Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
116
Evidence of integrated curricula in various forms is to be found in schools throughout Australia and internationally. In Western Australia, for example, several innovative schools have attempted integration of science, mathematics and technology
through a variety of methods, such as a thematic approach to curriculum, technologybased projects, competitions, integrated assignments, synchronised content and local
community projects (Venville, Wallace, Rennie, & Malone, 1998). Several issues
were raised by the teachers in these schools highlighting the two-sided nature of
integration. On the one hand teachers observed many benefits of integration for
their students, including increased motivation and engagement and application of
mathematics and science concepts to contextualised technology tasks. On the other
hand, some teachers felt insecure when teaching outside their subject speciality and
were concerned about student learning during integrated units of work because they
felt their knowledge of the content was weakened.
Beane (1995) defines integration as a curriculum that begins with problems, issues and concerns posed by life itself and takes this one step further to say that the
central focus of curriculum integration is the search for self- and social meaning
(p. 616). Beane explains that pupils are engaged in seeking, acquiring and using
knowledge in an organic not an artificial way. According to Beane, then, integrated curricula begin by working with young people to examine the problems,
issues and concerns of life as it is being lived in a real world. In a similar vein,
Rogers (1997) describes a curriculum that uses a sense of knowledge based in the real
world and in the childs experience. Rogers suggests that such a curriculum would
engage pupils in rigorous and deep learning and encourage them to begin mapping
their own understandings as a result of their experiences. Interestingly, neither Beane
nor Rogers exclude learning within disciplines. Instead, they argue that by working
through themes, to broaden and deepen understanding of the world and ourselves,
we must draw on the disciplines of knowledge.
From the perspectives taken by Rogers (1997) and Beane (1995), an integrated
curriculum draws on the disciplines as a source of explanation and inquiry to answer and explore organic, or real life, issues relevant to young people. But how
useful are the disciplines as a source of explanation, information and knowledge
in an integrated learning context? Are the facts, information and concepts learnt in
science and mathematics useful to students who are trying to complete technologybased projects or solve engineering problems, for example? Or are other sources of
information, such as the teacher, other students, and people outside the classroom
preferred sources of knowledge? The purpose of this research was to investigate how
students sought and used knowledge to make key decisions that significantly affected
the outcome of a technology-based solar boat project. In particular, the study looks
at how science and mathematics content knowledge was utilised or valued by the
students.
In previous work (Venville, Wallace, Rennie, & Malone, 2000), we found that
integrated teaching and learning served to involve the students in thinking and learning that bridged the compartmentalised knowledge often associated with traditional
discipline-based learning (Hargreaves, Earl, & Ryan, 1996). Technology-based
117
projects, such as the solar boat, provided a context in which the students could
apply the understandings they had developed in science, mathematics and technology. However, we noted that while students referred to the subject-based content
knowledge to help them solve problems related to the integrated project, they often
used other sources of knowledge such as the teacher, classroom trials, results from
experiments and investigations and other students and family members. Clearly, there
is a need to go beyond traditional, subject-based standards to evaluate the kind of
learning that occurs in integrated educational environments. Hence, our interest in
wider sources of knowledge and students decision making process in integrated
learning contexts. Two key literatures are relevant here, students conceptions of
knowledge and learning in communities.
For students who learn in this way, knowledge arises out of their experiences and
these experiences are expressed in terms of activities undertaken, projects performed
and, for girls in particular, by means of verbal exchanges (OLoughlin, 1994). Many
boys thought of school knowledge as being seldom linked with reality and not very
enjoyable. Gaining school knowledge was seen as something they did for their parents, or so that they could be successful in later life. But in contrast, young adolescents thought that becoming knowledgeable was something different, something they
did for themselves, as an activity, a process in which they were physically engaged
with people they knew and with whom they felt comfortable. Gaining knowledge
is very clearly about an encounter with the world at this stage of the students lives
(p. 46). OLoughlin claims that the adolescent view of knowledge and its obtainment
is not about a narrow reasoning process, or a cognitive gain, but more inclusive of the
social and environmental contexts within which learning occurs. Often these contexts
are missing in the way knowledge is structured in schools.
