Problematising Integration in Policy and Practice

Abstract

Many arguments have been advanced for the integration of mathematics and science education including economic arguments, integration being logical, being engaging, increasing transfer, increasing conceptual learning, and that the real world is interdisciplinary in nature. This chapter explores some of the issues and contradictions with each of these arguments drawing on Bernstein's theory of boundaries. An example of integration in the policy sphere (STEM policy in England) is first discussed, and some of the tensions arising are explored. Crossing the boundary is more challenging than is often implied in discussions of integration with issues of epistemology, status, and language needing to be addressed. Further, integration may not yield the expected benefits and could even decrease conceptual learning in the disciplines. The author argues that the policy context should be considered when advocating integration and that careful consideration be given as to whether integration is genuinely the most appropriate solution to identified educational issues.

Key Terms in this Chapter

Asymmetric Dependency: Science education is dependent on mathematics, mathematics education is not dependent on science (or at least is less dependent on science), thus the dependency is asymmetric.

A-Levels: Post-16, pre-university qualification taken by students in England and Wales. Usually only three subjects are chosen for study at this stage.

STEM: Science, technology, engineering, and mathematics.

Collaboration: In this chapter, I am using this term to mean any form of working together by teachers from mathematics and science disciplinary backgrounds and school departments which focuses on teaching and learning.

Secondary Education: Schooling for 11-18 year olds. In England, education is compulsory up to the age of 16; post-16 a variety of courses are on offer, including A-levels.