Integrating Science^ Mathematics^ and Technology in Middle

School Technology-Rich Environments: A Study of

Implementation and Change
Robert K. James and Charles E. Lamb Daniel JL Householder
Texas A&M University Iowa State University of Science and Technology

Melynda A. Bailey
Texas A&M University

The GTECH project, funded through a grant from the GTE Foundation, prepared school teams of
science, mathematics and technology teachers and an administrator to set goals for their local schools
regarding implementation of electronic technology and integration of content across curricular areas.
A variety of teacher-centered staff development strategies were used to enable participants to achieve
local school objectives, model and encourage active learning environments involving technology,
develop integrated curriculum and provide training to their peers. GTECH staff provided workshops
and summer institutes based on teacher feedback and classroom observations. Data from the Stages
of Concerns Questionnaire assisted the staff in designing effective staff development activities. Over
the 2-year period, teacher teams developed and implemented integrated instructional materials and
developed skills in using HyperStudio, PowerPoint, telecommunications applications, and instruc-
tional resources from the Internet. They also linked instruction to new state and national standards in
science, mathematics, and technology. GTECH teachers reported that their students have expanded
their knowledge and skill in problem solving, teamwork, technical expertise, and creativity.

Much emphasis has been placed on two improve-
ment strategies in middle schools increased use of
instructional technology and content integrated across
the curriculum. Perhaps this is a response to new
national and state science, mathematics, and technol-
ogy standards (International Society for Technology
in Education, 1999; National Council of Teachers of
Mathematics [NCTM], 1989; National Research Coun-
cil [NRC], 1996). In response to these new standards,
schools have reallocated their resources. In 1995 an
estimated 5.8 million computers were earmarked for
use in instruction (US Congress, 1995). In fiscal 1998,
all but eight states reported designating more ftinds for
educational technology, for a combined total expen-
diture of $1.7 billion (Zehr, 1998).
Craig (1998) reported that schools average one
computer for every six students nationwide and that
78% of those computers are wired to the Internet. Yet,
many middle level science, mathematics, and technol-
ogy teachers reported making scant use of technology
in classroom learning activities beyond word process-
ing, grade books, and games (Hammer, 1998; Reis,
1998). This is true in spite of recent research showing
that purposeful use of computers in classroom instruc-
tion can indeed enhance student outcomes (Archer,
1998, Milheim, 1995).
Helping students make connections across the
curriculum has also been recognized as an impor-
tant learning outcome, especially in middle schools
(NRC, 1996). Integration of content is believed to
be essential for enabling students to develop situ-
ated knowledge and a broader understanding of
concepts. In this article, integration is used to refer
to, for example, activities used by teachers and
students that show interaction among mathemat-
ics, science, and technology.
Well planned and executed lessons involving
teachers from all three areas can accomplish this in
such a way that students will see many connections
and obtain deeper understanding of concepts and
skills. It also helps students retain and transfer
knowledge. However, studies of middle level student
achievement show that students often fail to make
these connections, and teachers often fail to design