118
Learning in Communities
Roth (1998) provides an extensive case study centrally concerned with knowing
and learning in communities in which students have significant opportunities to take
charge of their own learning. Roths central argument, similar to that of OLoughlin
(1994), is that cognition is not something that occurs exclusively in the mind of
people, but is something that arises from the interaction of human actors with their
social and material settings. He claims that childrens learning about engineering can
be understood as the construction of networks that include various actors, resources
and practices in a community. Roth examines the processes by which resources and
practices come to be recognised as shared within such a knowledge producing community. He describes the circulation of resources, such as facts, artifacts, materials
and tools. Through the case study, Roth creates an image that cognition arises from
an organic whole, rather than from the interaction of separate and independently
modeled minds and settings.
In a specific example of knowledge-production in a community, Roth (1998) describes how the use of a glue gun by one student on a high school engineering project
eventually resulted in the transformation of the technological resources and practices
in the learning community. He observed that the student who initially brought a
glue gun to class rejected other students requests to use the gun by saying that
his father had said that only he and the teacher could use it. His sister suggested
several months later that it had been her glue gun and neither she nor her father had
made requests to limit users. Another student soon brought a second glue gun to
class and once the students had relinquished control over their tools, the monopoly
on the glue gun technology was broken. As more students began using the tool,
new networks evolved in which the glue gun and glue gun-related practices were
circulated. As Roth describes this process he refers to a conversation between one
of the students who initially brought the glue gun and two students who had never
used a glue gun before. The experienced user explained to the two novice glue gun
users how the gun melts the glue and how to clean it. He showed the other students
how his father had shown him to pull it back when you are finished (p. 139). In
this case, the knowledge of how to use the glue gun originated with the students
father. The students father was an external source of knowledge and through the
student the knowledge of how to use the glue gun became part of the shared group
knowledge.
Another classroom situation described by Roth (1998) demonstrates how the teacher can be an important source of knowledge for solving technological problems.
The students were required to build a pentagon using toothpicks and marshmallows.
A dialogue between two students clearly demonstrated that one student encouraged
the other to use the teachers suggestion of making triangles, you just take, you only
have to put one on the top. You remember she said make a triangle. If you make a
triangle, if you make a giant triangle, it keeps it stabeler (sic) (p. 161). These simple
references to the sources of knowledge that subsequently circulate throughout the
119
120
Method
In this study, qualitative methods of data collection were used to obtain a detailed,
intimate description of classroom learning episodes (Erickson, 1986) about their
solar boat. Data from classroom observation, student and teacher interviews, and
examination of student portfolios and videos were triangulated in order to present a
comprehensive analysis of students participation in the integrated unit of work from
several perspectives and to enhance the internal validity or credibility (Altheide &
Johnson, 1994). The data collection was carried out from early March to early June
(from mid term 1 to early term 2 of the students Year 9 course).
The technology, science and mathematics teachers of the ATP course agreed to
participate in the study after being approached by the first author of this article. The
students and their parents and guardians were informed of the nature of the research
by letter. A researcher visited the technology, mathematics, and science classes as
121
122
Lesson Prcis
The goal of this lesson, that was about one third of the way through the solar boat
project, was to reflect on the initial trials of the prototype hulls and to plan the next
step in hull design. The lesson began with the design and technology teacher leading
a class discussion about the trials. He reminded the students that they had studied
Archimedes principle and displacement in science to help them with the initial
design of their hull shape and size. He mentioned that one groups prototype hull
sank during the trials of the prototype hulls. The students were instructed to make
decisions about their hull shape, size, construction and materials in the next forty
minutes and to produce a working drawing of the hull design. The students spent
the rest of the lesson considering their original prototypes and their performance in
the trials and how they could improve their designs. New working drawings were
produced and the teacher spent time with each of the groups of students asking
questions about how and why they were considering changes to their designs.
