Supporting Key Aspects of Practice in Making Mathematics Explicit in Science Lessons

  • Jennifer Johnston
  • Gráinne WalsheEmail author
  • Máire Ní Ríordáin


STEM integration has often been recommended as a way to support students to develop twenty-first century skills needed to function in the complex modern world. In order for students to experience integration, however, their teachers need support in designing, developing and implementing integrated curricular instruction, which is often at odds with a very subject-focused educational system. This paper reports on the second year of a research study conducted with five secondary science and mathematics teachers, concerned with supporting them to teach explicitly the mathematics components within science lessons, mediated via technology. It outlines how the teachers collaborated with the support of science and mathematics education researchers within a community of practice, named a Teaching and Learning Network (TLN). The network was intended to promote and enhance teacher capacity for the interdisciplinary teaching of mathematics in science in the face of various contextual and other obstacles observed in the first year of the study. This study found that the opportunity to work in a Teaching and Learning Network supported the teachers’ ownership of the design of the integrated learning unit, enhanced their content knowledge of mathematics, their use of the data logging technology and their understanding of an inquiry-based pedagogical approach. Participation in the TLN provided teachers with the mechanism to cross the boundaries of the subject disciplines and thereby promoted change in their attitudes, professional knowledge and to some extent, practice.


Community of practice Cross-curricular In-service teachers Interdisciplinary teaching STEM integration 



The authors would like to acknowledge the support of EPI-STEM, The National Centre for STEM Education, at the University of Limerick, and Texas Instruments, who supplied the technology equipment, in carrying out this research project. The authors would also like to thank the teachers and schools who participated in this research project.