Volume 100(1), January 2000

 Integrating Science, Mathematics, and Technology
classroom activities to facilitate such learning (Archer,
1998; Seminerio, 1998).
Purpose
Project GTECH (funded by the GTE Foundation,
a philanthropic organization of the GTE Corporation)
is based on the premise that an integrated approach to
instruction can improve understanding in the content
areas, increase problem solving capabilities, enhance
creative thinking skills, and improve attitudes toward
science, mathematics, and technology. The research
described in this paper was conducted to assess progress
of Project GTECH toward its objectives to accom-
plish the following:
1. Develop or adapt multimedia instructional units
that integrate concepts of science, mathematics, and
technology.
2. Involve teachers and students in the develop-
ment and modification of instructional materials, tu-
torials, activities, and approaches.
3. Field test and revise the materials and activities.
To accomplish these goals, coprinciple investiga-
tors (co-PIs) instituted a GTECH planning team that
included themselves, a project coordinator, and a staff
assistant. Nine school-based teams of mathematics,
science, and technology teachers and one administra-
tor were recruited. The planning team set out a care-
fully designed and comprehensive set of staff
development strategies focusing on development and
implementation.
GTECH Strategies
1. Teams of teachers and administrators. A team
ofthree teachers one each in mathematics, science,
and technology and a school administrator were
recruited from nine schools in districts in east-central
and south Texas to participate in a multiyear effort.
Teams were selected as the unit of change, because it
was believed that teachers recruited in teams tend to
support each other as they implement changes. Teacher
teams would also do a better job of reaching out to
nonteam peers.
2. Focus on local school objectives. Programs or
materials were not specified in terms of content or
methodology. The teams were required only to use
instructional technology andintegrate content. The teams
were encouraged to develop approaches meeting the
specific needs of their students and the objectives of their
local schools. This strategy recognized that sustained
change efforts must be supported at the local level.
School Science and Mathematics
3. Active learning environments involving tech-
nology. Classrooms in cooperating schools provided
active learning environments, including capabilities
in hypermedia, computer software, interactive video-
disk, CD-ROM, print media, telecommunications,
manipulatives, and graphing calculators, which are
endorsed by the state of Texas for middle school
mathematics. Teachers were encouraged to facilitate
discovery learning and problem solving with students
as they worked with small groups and individuals.
HyperStudio 3.0 (1995) was selected as the multi-
media authoring system for the instructional units.
Teachers developed introductory experiences in
HyperStudio for their students in a variety of formats
including (a) tutorials, (b) partially completed units
amenable to student collaboration for further devel-
opment, (c) simulations, (d) games, and (e) interactive
computer-assisted instruction.
4. Locally developed integrated curriculum. Par-
ticipating teams were asked to develop and field test
integrated units in their classrooms. The titles of 16 of
these units were as follows:
1. Rainforest Environment.
2. Underwater Habitat.
3. Space Station.
4. Mission to Mars.
5. Classroom Zoo.
6. Genetics.
7. Volcanoes.
8. Home Energy Management.
9. Environmental Studies.
10. Marine Environment.
11. Reduce, Revise and Recycle.
12. Life of a Cornfield Reaping What We Sow.
-
13. Scale Modeling.
14. Groovin’ in the Sixties.
15. Fore Designing a Golf Course.
-
16. Dynamic Earth.
Appendix A provides a brief overview of 10 ofthe
units deemed most easily transferred to other class-
room settings and for which appropriate documenta-
tion was available. A variety of mathematical skills
(calculating, graphing, measuring, estimating, and
interpreting) are identified. The use/integration of
technology included the use of specific software,
manipulation of data in various formats, multimedia
development, and use of the Internet.
5. Workshop and institute design. The work-
shops were comprised of three staff development
days spread out over the school year. They were
aimed at developing and reporting progress toward
project goals. The day-long workshops consisted
 Integrating Science, Mathematics, and Technology
of instruction, sharing, and planning. Most were
held on the university campus, although one was held
at a retreat center, and one was held at one school site
where implementation was exemplary. Teams were
provided full support for travel, food, and substitute
teacher expense. Programmatic elements of those
sessions featured awareness (aimed at providing an
overview) and training (featuring skill development
mastery) sessions on new software, state standards,
and team reports and displays of progress. A careful
effort was made to plan each session according to the
needs reflected in feedback from the teacher teams.
Wherever possible, team members were asked to lead
the awareness or training sessions. A 2- to 3- week
summer institute was included each summer. The