Kevin and Jin-ming1
Kevin used Archimedes Principle to work out that a 500 mm long hull would float
with the weight added. He made a 300 mm long prototype hull, however, thinking
that would do and it will go faster. During the trials the 300 mm hull floated by
itself but sank with the weight added. Jin-ming also made a prototype hull and this
performed faster than Kevins but also was very low in the water with the weight
added. Jin-ming asked the teacher if he could work out how high a hull would float
in the water. The teacher said it was too difficult and they had a discussion about
boat builders test tanks for scale models to test their designs. After the trialing of
prototypes, Jin-ming went ahead and developed his hull and Kevin concentrated on
the solar cells. One week before the final testing, Kevin and Jin-ming tried their final
hull and found that it was unstable with the large solar cells attached. They decided
to abandon that hull and quickly constructed a wide and cumbersome hull that was
very stable but performed slowly in the tests.
Sharon and Cynthia
Sharon and Cynthia discussed hull designs with each other and used ideas from
assignments by last years students that had been displayed in the classroom by the
teacher. Sharon and Cynthia initially were not sure if they should do their isometric
drawing of the hull at life size, so they asked their design and technology teacher.
They decided to make their hull smaller than their original prototype because they
wanted it to have less friction and drag in the water than the prototype had in the
trials. They also decided to use the teachers idea to apply an iron-on plastic coating
on their hull to reduce friction. Cynthia said in her post interview that they added a
keel to the hull because during trials it got blown off-course by the strong wind. The
123
design and technology teacher suggested a keel would help to prevent it going offcourse and give it better stability. Sharon said that the most helpful information for
making decisions about their hull design was the display, organised by the teacher,
of the projects by students in previous years and information about the performance
of these students boats, particularly the more successful boats. Even though the
winning boat from the previous year was made from balsa wood, Sharon and Cynthia
decided not to use the same material because of budget constraints. Instead, they
used styro-foam material for their hull with the plastic coating and made it more
streamlined with a turned up nose. The hull performed well in the final testing, with
this pair of students having the second fastest boat in the class.
Reece and Sam
Reece and Sam decided to make a smaller, shorter and slimmer boat than their
original prototype because it had too much drag in the water during trials and didnt
go as fast as the other boats. Comparing their hull with other class members prototypes made them realize that it was too high and unstable, so they cut a slice off
the bottom to give it a flatter shape. This, however, resulted in the prototype having
too much drag in the water. Sam wrote in his portfolio that because their prototypes
performed so poorly they started from scratch with their final design. They looked at
last years best performer and went for a similar design (a single hull shaped like a
speed boat). When they made their final hull from balsa wood, they put a slight angle
on the bottom to give it less drag and more streamlining. They also found that if they
put a keel on the boat it was more likely to go straight. In the post interview, Sam
said they made their hull less wide than their prototype because in the trials it didnt
go fast, but they had to be careful that it was wide and stable enough to allow their
motor and solar cells to be mounted. Sam said that Archimedes Principle that they
learnt in science didnt help him with the hull design and Reece said even though
he understood Archimedes Principle they didnt use it to design their hull. These
students made their hull at home with the help of Reeces father. They used balsa
wood, because its lighter and will probably go faster. This groups final balsa
wood hull was the best finished and aesthetically pleasing in the class. It had good
streamlining and stability, however, a poorly constructed winch resulted in a poor
performance in the final tests.
A diagrammatic representation of the sources of knowledge used by each of the
groups of students to address the issue of hull design can be seen in Figure 1.
Decision 2: Circuit Design
The students were encouraged to use their understanding of circuits and Ohms
Law to test various series and parallel circuits in order to make a decision about the
circuit including solar cells that would provide their motor with the maximum power
output.
