September/October 2017 – Vol. 30 No. 1

Middle School Madness Part 2: Integrated Science Versus Coordinated Science

Posted: Thursday, November 12th, 2015

by Robert Sherriff

In my last article, I compared the integrated versus discipline-specific models of teaching science in middle school. In this article, I seek to dispel some misconceptions and refine the comparison of an integrated science program with a coordinated science program.

This past summer, I was honored to participate in presenting at the two Northern California NGSS Early Implementation Institutes. I was part of a science content cadre to which I brought both my 25 years of middle school teaching experience and my knowledge of NGSS (I was on the State Science Expert Panel and was Co-chair of the Curriculum Framework Criteria Committee – CFCC). Other members of the cadre included Bob Rumer, an innovative engineering professor who helped us incorporate the Engineering Standards, and an outstanding high school science teacher, Lesley Gates, who helped provide activities and pedagogy.

One part of our learning experiences for our 8th grade teacher participants was to involve them in a preview of a publisher’s “integrated” middle school instructional material. We engaged in a lesson from the material that was well-designed, interesting, and even fun. Although the publisher showed how the lesson fit into a series of lessons as part of its “integrated program,” there were no connections between disciplines.

I asked: “Where is the integration?” The teachers responded with: “What do you mean? This IS integrated!” It was apparent, at least to me, that while the lesson appeared to be part of a superb “coordinated” program, it was NOT integrated. Later, I spoke with another publisher who was visiting our institute, and after a short while, I realized his plan was also a coordinated, not integrated, program. Talking to a few more publishers and variety of classroom teachers confirmed what I had been coming to realize: it appeared a large number of science educators were confused about the difference between integrated and coordinated science.

Suddenly I experienced a red-flag moment and thought, “What’s wrong with this picture?” I remembered we worked diligently at the Science Expert Panel to create an integrated program, and the Framework committee continued to make edits to provide a detailed integrated example for the middle school models. Next, I sent out an email to many leading science educators all over California about their views of coordinated versus integrated. The responses were varied, which told me that within our practice, we desperately needed further clarification.

So what is the difference between the two ideas and why are we in this pickle? Simply stated, the difference between coordinated and integrated is the type of connections that can be made between and among the various fields of science. In a coordinated curriculum, discipline specific units in life, earth, chemistry and physics are all taught in a single year to the same students. It is up to the teacher to help students “remember when we talked about chemical reactions in chemistry? Well, photosynthesis is a chemical reaction.” In a coordinated model students could even be rotated each quarter between different teachers. In this case connections between the disciplines would then be rare or non-existent unless the teachers themselves were given time to integrate between the disciplines…and time is always in short supply.

In an integrated curriculum, content from different disciplines are bundled together, creating different learning than when the concepts are treated independently. Kathy DiRanna, Statewide Director, K-12 Alliance, summed up the differences between the two saying “’Coordinated’ would be when there is a structure (chapters or modules) in which each science is treated mostly as its own discipline with references to the other sciences. An example would be when chemical reactions are treated fully in a physical science unit, with references in the bio (e.g., photosynthesis) and earth (rock cycle) units. ‘Integrated’ is where the performance expectations (PEs) are bundled to include appropriate science, e.g., matter is conserved (physical) as evidenced by matter cycling in ecosystems (life) and in earth systems (earth science).”

Does it really matter if something is coordinated or integrated? To understand the history of this issue, I spoke with Dean Gilbert a leader of an earlier science reform movement, the SS&C (Scope Sequence and Coordination project), and a current advocate for integrated science. The SS&C, as far back as 1992, in the SS&C/National Science Teachers Association’s book, “The Content Core,” promoted every science every year. This movement was in response to research, which indicated that a typical science program “discourages real learning not only in its overemphasis on facts, but in its very structure which inhibits students from making valuable connections between facts.” The research from the SS&C program found the greatest success with student learning from programs that were truly integrated, rather than coordinated. This would support the point of view of the Science Expert Panel and the CFCC (Framework Committee) for the preferred integrated model.

The NRC Framework for K-12 Science Education (2011) reemphasizes these ideas with a concern that current K-12 science education “emphasizes discrete facts with a focus on breadth over depth, and does not provide students with engaging opportunities to experience how science is actually done.” The NGSS promote deeper, conceptual learning by moving away from the memorization of facts to performance expectations that include three dimensional learning.

