May/June 2017 – Vol. 29 No. 7

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 Annual Conference Early Bird Rates End July 14

Posted: Wednesday, July 12th, 2017

by Jessica Sawko

Teachers engaged in workshop activity

Teachers engaging in hands-on learning during a workshop at the 2016 CSTA conference.

Don’t miss your chance to register at the early bird rate for the 2017 CSTA Conference – the early-bird rate closes July 14. Need ideas on how to secure funding for your participation? Visit our website for suggestions, a budget planning tool, and downloadable justification letter to share with your admin. Want to take advantage of the early rate – but know your district will pay eventually? Register online today and CSTA will reimburse you when we receive payment from your district/employer. (For more information on how that works contact Zi Stair in the office for details – 916-979-7004 or zi@cascience.org.)

New Information Now Available On-line:

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.

Goodbye Outgoing and Welcome Incoming CSTA Board Members

Posted: Wednesday, July 12th, 2017

Jill Grace

Jill Grace, CSTA President, 2017-2019

On July 1, 2017 five CSTA members concluded their service and four new board members joined the ranks of the CSTA Board of Directors. CSTA is so grateful for all the volunteer board of directors who contribute hours upon hours of time and energy to advance the work of the association. At the June 3 board meeting, CSTA was able to say goodbye to the outgoing board members and welcome the incoming members.

This new year also brings with it a new president for CSTA. As of July 1, 2017 Jill Grace is the president of the California Science Teachers Association. Jill is a graduate of California State University, Long Beach, a former middle school science teacher, and is currently a Regional Director with the K-12 Alliance @ WestEd where she works with California NGSS K-8 Early Implementation Initiative districts and charter networks in the San Diego area.

Outgoing Board Members

  • Laura Henriques (President-Elect: 2011 – 2013, President: 2013 – 2015, Past President: 2015 – 2017)
  • Valerie Joyner (Region 1 Director: 2009 – 2013, Primary Director: 2013 – 2017)
  • Mary Whaley (Informal Science Education Director: 2013 – 2017)
  • Sue Campbell (Middle School/Jr. High Director: 2015 – 2017)
  • Marcus Tessier (2-Year College Director: 2015 – 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.

Finding My Student’s Motivation of Learning Through Engineering Tasks

Posted: Wednesday, July 12th, 2017

by Huda Ali Gubary and Susheela Nath

It’s 8:02 and the bell rings. My students’ walk in and pick up an entry ticket based on yesterday’s lesson and homework. My countdown starts for students to begin…3, 2, 1. Ten students are on task and diligently completing the work, twenty are off task with behaviors ranging from talking up a storm with their neighbors to silently staring off into space. This was the start of my classes, more often than not. My students rarely showed the enthusiasm for a class that I had eagerly prepared for. I spent so much time searching for ways to get my students excited about the concepts they were learning. I wanted them to feel a connection to the lessons and come into my class motivated about what they were going to learn next. I would ask myself how I could make my class memorable where the kids were in the driver’s seat of learning. Incorporating engineering made this possible. Learn More…

Powered By DT Author Box

Written by NGSS Early Implementer

NGSS Early Implementer

In 2015 CSTA began to publish a series of articles written by teachers participating in the California NGSS k-8 Early Implementation Initiative. This article was written by an educator(s) participating in the initiative. CSTA thanks them for their contributions and for sharing their experience with the science teaching community.

State Schools Chief Tom Torlakson Unveils Updated Recommended Literature List

Posted: Wednesday, July 12th, 2017

SACRAMENTO—State Superintendent of Public Instruction Tom Torlakson unveiled an addition of 285 award-winning titles to the Recommended Literature: Prekindergarten Through Grade Twelve list.

“The books our students read help broaden their perspectives, enhance their knowledge, and fire their imaginations,” Torlakson said. “The addition of these award-winning titles represents the state’s continued commitment to the interests and engagement of California’s young readers.”

The Recommended Literature: Prekindergarten Through Grade Twelve list is a collection of more than 8,000 titles of recommended reading for children and adolescents. Reflecting contemporary and classic titles, including California authors, this online list provides an exciting range of literature that students should be reading at school and for pleasure. Works include fiction, nonfiction, poetry, and drama to provide for a variety of tastes, interests, and abilities. Learn More…

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.

Teaching Science in the Time of Alternative Facts – Why NGSS Can Help (somewhat)

Posted: Wednesday, July 12th, 2017

by Peter A’Hearn

The father of one of my students gave me a book: In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood by Walt Brown, Ph. D. He had heard that I was teaching Plate Tectonics and wanted me to consider another perspective. The book offered the idea that the evidence for plate tectonics could be better understood if we considered the idea that beneath the continent of Pangaea was a huge underground layer of water that suddenly burst forth from a rift between the now continents of Africa and South America. The waters shot up and the continents hydroplaned apart on the water layer to their current positions. The force of the movement pushed up great mountain ranges which are still settling to this day, resulting in earthquakes along the margins of continents. This had happened about 6,000 years ago and created a great worldwide flood. Learn More…

Powered By DT Author Box

Written by Peter AHearn

Peter AHearn

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