124
125
for the solar-powered boat firstly, that the motor operated between 1.5 and 3 volts
and secondly, the maximum current was 2000 mA. The teacher explained that the
students were to repeat the trials during this lesson because it was cloudy, compared
with the previous lessons sunny weather, and they could compare the results. The
students went outside for about 20 minutes to do the cloudy weather trials.
During the trials many groups started with five cells in parallel and tried various
combinations of cells in parallel and in series. The students used multi-meters to
record the voltage and current and most groups recorded their results in notebooks.
When the students returned to the classroom the science teacher completed the lesson
by going over the idea that it is important to measure current and voltage because it
is the combination of these readings that results in the power being produced by the
circuit. He commented that todays current was a quarter of Fridays readings and the
voltage was a tiny flicker. He went back to the diagram on the board and showed
the students that the motor would not go because there wouldnt be enough power
because of the low voltage. The teacher also wrote the light intensity readings of 900
lux for that day and 19 540 lux for the previous lesson on the blackboard.
Kevin and Jin-ming
Kevin and Jin-ming were pleased with their initial combination of two cells in
series and one in parallel because they recorded a high reading of 1600 mA for
the current and 1.5 V for the voltage. During classroom trials, Kevin tinkered with
several combinations of solar cells. When he set up five 400 mA solar cells in series
he said he, blew the water out of the tank with a voltage of 2.9 V and a higher
current than all their previous readings. Jin-ming said he didnt understand how
they got a higher current reading because, in series that isnt supposed to happen.
Kevin consulted the design and technology teacher who reminded him that resistance
causes the voltage to go down and the voltage overcomes the resistance. The students
realised that for the loaded motor the voltage was more critical. They did further
trials to confirm this. They concluded that a series circuit would increase the voltage
to compensate for the load. The students also discovered through trials that a parallel
circuit has more joints than a series circuit, therefore more resistance and drains more
power.
Sharon and Cynthia
Sharon and Cynthia initially assembled five 400 mA cells in parallel because they
thought they had high enough voltage and, based on the theory, they wanted to raise
the current to increase the power output. They said that they had found, through
trials, that the parallel circuit would increase the current and series would increase the
voltage. They tried their circuit and were surprised and disappointed with low voltage
readings. Sharon and Cynthia tried a combination of one cell connected in series and
the rest in parallel so that they could get a bit more voltage and still have a big
amount of current. They tried this combination but still were disappointed with low
126
voltage. By the next lesson these students had changed their circuit to five 400 mA
cells in series. They commented that they had asked another student, Michelle, what
her group was doing and Cynthia asked her brother who did the same activity a couple of years ago. Both the other student and Cythias brother suggested five cells in
series. The students understood that they got more power from this circuit, because
power is current times voltage. They understood that, the motor needed all the
voltage, like 1.5 wasnt enough. They did not articulate the importance of resistance
and possibly didnt understand the important of resistance (due to the motor) reducing the voltage. For their final circuit, the students found that five 400 mA cells were
too heavy for their hull and so they used two 1000 mA cells in series.
Reece and Sam
Reece and Sam initially assembled five 400 mA solar cells in parallel. The students
used their trial results to justify this choice because they found with the cells in series
they had high voltage and lower current. They felt the lower current reading would
reduce the power output. In parallel, the voltage and current readings were more
even, that is, neither readings were what the students considered low. Reece and
Sam figured that the parallel circuit would therefore give them better power output.
Later on in the course of the project they changed their circuit to a series circuit. They
said that Kevin had showed them that his had worked extremely fast in series so they
changed to the same kind of circuit. The students understood that the series circuit
raised the voltage and hence the power output but did not articulate an understanding
of the importance of resistance added to the circuit as a result of the load of the motor.
During the interview, Reece and Sam said that learning Ohms law did not help them
understand how to get the maximum power, but observing the other students trials
did.
A diagrammatic representation of the sources of knowledge used by each of the
groups of students to address the issue of circuit design can be seen in Figure 2.