One of the major shifts that came out of the NRC Framework for K-12 Science Education that both it and NGSS are striving for is making these connections between science disciplines. A primary vehicle to do so is with the “crosscutting concepts that unify the study of science and engineering through their common application across fields.” (NRC, 2011)

In addition to promoting these connections, an integrated model helps to emphasize these connections showing how science is practiced today thus promoting connections to an even greater degree. Integrated science also allows students to investigate and understand phenomena and provides rich, real-world experiences for them to investigate. Some examples of this we worked on in our cadre was to explore the gravitational effects on living things as well as how heat transfer is dealt with directly by living things and in relation to climate. We sought to blend or integrate components of Earth, Life, and Physical science for a deeper, connected understanding. To paraphrase the words of one of the 8th grade teachers from our group, “[t]he integrated curriculum will play well with my students because those who don’t like physics very much will have another possible way into the content with a life science or earth science connection.”

The table below helps to summarize some differences between integrated and coordinated science.

Integrated v. Coordinated Science Table

Integrated v. Coordinated Science Table

Coordinated science might seem easier and it allows a publisher to produce a coordinated program that can be sold as individual subunits, making it discipline specific, or with a “road map” to connect the individual sub units. Yet, unless the connections are really strong, the coordinated program will not optimize the student learning. Research on how people learn shows us that we learn best when we make connections to ideas already in our brain.

A past cadre member of mine, Dr. David Polcyn (Professor of Biology CSU, San Bernardino) responded to my email on this topic, and he reminded me that the main issue is that most people just don’t like change and somehow coordinated science feels like less change. Integrated science is new, and teachers will worry about the time and resources they will need to do a good job. It is difficult to get out of one’s comfort zone, and it won’t happen overnight. But not having good integrated textbooks is a concern. (Are you reading this, publishers?)

Dr. Polcyn said he started, as did most of us, not teaching integrated but now he said, “I can’t imagine teaching without integration…in fact, the thing I find hardest about teaching non-majors biology at the university is that I CAN’T expect students to have any knowledge of chemistry, math, or physics, which makes it very tough to teach biology effectively, without having them just memorize a bunch of facts and then regurgitate them back.”

Peter A’Hearn, a K-12 science specialist with PSUSD, helped clarify ideas on implementation and the difficulties in dealing with change. Peter convinced me that after all the concerns I’ve raised with regard to coordinated science, and, after talking with more science teachers about their concerns over implementation (the lack of time, resources and knowledge), maybe it is ok to start with a coordinated science program as a bridge. This could be a three-year plan to deal with concerns, and with each passing year, as the familiarity with NGSS with 3D learning improves, the concern of lack of knowledge is met. Units and lessons can be traded at each site to help with resources, and the power of an integrated year can be achieved. Some may want to implement a little faster.

An example of a slower phasing in of an integrated program was provided by Dean Gilbert who noted that the instructional transition from coordinated to integrated did not occur overnight in his district. In the initial development and implementation of SS&C in his district, the first year’s curriculum was approximately 70% coordinated and 30% integrated. By the third year of district implementation and curriculum refinement, the curricula for Years 1, 2 and 3 was 70% integrated and 30% coordinated. This evolution was a direct result of increased teacher content expertise, defining key conceptual links between disciplines, and then weaving links around a central phenomenon or essential question. The reform was a gradual, incremental process without losing sight of the end goal—to create a rigorous, engaging, inquiry-based science program for students.

For implementation, the approach I’ve taken is to start with the known, evaluating where I’m at now. I was doing a coordinated discipline focused program, with some integration when the connections were obviously needed to provide any depth in the content. Our old 1998 Standards and Framework encouraged this small amount of integration to occur at each grade level, but they of course were not 3D and did not develop the richness of connections that is called out for in the NGSS. To repeat, since this is also a misconception that some have, our old standards were discipline focused and there is a portion at each grade level that is already supposed to be integrated. This previous integration was a natural starting place for me. So, in 6th grade heat is naturally integrated with climate in both the old and new standards, and gravity is integrated with astronomy in 8th in both standards. A starting place is born, and my next step was to make these become the 3D learning that is called out for in NGSS in both grades.  My cadre presented these integrated portions at our Early Implementer Institutes this past summer.

In order to make a smooth transition to an integrated program a district and a site will need to provide the support of time, professional development and resource acquisition so that a smooth implementation can occur. The LCAP plan at each district must include the support of implementation to new standards including NGSS, and so the LCAP can become a resource for achieving an integrated model, and an integrated model improves scientific literacy for Californians sooner rather than later.