institutes were aimed at deepening conceptual under-
standing and technical skills. Staff and co-PIs main-
tained an aggressive school site visitation program
aimed at local problem solving.
6. The GTECH planning team. The co-PIs agreed
that the opportunity to work on the planning team in
a cross-departmental project in a collaborative plan-
ning mode was a unique and vital part of GTECH. It
consisted of three or four co-PIs (university faculty
members), one graduate student, and a staff assistant.
The group met regularlysometimes weekly, but
more often twice per month. Regular planning team
meetings made full collaboration among the faculty
possible. Though the make-up of the planning team
varied from time to time, it has represented the disci-
plines of science, technology, and mathematics edu-
cation and provided most of the technical expertise
required by GTECH. As needed, consultants with
special expertise were brought in to supplement plan-
ning team skills for the project. Rotating responsibili-
ties for leadership among the co-PIs provided for a
rich mix of leadership styles, knowledge, and skills.
Each team member stayed current on trends and
innovations, providing a rich mix of possible activi-
ties and programs.
7. School and classroom site visits. GTECH staff
provided support by visiting administrators and teacher
classrooms. During the 2nd year, one of the co-PIs
invested considerable time in site visits to the schools.
Each school had recently been provided a copy of
HyperStudio, and the co-PI discovered that teachers
were not making much use of that softwarein fact
many sites had not even loaded the software on their
computers. There were also mismatches between soft-
ware and hardware. These troubleshooting visits be-
came a regular part of the project.
Volume 100(1), January 2000
Monitoring the Project
In view of the fact that Project GTECH was prima-
rily developmental in nature, the emphasis on project
evaluation activities was centered upon formative
assessments. These included continuing assessments
of (a) the stages of concern of participating teachers
and (b) the assessment of the effectiveness of work-
shops/institutes conducted for project personnel and
teachers. The team also regularly gathered evaluation
data through survey instruments administered to school
teams and administrators, as well as through work-
shop observations and school visits. The goal was to
involve all parties in the assessment as fully as possible.
The theory base for the implementation assess-
ment came from the Concerns Based Adoption Model
(Hall, 1979). Hall recognized the importance of moni-
toring the affective response of teachers to educa-
tional change. His work built on that of Fuller (1969),
who hypothesized that these affective responses (called
concerns) were developmental in nature. Hall ex-
panded Fuller’s three stages (self, task, impact) to
seven stages (awareness, informational, personal,
management, consequence, collaboration, and refo-
cusing) and developed a 35-item questionnaire with
seven subscales to access data for the seven stages. His
work showed that these seven stages were develop-
mental in nature. Teachers considering first use of an
innovation have most intense concerns in the informa-
tional and personal area, new users typically have
most intense concerns in management, and experi-
enced users have most intense concerns in conse-
quence, collaboration, and refocusing. Further, Hall
demonstrated that this instrument was useful in aiding
change facilitators to design interventions enabling
teachers to resolve earlier concerns and mature to
higher stages. Since the GTECH Project involved
exposing teachers to change in the manner in which
they used educational technology and integrated cur-
riculum, the Stages of Concerns Questionnaire (SoCQ)
(Hall, George, & Rutherford 1979) was deemed useful
in assisting GTECH staff in designing staff develop-
ment activities that movedparticipants into and through
the implementation process.
During the 1st year of the project, fall and spring
workshops were designed to provide the teams of
teachers and administrators with the information
needed to begin the project. This included an exami-
nation of project goals of increasing use of educa-
tional technology and integration of mathematics,
science, and technology. Teams were asked to design
 Integrating Science, Mathematics, and Technology
curriculum units then conduct pilot tests of the units.
Staff development interventions were aimed at pro-
viding examples, models, and training in the use of
software and hardware. Particular decisions regarding
the selection of appropriate staff development activi-
ties were based in part on teacher requests and sugges-
tions. In the spring of Year 1, the SoCQ (Hall, et al.,
1979) was administered to GTECH teachers. Hall et
al., provided reliability and validity data for this
instrument. Calculations of alpha coefficients of in-
ternal reliability for the seven subscales ranged from
0.64 to 0.83, based on a study of 830 teachers and
professors who had completed the instrument. They
further reported several studies of the validity of the
instrument, noting the difficulty of establishing validity,
since there were no similar measures of concerns with
which to compare. Though space does not allow for a