Decision 3: Solar Cell Mount Design
The students were required to make a decision about the most suitable mount
for their solar panels so that the optimal angle to the sun could be achieved on the
testing day. The students were taught, during mathematics, how to use a sun chart
that provided most of the information required for orientation of solar equipment at
a particular latitude.
Lesson Prcis
The students had one lesson about how to use the sun chart during mathematics.
The teacher gave them a handout with a photocopy of the sun chart for latitude 32
south (appropriate for Perth). The teacher questioned the students about why they
needed to orient the solar panels to the sun and one student correctly responded that
127
128
confident that he had worked out the correct angle, but explained in his interview that
due to the difficulties they had with their hull design and because they used a hull
constructed during the last days before testing, they did not have time to work on
the solar panel orientation in a sophisticated way. Kevin explained that on the day of
testing they took it [the boat] outside and pointed it [solar panels] towards the sun.
Photographs of their boat show the panels oriented towards the sun.
Sharon and Cynthia
Sharon and Cynthia used the solar chart and trigonometry to work out the best
angle for their solar panels. They discussed, with their design and technology teacher,
how best to set up the solar cells on their boat. The teacher suggested they should
consider the extra load of cells to the mass of their boat. Cynthia explained in the
post-interview that the solar chart was useful because they worked out the exact
angle the sun would be on the testing day. She said that they worked it out together
using trigonometry and Sharon confirmed in her portfolio that they used the sun chart
to work out the appropriate angle.
Reece and Sam
During the post-interview, Sam said the mathematics lesson about the solar chart
was very useful information to help him and Reece mount their solar cells at just the
right angle. He said it worked well. In the post interview, Reece also said the sun
chart and the associated mathematics were useful for them to get just the right angle
to mount their solar cells.
A diagrammatic representation of the sources of knowledge used by each of the
groups of students to address the issue of solar cell mount can be seen in Figure 3.
129
Discussion
Discipline-based Theory as a Source of Knowledge
The discipline-based theory to which students were exposed in science or mathematics lessons such as Archimedes Principle, Ohms Law and trigonometry, was
used as a source of knowledge by the students in this integrated science, mathematics
and technology course. The discipline-based theory was most frequently used at the
beginning of the decision-making process as students referred to concepts from their
science and mathematics classes to help them with the problems they faced while
producing their solar boats. For example, while making decisions about the circuit
design all groups of students initially used ideas they had learnt in science about series and parallel circuits and Ohms Law (Figure 2). In the hull design problem, only
one group of students, Kevin and Jin-ming, initially utilised Archimedes Principle
(Figure 1). Kevin explained in his post interview how the science theory gave him
some background ideas for the initial design of their hull:
Kevin:
Well that part [displacement knowledge from science] was good because it gave us a bit of
background knowledge for designing it [the hull] . . . You could actually work out whether
it would sink into the water before you actually, before you trialed it and then you can start
designing your hull around that.
Interviewer:
And did that help you with the design of the hull do you think?
Kevin:
It did with my first prototype, but then that kind of backfired and sank. So we kind of gave
up with that.
How come it sank, even though you worked it out, do you think?
Interviewer:
Kevin:
Oh because I worked it out for a 500 mL boat, hull, and in the end I only made a 300 mL
one. And that sank.
130
The solar cell orientation problem stood in contrast with the other two problems because all three groups of students simply were able to use the theoretical information
presented as a solar chart to orientate their solar panels on their boat (Figure 3).
Cynthia explained the usefulness of the solar chart:
The sun chart was helpful because otherwise we might have done like something that would have been
either more upright so it wouldnt have got as much sun or they [the solar panels] might have been flatter,
so only part of it would have got in the sun. So it [the boat] might have stopped.
Jin-ming commented on the usefulness of trials when he was asked about how he
and Kevin decided that five cells in series would be the best circuit for their boat
(Figure 2):
We just tested it. We tested different circuits and we knew that series would increase the voltage and
parallel circuit would increase the current.