Robert Sherriff is a member of the Science Expert Panel, the Co-chair of the CFCC (California Framework Curriculum Committee), an I.B. Science Teacher at Winston Churchill Middle School in the San Juan Unified School District, and a member of CSTA.

Written by Guest Contributor

From time to time CSTA receives contributions from guest contributors. The opinions and views expressed by these contributors are not necessarily those of CSTA. By publishing these articles CSTA does not make any endorsements or statements of support of the author or their contribution, either explicit or implicit. All links to outside sources are subject to CSTA’s Disclaimer Policy: http://www.classroomscience.org/disclaimer.

2 Responses

  1. I like the theory of integrated science, but the implementation worries me. Having taught middle school math and science for 23 years, I like to be very clear about what is the theme of my main units, what are the subunits, and how do subsidiary topics and lessons all fit together. I want them all to flow together nicely. I’m not afraid of change if it’s for the better, I just need to be convinced.

    I’m concerned that some of the NGSS thematic integration statements are misleading and the basis for integration may become disingenuously contrived.

    Two examples:
    I.
    Quote from Public Review Draft Framework:
    “A primary goal of this section is to provide an example of how to bundle the PEs into integrated groups that can effectively guide instruction in four sequential Instructional Segments. There is no prescription regarding the relative amount of time to be spent on each Instructional Segment. As shown in Figure 1, the overarching guiding concept for the entire year is that, ‘Climate arises from system interactions and strongly influences organism structures and behaviors.'” -CA Science Framework Draft Ch. 6 p. 1

    My comment:
    This is an example of the problem I have with the integrated model. Do we really believe that an *entire year’s overarching guiding concept* would be that climate strongly influences organism structures and behaviors? Of course climate influences organism structure and behavior, but so do a host of other factors – the needs for locomotion, nutrition, shelter, reproduction affect behavior and structure, while physiological requirements of respiration, excretion, circulation affect structure… Of course all these factors are influenced by the biome (hence climate) but it is misleading to present climate as the major factor, which this statement seems to do as an overarching guiding concept.

    II.
    Quote
    “Grade 8 – Instructional Segment 4: Sustaining Local and Global Biodiversity
    Guiding Questions:
    *What are the characteristic properties and behaviors of waves?
    *What human activities harm Earth’s biodiversity and what human activites help sustain local and global biodiversity?
    *How does communication technology encode information and how can digital technologies be used to help sustain biodiversity?” from p. 232 of Draft Science Framework, Table 8

    My comment:
    The instructional segment is on sustaining local and global biodiversity. The first guiding question has very little to do with this topic. Seriously, I’m going to get the students really excited about the theme of biodiversity and then study waves? Please.
    The second guiding question is GREAT! It makes total sense as a subsection of the Instructional Segment.
    The third guiding question is one of those I would say is really “stretching” to make a lot of disparate topics fit together. Yes, you can put them together, but is it *truly meaningful* to instruct students that the third major guiding question about how we can save biodiversity is to wonder how analog and digital signals combined with software and circuit boards can help us sustain biodiversity? I’m probably missing something here, but I would think that there would be other, more relevant issues to consider as logical subtopics of “Sustaining local and global biodiversity” – like a study of WHY we’d want to (basically that it takes time to create what Earth had 100 years ago). Subtopics could be: biomass related to diversity (ecological effects), a history of the fossil record diversity, appreciation of the time it takes for such diversity to evolve, a comparison of Archaean vs larger organisms’ genetic diversity and evolution, etc. I would think those subjects would much more closely correlate to the main theme than a contrived discussion of the use of digital technology to sustain biodiversity.
    Thanks for listening. I may be totally misunderstanding the point and would welcome any feedback that could enlighten me.

  2. Thank you so much for your well-articulated comment. I encourage you to also submit your comments regarding the curriculum framework to CDE if you have not already done so: http://www.cde.ca.gov/ci/sc/cf/scifw1st60daypubreview.asp.

Leave a Reply

LATEST POST

CSTA Is Now Accepting Nominations for Board Members

Posted: Friday, November 17th, 2017

Current, incoming, and outgoing CSTA Board of Directors at June 3, 2017 meeting.

Updated 7:25 pm, Nov. 17, 2017

It’s that time of year when CSTA is looking for dedicated and qualified persons to fill the upcoming vacancies on its Board of Directors. This opportunity allows you to help shape the policy and determine the path that the Board will take in the new year. There are time and energy commitments, but that is far outweighed by the personal satisfaction of knowing that you are an integral part of an outstanding professional educational organization, dedicated to the support and guidance of California’s science teachers. You will also have the opportunity to help CSTA review and support legislation that benefits good science teaching and teachers.