complete review of these studies, this series of validity
studies provided increased confidence that the SoCQ
measured the hypothesized Stages of Concerns.
Figure 1 presents the Years 1 and 2 concerns
profiles for the GTECH teachers. The Year 1 results
Figure 1. Mean stages of concern for GTECH for Years
School Science and Mathematics
(solid line) show that the most intense concerns were
personal, informational, and management, with a sec-
ondary peak on collaboration. This suggests that most
teachers had not actually begun using GTECH mate-
rials and/or ideas in their classrooms. This finding was
corroborated throughinformal observations during class-
room visits. They appeared to be defining the project
(informational concerns) and assessing what impact it
would have on them (personal concerns). Concerns
theory suggests that if teachers had already begun use,
their most intense concerns would be on managing
GTECH implementation. The peak on collaboration
is common when one is working within a defined
group of teachers in workshops and/or institutes. It
appears to be related to the group feeling and to the
sharing of ideas that was occurring.
These results suggested that the GTECH staff
development activities for the first summer should
continue to focus on information about educational
technology and its application in their classrooms.
Conceptually, the focus was on space and environ-
mental education, with technical skill development in
1 and 2.
 Integrating Science, Mathematics, and Technology
HyperStudio, Tributary, Internet and TENET (the
then-current state educational technology network.)
One of the workshops featured the success that two
teams were having in implementing two of the inte-
grated units in their classrooms and gave the partici-
pants enough training to consider implementing these
units. Fifteen team members participated in the six
different workshops (HyperStudio, Tributary, Space
Science, Environmental Studies, Internet, and TE-
NET) of the first summer institute. The size of the
workshop facilitated the inclusion of hands-on com-
puter work in each of the workshop sessions. Partici-
pants developed several curriculum packages that
they could implement in their classrooms during the
2nd year of GTECH.
During the fall of Year 2, interventions also in-
cluded GTECH staff visits to all classrooms to ascer-
tain whether HyperStudio was loaded and operational
in their computers. Extensive coaching, technical
assistance, and trouble shooting was provided by one
of the co-PIs. The fall workshop centered on school
teams sharing curriculum products developed as part
of GTECH. At the winter workshop in the 2nd year,
the proposed new state standards, the Texas Essential
Knowledge and Skills, were linked to GTECH goals
and products. To support the integrating of mathemat-
ics, science, and technology, a web model for curricu-
lum integration was presented and illustrated (Stuessy,
Payne, Collins, Carnahan, & Malone, 1994).
The second administration of the SoCQ was done
in the spring of the 2nd year. The results of that
administration are also presented in Figure 1 (dashed
line). While the overall profile remains that of a group
of nonusers with high informational and personal
concerns, it shows some resolution of informational,
personal, and management concerns when compared
with Year 1 data. In classroom visits with the teach-
ers, it was observed that some were using GTECH
materials and concepts. When GTECH staff exam-
ined individual profiles, they found that about a third
of the teachers exhibited the expected profile of a new
user one in which management concerns are most
intense. That only a third of the teachers might be
users should not be a discouragement, because the
primary focus has been on getting GTECH activity
going in each school not necessarily in every
participant’s classroom. School visits further revealed
that often only one member of the team (usually the
science teacher) was actually using the ideas devel-
oped by the other team members at that site. This
suggested that subsequent staff development activi-
ties should be aimed at increasing use by all team
Volume 100(1), January 2000
participants and helping teachers begin to focus on
the consequences of using GTECH its impact on
students.
The summer institute in Year 2 was designed to
increase team use of the units and to focus teacher
attention on a growing staff concern about the teams’
failure to integrate mathematics into the units and into
classroom practice. In response, the staff designed the
second summer institute with a primary focus on
integration of mathematics into the GTECH units and
GTECH related instructional activities. To that end,
time was devoted to planning, developing, and creat-
ing materials and units to be used in individual class-
rooms, as well as to be shared with colleagues involved
in and outside of GTECH. At the end of the summer,
the materials were compiled into a notebook, and
copies were made available to all participants. While
the institutes emphasized NCTM standards, teachers
were encouraged to design/select activities according
to their perceptions of what their students needed. The
1995 NCTM Yearbook, Connecting Mathematics
Across the Curriculum, (House, 1995), was used as
the textbook. Though the 3-week, three-credit insti-