  1. Akerson, V. L., Cullen, T. A., & Hanson, D. L. (2009). Fostering a community of practice through a professional development program to improve elementary teachers’ views of nature of science and teaching practice. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(10), 1090–1113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Akkerman, S. F., & Bakker, A. (2011). Boundary crossing and boundary objects. Review of Educational Research, 81(2), 132–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Archer, L., Dawson, E., DeWitt, J., Seakins, A., & Wong, B. (2015). “Science capital”: A conceptual, methodological, and empirical argument for extending bourdieusian notions of capital beyond the arts. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 52(7), 922–948.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bassey, M. (1999). Case study research in educational settings. Buckingham: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Baxter, J. A., Ruzicka, A., Beghetto, R. A., & Livelybrooks, D. (2014). Professional development strategically connecting mathematics and science: The impact on teachers’ confidence and practice. School Science and Mathematics, 114(3), 102–113. Scholar
  6. Berlin, D. F., & Lee, H. (2005). Integrating science and mathematics education: Historical analysis. School Science and Mathematics, 105(1), 15–24. Scholar
  7. Berlin, D. F., & White, A. L. (2012). A longitudinal look at attitudes and perceptions related to the integration of mathematics, science, and technology education. School Science and Mathematics, 112(1), 20-30. Scholar
  8. Berry, A., Loughran, J., Smith, K., & Lindsay, S. (2009). Capturing and enhancing science teachers’ professional knowledge. Research in Science Education, 39(4), 575–594.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Borko, H., Mayfield, V., Marion, S., Flexer, R., & Cumbo, K. (1997). Teachers’ developing ideas and practices about mathematics performance assessment: Successes, stumbling blocks, and implications for professional development. Teaching and Teacher Education, 13(3), 259–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Burghardt, M. D., Lauckhardt, J., Kennedy, M., Hecht, D., & McHugh, L. (2015). The effects of a mathematics infusion curriculum on middle school student mathematics achievement. School Science and Mathematics, 115(5), 204–215. Scholar
  11. Butler, D. L., Lauscher, H. N., Jarvis-Selinger, S., & Beckingham, B. (2004). Collaboration and self-regulation in teachers’ professional development. Teaching and Teacher Education, 20(5), 435–455.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Czerniak, C. M., & Johnson, C. C. (2014). Interdisciplinary science teaching. In S. K. Abell & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (2nd ed., pp. 395–411). London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  13. den Braber, N., Krüger, J., Mazereeuw, M., & Kuiper, W. (2019). Mathematics in an interdisciplinary STEM course (NLT) in the Netherlands. In B. Doig, J. Williams, D. Swanson, R. Borromeo Ferri, & P. Drake (Eds.), Interdisciplinary mathematics education (pp. 167–183). ICME-13 Monographs. Cham: Springer.Google Scholar
  14. Department of Education and Skills (DES). (2015). Framework for junior cycle. Dublin. Retrieved from
  15. Dori, Y. J., & Herscovitz, O. (2005). Case-based long-term professional development of science teachers. International Journal of Science Education, 27(12), 1413–1446.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Frykholm, J., & Glasson, G. (2005). Connecting science and mathematics instruction: Pedagogical context knowledge for teachers. School Science and Mathematics, 105(3), 127–141. Scholar
  17. Furner, J. M., & Kumar, D. (2007). The mathematics and science integration argument: A stand for teacher education. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 3(3), 185–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gleeson, J. (2010). Curriculum in context: Partnership, power and praxis in Ireland. Oxford: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
  19. Gresnigt, R., Taconis, R., van Keulen, H., Gravemeijer, K., & Baartman, L. (2014). Promoting science and technology in primary education: A review of integrated curricula. Studies in Science Education,50(1), 47-84. Scholar
  20. Hamilton, L., & Corbett-Whittier, C. (2012). Using case study in education research. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  21. Hargreaves, A., Earl, L., Moore, S., & Manning, S. (2001). Learning to change: Teaching beyond subjects and standards. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  22. Hargreaves, A., Lieberman, A., Fullan, M., & Hopkins, D. (2010). Introduction: Ten years of change. In A. Hargreaves, A. Lieberman, M. Fullan, & D. Hopkins (Eds.), Second international handbook of educational change (pp. xi–xxi). Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  23. Hobbs, L. (2013). Teaching ‘out-of-field’ as a boundary-crossing event: Factors shaping teacher identity. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 11(2), 271–297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Howes, A., Kaneva, D., Swanson, D., & Williams, J. (2013). Re-envisioning STEM education: Curriculum, assessment and integrated, interdisciplinary studies, a report for the Royal Society. Retrieved from
  25. Kent, P., Noss, R., Guile, D., Hoyles, C., & Bakker, A. (2007). Characterizing the use of mathematical knowledge in boundary-crossing situations at work. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 14(1–2), 64–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Lakshmanan, A., Heath, B. P., Perlmutter, A., & Elder, M. (2011). The impact of science content and professional learning communities on science teaching efficacy and standards-based instruction. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48(5), 534–551.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Lee, M. M., Chauvot, J. B., Vowell, J., Culpepper, S. M., & Plankis, B. J. (2013). Stepping into iSMART: Understanding science–mathematics integration for middle school science and mathematics teachers. School Science and Mathematics,113(4), 159–169. Scholar
  29. Loughran, J. J. (2014). Developing understandings of practice. In S. K. Abell & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (2nd ed., pp. 811–829). London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  30. Miles, M. B., & Huberman, M. A. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. (2nd ed.). London and New Delhli: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  31. National Council for Curriculum and Assessment (NCCA). (2019). Framework for junior cycle. Retrieved from
  32. NGSS Lead States. (2013). Next generation science standards: For states, by states. Retrieved from
  33. Nicolini, D., Mengis, J., & Swan, J. (2012). Understanding the role of objects in cross-disciplinary collaboration. Organization Science, 23(3), 612–629.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Ní Ríordáin, M., Johnston, J., & Walshe, G. (2016). Making mathematics and science integration happen: Key aspects of practice. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology,46(2), 233–255. Scholar
  35. Offer, J., & Vasquez-Mireles, S. (2009). Mix it up: Teachers’ beliefs on mixing mathematics and science. School Science and Mathematics,109(3), 146–152. Scholar
  36. Putnam, R. T., & Borko, H. (2000). What do new views of knowledge and thinking have to say about research on teacher learning? Educational Researcher, 29(1), 4–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Rennie, L., Venville, G., & Wallace, J. (2012). Integrating science, technology, engineering, and mathematics: Issues, reflections, and ways forward. New York and London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Roseno, A. T., Carraway-Stage, V. G., Hoerdeman, C., Díaz, S. R., Geist, E., & Duffrin, M. W. (2015). Applying mathematical concepts with hands-on, food-based science curriculum. School Science and Mathematics, 115(1), 14–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Shulman, L. S., & Sherin, M. G. (2004). Fostering communities of teachers as learners: Disciplinary perspectives. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 36(2), 135–140. Scholar
  40. Stake, R. E. (1995). The art of case study research. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  41. Stinson, K., Harkness, S. S., Meyer, H., & Stallworth, J. (2009). Mathematics and science integration: Models and characterizations. School Science and Mathematics,109(3), 153–161. Scholar
  42. Venville, G., Sheffield, R., Rennie, L. J., & Wallace, J. (2008). The writing on the wall: Classroom context, curriculum implementation, and student learning in integrated, community-based science projects. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(8), 857–880. Scholar
  43. Walshe, G., Johnston, J., & McClelland, G. (2017). Integrating mathematics into science: Design, development and evaluation of a curriculum model. In K. Hahl, K. Juuti, J. Lampiselkä, J. Lavonen, & A. Uitto (Eds.), Cognitive and affective aspects in science education research: Selected papers from ESERA 2015 conference (pp. 309-321)Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer. Scholar
  44. Yin, R. K. (2014). Case study research: Design and methods (5th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Ministry of Science and Technology, Taiwan 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Jennifer Johnston, School of EducationUniversity of LincolnLincolnUK
  2. 2.Gráinne Walshe, Science Learning CentreUniversity of LimerickLimerickIreland
  3. 3.Máire Ní Ríordáin, School of EducationUniversity College CorkCorkIreland

Personalised recommendations