Right now is an exciting time to be involved at the state level in the California Science Teachers Association. The CSTA Board of Directors is currently involved in implementing the Next Generations Science Standards and its strategic plan. If you are interested in serving on the CSTA Board of Directors, now is the time to submit your name for consideration. Learn More…

Written by California Science Teachers Association

California Science Teachers Association

CSTA represents science educators statewide—in every science discipline at every grade level, Kindergarten through University.

State Schools Chief Tom Torlakson Announces 2017 Finalists for Presidential Awards for Excellence in Mathematics and Science Teaching

Posted: Wednesday, September 20th, 2017

SACRAMENTO—State Superintendent of Public Instruction Tom Torlakson today nominated eight exceptional secondary mathematics and science teachers as California finalists for the 2017 Presidential Awards for Excellence in Mathematics and Science Teaching (PAEMST).

“These teachers are dedicated and accomplished individuals whose innovative teaching styles prepare our students for 21st century careers and college and develop them into the designers and inventors of the future,” Torlakson said. “They rank among the finest in their profession and also serve as wonderful mentors and role models.”

The California Department of Education (CDE) partners annually with the California Science Teachers Association and the California Mathematics Council to recruit and select nominees for the PAEMST program—the highest recognition in the nation for a mathematics or science teacher. The Science Finalists will be recognized at the CSTA Awards Luncheon on Saturday, October 14, 2017. Learn More…

Written by California Science Teachers Association

California Science Teachers Association

CSTA represents science educators statewide—in every science discipline at every grade level, Kindergarten through University.

Thriving in a Time of Change

Posted: Wednesday, September 13th, 2017

by Jill Grace

By the time this message is posted online, most schools across California will have been in session for at least a month (if not longer, and hat tip to that bunch!). Long enough to get a good sense of who the kids in your classroom are and to get into that groove and momentum of the daily flow of teaching. It’s also very likely that for many of you who weren’t a part of a large grant initiative or in a district that set wheels in motion sooner, this is the first year you will really try to shift instruction to align to the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS). I’m not going to lie to you, it’s a challenging year – change is hard. Change is even harder when there’s not a playbook to go by.  But as someone who has had the very great privilege of walking alongside teachers going through that change for the past two years and being able to glimpse at what this looks like for different demographics across that state, there are three things I hope you will hold on to. These are things I have come to learn will overshadow the challenge: a growth mindset will get you far, one is a very powerful number, and it’s about the kids. Learn More…

Powered By DT Author Box

Written by Jill Grace

Jill Grace

Jill Grace is a Regional Director for the K-12 Alliance and is President of CSTA.

If You Are Not Teaching Science Then You Are Not Teaching Common Core

Posted: Thursday, August 31st, 2017

by Peter A’Hearn 

“Science and Social Studies can be taught for the last half hour of the day on Fridays”

– Elementary school principal

Anyone concerned with the teaching of science in elementary school is keenly aware of the problem of time. Kids need to learn to read, and learning to read takes time, nobody disputes that. So Common Core ELA can seem like the enemy of science. This was a big concern to me as I started looking at the curriculum that my district had adopted for Common Core ELA. I’ve been through those years where teachers are learning a new curriculum, and know first-hand how a new curriculum can become the focus of attention- sucking all the air out of the room. Learn More…

Powered By DT Author Box

Written by Peter AHearn

Peter AHearn

Peter A’Hearn is the Region 4 Director for CSTA.

Tools for Creating NGSS Standards Based Lessons

Posted: Tuesday, August 29th, 2017

by Elizabeth Cooke

Think back on your own experiences with learning science in school. Were you required to memorize disjointed facts without understanding the concepts?

Science Education Background

In the past, science education focused on rote memorization and learning disjointed ideas. Elementary and secondary students in today’s science classes are fortunate now that science instruction has shifted from students demonstrating what they know to students demonstrating how they are able to apply their knowledge. Science education that reflects the Next Generation Science Standards challenges students to conduct investigations. As students explore phenomena and discrepant events they engage in academic discourse guided by focus questions from their teachers or student generated questions of that arise from analyzing data and creating and revising models that explain natural phenomena. Learn More…

Written by Elizabeth Cooke

Elizabeth Cooke

Elizabeth Cooke teaches TK-5 science at Markham Elementary in the Oakland Unified School District, is an NGSS Early Implementer, and is CSTA’s Secretary.