tute was effective for those who attended, only a few
GTECH teachers elected this activity. Those who did
made progress toward the integration goal, but their
small numbers failed to provide broad impact on the
problem of integration into mathematics classrooms.
In comparing the changes in the concerns of
teachers across Years 1 and 2, the partial resolution of
informational, personal, and management concerns
suggests that GTECH goals were being met in the
three areas. However, informational and personal
concerns remained high and needed further interven-
tion. Consequence and collaboration concerns were
almost unchanged, while refocusing concerns were
higher in Year 2. The increase in the refocusing
concerns suggests that teachers were thinking about
alternatives to GTECH or different ways to configure it.
Workshops were conducted for the participating
teachers and administrators each academic year and
summer session. While participation was voluntary, it
was highly enthusiastic. Workshop assessments were
conducted at the end ofeach session. The primary goal
of these assessments was to gain insight into how the
teachers had reacted to the training sessions. They
provided "happiness quotients," showing consider-
able teacher satisfaction. The teachers appreciated
both the content and the process of each workshop.
They especially liked the hands-on activities and the
opportunity to share what they were doing. These
assessments also provided input to future programs
 Integrating Science, Mathematics, and Technology
whether they wanted deeper content in an area that
had just been presented or whether some new topic
should be added to the next workshop or institute. The
staff relied heavily on these assessments for program
planning.
The usual format for these assessments was to list
workshop activities with a rating scale of 1 to 10 in
which 1 was the lowest rating and 10 was the highest
possible rating. Participants’ ratings were high. Use-
fulness ratings ranged from a mean of 7.7 for a training
activity on an electronic bulletin board to an overall
mean rating of 9.9 for the entire workshop. Effectiveness
ratings ranged from a mean of 8.0 for one session to an
overall mean rating of 9.8 for the entire workshop. In
general, comments about the workshop, as well as
written evaluations, showed participants were enthusi-
astic about what they had been doing. During the second
summer workshop, participant assessments paralleled
those obtained from the first summer workshop.
Reflections
The GTECH Project was funded to develop a
strategy for helping middle school science, technol-
ogy, and mathematics teachers implement integrated
curriculum in the three disciplines and to utilize
electronic educational technology. Seven GTECH
teacher teams have developed 16 integrated units,
developed skills using HyperStudio 3.0 and Microsoft
PowerPoint software to design instruction, and
developed awareness of the potential for telecommu-
nications. They also designed new courses in which
they can implement GTECH materials and constructs,
identified instructional resources on the Internet, linked
instruction to state standards, and focused teacher
attention on the need to give equal emphasis to the
integration of mathematics in integrated units.
However, these accomplishments do not ad-
equately reflect changes that the teacher teams have
achieved in terms of their personal and professional
growth in utilizing integrated curriculum and imple-
menting electronic technology in their classrooms.
Many teachers, who started by learning how to turn
the computer on, are now utilizing computer and
telecommunications technology weekly in their class-
rooms, and one has become the educational technol-
ogy director for her school.
Neither does the above list of accomplishments
reflect the lessons learned nor the skills developed by
their students. One school started out by stating that
they wanted their students trained to use certain
School Science and Mathematics
software, because students would teach other students
and eventually the teachers. And it worked! Teachers
credit GTECH with developing student skills in
problem solving, teamwork, technical expertise, and
creativity. Finally, there has to be some consideration
given to the knowledge and insights investigators were
able to glean while working and observing these teachers
and their students at work.
The first phases of the work with Project GTECH
have indicated the value of involving teachers and
their students in the creation of the learning experi-
ences. The outcomes of the project led GTECH staff
to adopt a much more teacher-centered approach to
the staff development as the project has evolved. The
use of multimedia authoring and mindmapping soft-
ware have been especially effective in empowering
middle school students and their teachers to become
active designers of learning experiences. Participants
in the GTECH workshops have developed their capa-
bilities in organizing and delivering a wide array of
experiences for their students. More importantly,
Project GTECH teams have demonstrated the value of
working together in instructional planning and teaching.
Each year over 40 teachers participated in GTECH
workshops. With 100 students each, they have im-
pacted about 4,000 students annually and 8,000 over
