in the field of education. Shulman (1986) also conceptualized ‘curriculum knowledge ' by categorizing it as four separate components (see Table 1).
INSERT TABLE 1 HERE
The first component of curriculum knowledge consists of knowledge from different programs and instructional materials for teaching a particular subject. Component two of curricular knowledge entails the effectiveness and implications of programs and materials, including the pros and cons of them. The third component is the knowledge of the content and its corresponding materials in other subject areas that the students may have already had or will have (lateral curriculum knowledge), and the fourth component entails the knowledge of how the particular topics are developed across in a given program (vertical curriculum knowledge). The definition of lateral curricular knowledge by Shulman overlaps with the meaning of integrated content knowledge across two or more established areas of expertise. Although Shulman directly has not mentioned integrated knowledge of teachers, it is clear that the concept of lateral curriculum knowledge connotes the nature of integrated content knowledge.
Grossman (1990) suggested four general areas of teachers’ knowledge to represent professional knowledge for teaching; general pedagogical knowledge; subject matter knowledge; pedagogical content knowledge (PCK); and knowledge of context (see Figure 1). Grossman’s (1990) categorization of PCK components into knowledge about curriculum, students, instructional strategies, and learning contexts, appears to be more encompassing than Shulman’s classification. Grossman (1990) conceptualized PCK into four central components. One component includes knowledge and beliefs about the purposes for teaching a subject at different grade levels. This knowledge is related to the teachers’ goals for teaching a particular subject matter. The second component of PCK includes knowledge of students’ understanding, conceptions, and misconceptions of particular topics. The other is curriculum knowledge, which includes knowledge of curriculum materials, as well as both the horizontal and vertical curriculum knowledge for a specific discipline. Grossman (1990) argued that curriculum knowledge is a sub-category of PCK whereas Shulman (1986) claimed that curriculum knowledge is an independent component of PCK.
INSERT FIGURE 1 HERE
Marks (1990) showed that the portrait of PCK is composed of four domains: subject matter for instructional purposes, students’ understanding of the subject matter, media for instruction in the subject matter, and instructional processes for the subject matter. Marks classified that ‘grade-specific curriculum’ and ‘topic organization’ as instructional processes that emerged from their study. Marks believed that the curriculum knowledge interacts with one of the subcategories of PCK at the highest level within the structure.
Gess-Newsome (1999) used the integrative and transformative model to address the features of teachers’ knowledge using the analogy ‘mixture versus compound’. The integrative model is like a mixture, where the original elements still have their chemical characteristics. The knowledge domains of subject matter, pedagogy, and context in the integrative model tend to exist as separate entities. This knowledge is melded in classroom practice, and one particular domain of this knowledge can serve as justification for planned instruction decision. In contrast, the transformative model implies that the initial knowledge is combined into other forms of knowledge and consequently, a compound of knowledge are transformed as a more substantial type of new knowledge.
History and Current Trends of Interdisciplinary Learning and Teaching in American Education.
Interdisciplinarity is important in that individuals deal with complex problems and phenomena that are not easily comprehensible or resolvable from a single understanding or resolution when approached from a single disciplinary framework in regards to real life situations. The historical perspectives of interdisciplinary learning provides evidence that educational reformers long before our time have advocated interdisiciplinarity in order to emphasize active learning, contextual knowledge, real-life issues, and unified organization of curriculum (Beane, 1997; Chandramohan & Fallows, 2009; Kliebard, 2004). The “interdisciplinary” term was coined in the early decades of the twentieth century and the term has been used for over a 100 years (Klein, 1990). However, the concept of interdisciplinarity had existed even before the emergence of the term. Plato was the first philosopher to advocate it as a synthesis between knowledge and unified science (Klein, 1990). Aristotle also was a philosopher who had the innate ability to gather all kinds of knowledge and organize it to form broader or innovative concepts.