The trials were Kevin and Jin-mings source of knowledge in terms of finding out
what circuit performed best within the parameters of the solar boat project. Once
they had this knowledge, these students, themselves, became a source of knowledge
131
readily available and accessible to other members of the class. This process resulted
in the development of networks where knowledge was shared in the classroom community (Roth, 1998). The sharing of knowledge among students in the classroom
community, is discussed further in the next section.
Designs that students had used in previous years were used as an important source
of knowledge by Reece and Sam when they started their hull design from scratch
half-way through the course (Figure 1). Sharon and Cynthia also used ideas from
previous years students, but in contrast with Reece and Sam who used this source
of knowledge as a contingency when things went wrong, they used this knowledge
from the start of the hull design process (Figure 1). Sharon commented on how they
gathered useful information from that source of knowledge and then adapted it to the
available resources:
Cynthia and I looked at the other boats that performed well last year and then we adapted one that won in
the previous year and the one that won the year before that. And so, the one that won last year was kind
of balsa and we didnt want to spend money on balsa, so we used foam. It [last years winning boat] had
a good shape that was more streamlined and so we produced it and made the nose turn up a bit because it
was something that we knew that streamlined [hulls] go through water, it cuts through.
This process of networking, using other students and people outside the class as
sources of information, reflects Roths (1998) descriptions of learning communities. The knowledge about potentially high performing hull designs and high power
output circuit designs originated from other people within or outside the classroom
and this knowledge transformed the knowledge resources available in the community. In these situations, the knowledge was developed through conversations and
demonstrations between members of the community.
132
It was interesting to note during classroom observations that the technology teacher
did not overload the students with information at the beginning of the course. He
tended to provide information to the students on an as-needed basis as if he was a
consultant. When one or two groups of students approached him with a question or
problem he would then stop the class and suggest some possible solutions that the
students could take or leave as they felt was suitable for their particular solar boat.
Conclusions
The results indicated that the academically talented students that were the focus
of this study used several sources of knowledge to make key decisions that significantly affected the outcome of the technology-based, solar powered boat project.
The sources of knowledge included the discipline-based content knowledge taught in
science and mathematics lessons, the classroom teachers, trials and tests performed
by the students during lessons, students from the class and students and other people,
like family members, from outside the classroom. We tentatively conclude that the
extent to which the students relied on various sources of information seemed to be
directly linked with the degree of open-endedness of the problem that the students
were attempting to address. For example, we observed the students making decisions
133
about the practical problem of orientation of their solar panels on their boat. This
was a relatively convergent, or closed problem because there was only one appropriate solution. The theoretical information presented in mathematics was enough
to allow the students to make a confident and accurate decision about the solar cell
orientation. They could find the solution, through the simple process of reading the
information from a chart. Hence, the students did not need to go to any other sources
of knowledge to find answers.
In contrast, we observed students making decisions about the relatively divergent,
or open-ended task of designing the hull for their boat. This was a more complicated
problem compared with solar cell orientation because there was no single, correct
answer. The problem involved many variables such as the material, size, and shape
of the hull and each variable influenced and interacted with the other variables. In this
situation, the students tended to rely on a greater variety of sources of knowledge to
help them find a suitable hull that would be competitive in the final testing. A contributing factor was that the content knowledge about Archimedes Principle from
their science lessons did not give the students a definitive answer to the practical
problem of the hull design. Other sources of knowledge, such as designs used by
students in previous years classes, trials performed by students during lessons and
parents were more productive in providing helpful knowledge that had immediate
effects in terms of the performance of the boat.