the first 2 years. Project schools are using significantly
more technology. Because of the demand by students,
several schools have developed elective courses they
call "GTECH courses," in which their students can
spend more time utilizing technology in their learn-
ing. In addition, there has been notable improvement
on the part of the teams, as they have learned to work
together in their own buildings and with other schools
in the Project.
On the down side of this otherwise glowing re-
port, the problem of integrating mathematics into the
curriculum remained unresolved. The teacher teams
simply were not giving equal emphasis to mathemat-
ics integration, as compared to science or technology.
The staff tried various ways to overcome the problem,
but none was particularly successful. The content of
mathematics in Texas middle school standards and
textbooks is very structured. Mathematics team mem-
bers appeared to believe that their curriculum did not
allow for the integration of science and technology
into mathematics classrooms. They believed that there
was neither space nor time. The state testing program
and the "school report card" place high priority on
school-by-school test scores. There is much less em-
phasis on testing in science. Hence curriculum imple-
mentation occurred mostly in the classrooms of the
 Integrating Science, Mathematics, and Technology
science team members. Obviously, this will continue
to be a focus for future work.
As the GTECH Project continues, the staff will
monitor and react to the needs and concerns of the
school personnel involved. In addition, participant
input will be solicited as to the nature of future work-
shops and summer programs. Programs such as GTECH
give teachers the resources and confidence necessary to
change the ways in which science, mathematics, and
technology can be taught in an integrated fashion.
The outcomes of GTECH merit dissemination. It
should be noted that GTECH is likely to be a multi-
step, long-term project. After initial funding expires,
the GTE Foundation will be approached for a continu-
ation of funding in order to refine and complete the
model. State and federal finds will be sought to
disseminate the results of GTECH more broadly across
the state and nation.
References
Archer, J. (1998). The link to higher test scores,
Education Week 75(5), 10-21
Craig J. (1998). By the numbers. Education Week
75(5), 102-105.
Fuller, F. F. (1969). Concern of teachers: A
developmental conceptualization. American
Educational Research Journal, 6(2), 207-226.
Hall, G. E. (1979). The concerns-based approach
to facilitating change. Educational Horizons, 57(4),
202-208.
Hall, R. E., George, A. A., & Rutherford, W. L.
(1979). Measuring stages of concern about the
innovation: A manual for the use ofSOC questionnaire.
Austin, TX: Research and Development Center for
Teacher Education, University of Texas at Austin.
Hammer, M. (1998). [Telephone survey ofthe use of
technology in the classroom]. Unpublished raw data.
House, P. (1995). Connecting mathematics across
the curriculum. Reston, VA: National Council of
Teachers of Mathematics.
HyperStudio (Version 3.0) (1995). [Computer
software]. El Cajon, California: Roger Wagner
Publishing, Inc.
International Society for Technology in Education
(1999). National educational technology standards
for students Connecting curriculum and technology.
Volume 100(1), January 2000
Eugene, OR. National Educational Technology
Standards Project.
Milheim, W. D. (1995). Interactivity and com-
puter-based instruction. Journal of Educational Tech-
nology Systems, 24(3), 225-233.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics
(1989). Curriculum and evaluation standards for
school mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.
National Research Council (1996). National
science education standards. Washington, DC:
National Academy Press.
Reis, F. (1998). Project T.E.A.C.H.: Technology
enrichment and curriculum help. T^H^E Journal,
26(3), 70-72.
Seminerio, M. (1998). Classroom computers may
not help. [On-line]. Available: http://
www.msnbc.com/news/201136.asp
Stuessy, C., Payne, B., Collins, J., Carnahan, P. &
Malone, V. (1994). Coordinated thematic science II
(CTSII) staff development program developed/or the
Texas education agency, Dwight D. Eisenhov^er
Science Staff Development Project No. 33690410.
U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment,
(1995). Chapter 3: Technology access and instructional
use in schools today. In Teacher and technology:
Making the connection [On-line]. Available: fttp://
gandalf.isu.edu/pub/ota/teachers.tech/ch3.txt
Zehr, M. A. (1998) The state of the states.
Education Week 75(5), 68-101.
Editor’s Note: Robert K. James, Charles E. Lamb,
and Melynda A. Bailey, Department of Educational
Curriculum and Instruction, Texas A&M University;
Daniel L. Householder, Department of Industrial Edu-
cation and Technology, Iowa State University of
Science and Technology.
The support of the GTE Foundation for the GTECH
Project is gratefully acknowledged.
Correspondence concerning this article should
be addressed to Robert K. James, Department of
Educational Curriculum and Instruction, Texas A&M
University, College Station, Texas 77843-4232.
Electronic mail may be sent via Internet to
rjames@tamu.edu
 Integrating Science, Mathematics, and Technology

