![Sample our Education journals, sign in here to start your access, latest two full volumes FREE to you for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5932/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Education.jpg"})
Abstract
The integration of science and technology education has been a topic of worldwide debate. However, the focus of the debate has been too much on the degree of integration of subjects at the expense of such important but related issues as the nature of the constituting disciplines, educational levels (state, school, classroom), and the objects of integration. Integration should be seen from the perspective of curricular coherence. Coherent science and technology education (CSTE) should pay attention both to uninterrupted learning on the part of students and to the nature of the constituting disciplines. This paper describes a study exploring CSTE practice in nine junior‐secondary schools in the Netherlands. It recommends a framework to promote CSTE by stakeholders at the state, school, and classroom levels.
Notes
1. Some of these subjects were new in junior‐secondary education, such as Technology, Care, Economics, and some arts subjects (Eijkelhof et al. Citation1998, Volman and Ten Dam Citation2000). The subject Care combines elements of health education and home economics.
2. In the original proposals chemistry was deleted from the junior‐secondary curriculum, but due to pressure from teachers, the Chemical Institute, and the chemical industry, chemistry was fused with physics, despite the protest of many teachers.
3. It is striking that cross‐references were not made to new subjects such as Technology and Care. It was the national policy that these subjects could not be combined with other subjects. The rationale for this policy was framed in terms of the need to protect these new subjects from the influence of more traditional subjects, such as biology and physics.
4. For attempts at definition and conceptualization of ‘integration’, see Berlin and White (Citation1992) and Davidson et al. (Citation1995).
5. Some represent their conceptualization of integrated science and mathematics education as a continuum with the two subjects at the far ends (Lonning and DeFranco Citation1997, Huntley Citation1998, Lonning et al. Citation1998).
6. See, however, Lederman and Niess (Citation1998).
7. Drawing on professional publications, secondary teacher‐training courses, a call on internet sites and at conferences for teachers, and personal contacts, we developed a list of ∼ 30 candidate schools. Drawing on the outcomes of telephone interviews and the above criteria we selected the nine schools. A letter in which our research is introduced was sent to all schools on the long list. We contacted every school by telephone to obtain up‐to‐date information about the characteristics of science and technology education in their school, and to ask whether they were prepared to participate in the study. In the selection process we took into account that differences between schools might be more instructive than similarities.
8. All interviews were recorded and later transcribed. The reports were sent to the schools and the other investigator for ratification. Some teachers had developed teaching materials; this material was also studied and incorporated into the reports.
9. This list included topics such as co‐ordination between subjects, collaboration or consultation between teachers, the nature of subjects, expertise, pedagogical starting points, financial and logistic support, and integrated teaching materials.