We also observed the students making decisions about the circuit design for their
solar-powered boat. This problem was somewhere between the hull design and the
solar cell orientation problems in terms of its open-endedness. Although, in the end,
there seemed to be one best answer, there were a number of variables that interacted
and influenced the power output and it was not a straight forward process of working
out the solution from a formula or chart. In this situation, the students also relied on
a variety of sources of knowledge to find a solution to their problem. In a similar
situation to the hull design, the content knowledge studied in science, did not result
in the students being able to work out a satisfactory solution to the practical problem
of the circuit design. Alternative sources of information such as trials, other students
in the class and outside the class were a more productive and immediate source of
useful knowledge.
It is interesting to note that the teachers commented at the end of the course that
they were considering reducing the openended nature of the project in relation to
the students choice of circuit design. They were concerned about the amount of time
students expended on testing various circuits and said that in the following year they
were considering providing a predetermined set of circuits that students should test
to help them make their decision about the circuit design for the solar boat. This
is a significant practical aspect of integrated teaching that teachers must consider.
Teachers have to perform a balancing act between openended and closed problems
allowing students to find appropriate solutions within the time available. Moreover,
the choices students make in performing the task and accessing knowledge will depend on the nature and quality of the task, and the constraints set by the teacher and
other community members.
134
Note
1. Pseudonyms are used throughout this paper.
References
Altheide, D. L., & Johnson, J. M. (1994). Criteria for assessing interpretive validity
in qualitative research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of
qualitative research (pp. 485499). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Beane, J. A. (1995). Curriculum integration and the disciplines of knowledge. Phi
Delta Kappan, 76(8), 616622.
Clark, D. C., & Clark, S. N. (1994). Meeting the needs of young adolescents. Schools
in the Middle, 4(1), 47.
Erickson, F. (1986). Qualitative methods in research on teaching. In M. C. Wittrock
(Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed., pp. 119161). New York:
Macmillan.
Furinghetti, F., & Somaglia, A. (1998). History of mathematics in schools across
disciplines. Mathematics in School, 27(4), 4851.
Hargreaves, A., Earl, L., & Ryan, J. (1996). Schooling for change: Reinventing
education for early adolescents. London: The Falmer Press.
Hirst, P. H. (1974). Knowledge and the curriculum: A collection of philosophical
papers. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Merriam, S. B. (1998). Case study research in education: A qualitative approach.
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
135
Newman, R. S., & Schwager, M. T. (1992). Student perceptions and academic helpseeking. In D. H. Schunk & J. L. Meece (Eds.), Student perceptions in the
classroom (pp. 123146). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
OLoughlin, M. (1994). Being and knowing: Self and knowledge in early adolescence. Curriculum Perspectives, 14(3), 4446.
Reiss, M. J., & Tunnicliffe, S. D. (1999, March). Building a model of the environment: How do children see plants? Paper presented at the annual meeting of the
National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Boston, MA.
Rogers, B. (1997). Informing the shape of the curriculum: New views of knowledge
and its representation in schooling. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 29(6), 683
710.
Ross, J. A., & Hogaboam-Gray, A. (1998). Integrated mathematics, science and technology: Effects on students. International Journal of Science Education, 20(9),
11191135.
Roth, W. M. (1998). Designing communities. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.
Schools Council, National Board of Employment, Education and Training. (1993).
The compulsory years in the middle: Schooling for young adolescents. Canberra,
Australia: Australian Government Publishing Service.
Venville, G., Wallace, J., Rennie, L., & Malone, J. (1998). The integration of science,
mathematics and technology in a discipline-based culture. School Science and
Mathematics, 98(6), 294302.
Venville, G., Wallace, J., Rennie, L., & Malone, J. (2000). Bridging the boundaries
of compartmentalised knowledge: Student learning in an integrated environment.
Research in Science and Technological Education, 18(1), 2335.
Venville, G., Wallace, J., Rennie, L., & Malone, J. (2002). Curriculum integration:
Eroding the high ground of science as a school subject? Studies in Science
Education, 37, 4384.
Wicklein, R. C., & Schell, J. W. (1997). Case studies of multidisciplinary approaches to integrating mathematics, science and technology education. Journal
of Technology Education, 6(2), 16.