Appendix A
Table of Knowledge, Skills, and Integration of Units

Unit Name Unit Abstract Knowledge Use/Skill Development Integration of Mathematics,

Space Station Students work in Using problem-solving skills, students
groups to design utilize science knowledge to create and
various design various sections of the station
components of a that will support life.
space station. Students use computer software and
hardware to gather, analyze and
synthesis data in the planning stages of
the project.
This unit fosters team building and
leadership skills development.
Mission to Using a problem Students use science process skills to
Mars based approach; explain and investigate objects,
students work in organisms, systems, and their multiple
teams to properties, as well as how living and
complete a non-living systems interact with each
simulated other.
mission to Mars. Students learn interviewing and group
dynamic skills as they interview for
various positions within the project and
learn to work within their teams.
Technology and Science
» Converting scale measurement and
developing overall area space
design, students use computer
software and hardware to gather,
analyze, and synthesize data in the
planning stages of the project.
> Students work with proportional
relationships, tables, graphs,
algebraic equations, and
geometry/three dimensional
figures.
> Students acquire, evaluate, and
utilize information from a variety
of electronic formats. And are able
to manipulate and deliver this data
in a variety of formats.

Classroom This interactive > Students will explore the world of Students calculate grid and graph
|Zoo program was science, especially entomology in the data on various aspects of animal
designed as an insect’s portion of the "classroom zoo." habitats and their systems.
approach for The program was created using
study of animals HyperStudio 3.0 and works as a
and the creation hypertext presentation
of a "classroom
zoo."
Marine Using Hyperlink > Science skills are explored through the Students examine data provided
nvironment software, exploration of the marine environment, and expand given calculations to a
students look at specifically, ocean life, waves, broader scale.
and analyze aquariums, currents, and tides. The entire lesson is presented as a
different aspects HyperStudio 3.0, an interactive
of the Marine hyperlink, presentation.
Environment.

E educe,
evise, and
ecycle
Students will
examine how to
conserve and
preserve their
resources
» Students will analyze multiple uses for
water in the home, the environment,
and industry. They will study natural
resources and their connection to them.
Students take mathematical
measurements, estimate and
compare, and make basic
calculations using collected
resource data.
through Students then assemble this
reducing, information into a multimedia
reusing\, and presentation.
recyclling and
exploire ^why this
dore
important for
is imp
the future

School Science and Mathematics

 Integrating Science, Mathematics, and Technology

Appendix A continued

Unit Name Unit Abstract Knowledge Use/Skill Integration of Mathematics,

Development Technology and Science
Life in a Working within Students observe plants growing in Students plot the growth cycles of
Cornfield - a closed fields and explore the problems plants growing in observation
Reaping environment, associated with irrigation, fertilization, fields.
What We students will and harvesting and growing seasons. Students calculate the area of the
Sow explore and Students decide how fields should be land used.
analyze cycles of planted. Students graphically represent
a cornfield. Students choose the most appropriate simple statistical data accumulated
means to share their finding with a throughout the project.
larger group.

Scale Working in small Students will transform data into scale Students take measurements on the
Modeling cooperative drawings using calculations and layout and physical setting of their
groups, students drafting paper. campus and school buildings.
will actively Once the drawings are completed, the All of these activities can be
engage in students will use these to build scale enhanced through Computer Aided
activities to models of their buildings. Drawing tools (CAD)
improve their
understanding of
geometry
concepts and
mathematics in
more realistic
situations.
Groovin’ in Exploring > Using these standards of measurement, Students develop a working
the Sixties historical students will calculate differences and, knowledge of different standards of
comparison, after analyzing the results, make measurement.
students will suggestions as to cause and predict
make future trends.
comparisons > Students will then present their findings

between 1960 in an appropriate manner.

and present
pricing
structures.
Fore- Over the span of » Using electronic media, students will Students read and interpret
Designing a a semester, investigate issues relating to golf topographical maps and aerial
Golf Course students work in courses, such as xeriscaping and turf photos of the terrain located at the
teams to design a management. The final project should chosen site.
nine-hole golf result in a multimedia presentation Students calculate green sizes, hole
course, complete about the course, complete with a placement, and fairway lengths in
with clubhouse model. laying out their courses, as well as
and other scale a working model of their
amenities. course.
Blooming Student teams Using science, students gather local Calculations are made when
Spirit work to design a environmental data to assist in choosing defining utilization space, space
campus plants that will grow and flourish in management, and mixing chemicals
beautification their particular area. such as fertilizer, soil, etc.
project. Using the Internet, students
research plant types, soil types, and
weather data._____
_
_
Volume 100(1), January 2000