Journal of Science Education and Technology, Vol. 4, No.

1, 1995

Using Technology in Assessing Integrated Science

and Mathematics Learning 1

D o n n a F. Berlin 2,3 and Arthur L. White 2

Drawing from current models, research, and science and mathematics education reform
documents, this article first defines and/or delimits three broad domains of education:
integrated school science and mathematics, assessment, and technology. Based upon this
three-tiered discussion, a list of characteristics is then distilled to guide in the development
of assessment for integrated school science and mathematics using technology. Two
integrated school science and mathematics activities are provided to illustrate the alignment
of instruction and assessment and the systematic integration of technology into both.
KEY WORDS: Integration; science; mathematics; assessment; technology.

INTRODUCTION role of technology. Thus, our order of presentation

The title of this article, "Using Technology in
Assessing Integrated Science and Mathematics
Learning," suggests three very broad domains of
educational enterprise: technology, assessment, and
integration. In order to discuss and connect these
domains in a manageable and lucid way, we will be-
gin by defining and/or delimiting each of these do-
mains and then focus upon those aspects that
interrelate these domains. Our goal is to connect sci-
ence, mathematics, instruction, assessment, and
technology so as to enrich the teaching-learning
process and reasonably and accurately determine
the outcomes of this process. In order to accomplish
this goal, one must first identify the curriculum and
its relationship to assessment before exploring the
1The writing of this paper was supported by The National Center for
Science q/inchingand Learning under grant Rl17Q00062 from the Office
of Educational Research and Improvement, U.S. Deparlment of Edu-
cation. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations ex-
pressed/n this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily
reflect the views of the sponsoring agency.
2The National Center for Science Teaching and Learning, The
Ohio State University, 1929 Kenny Road, Columbus, Ohio 43210.
3Correspondence should be directed to Donna E Berlin, The Na-
tional Center for Science Teaching and Learning, The Ohio State
University, 1929 Kenny Road, Columbus, Ohio 43210.
of the domains is: integration, assessment, and tech-
nology. Each section begins with an assumption re-
lated to that domain. The fourth and final section
examines the interrelationship of these domains and
provides prototypic integrated science and mathe-
matics activities for instruction and assessment that
utilize technology.
INTEGRATED SCHOOL SCIENCE AND
MATHEMATICS
Assumption: The appropriate integration of
school science and mathematics has the potential to
improve student understanding and performance and
develop realistic and positive attitudes related to
both disciplines.
In this era of educational reform, there has
been considerable attention given to the integration
of science and mathematics education. For some,
science and mathematics are naturally and logically
related.
The alliance between science and mathematics has
a long history, dating back centuries. Science pro-
rides mathematics with interesting problems to in-
vestigate, and mathematics provides science with
powerful tools to use in analyzing data [Rutherford
and Ahlgren, 1990, pp. 16--17].

47
1059-0145/95/0300-0047507.50/0O 1995PlenumPublishingCorporation
48
Since mathematics is both the language of science
and a science of patterns, the special links between
mathematics and science are far more than just
those between theory and applications. The meth-
odology of mathematical inquiry shares with the sci-
entific method a focus on exploration, investigation,
conjecture, evidence, and reasoning. Firmer school
ties between science and mathematics should espe-
cially help student's grasp of both fields [Mathemati-
cal Sciences Education Board, 1990, pp. 4A. A.5].
One would have little difficulty finding propo-
nents of the integration of science and mathematics;
current reform documents recommend this integra-
tion related to both curriculum (what we teach) and
instruction (how we teach). The National Committee
on Science Education Standards and Assessment
(1993) outlines four categories of science content
standards: science as inquiry, science subject matter,
scientific connections, and science and human affairs.
The "connection of science with mathematics" is ex-
plicitly mentioned in the scientific connections cate-
gory. A similar position is suggested by the National
Council of Teachers of Mathematics (1989) in their
document, Curriculum and Evaluation Standards for
School Mathematics. For grades K-4, 5-8, and 9-12
respectively, "instructional practices characterized by
content integration" (p. 20), "connecting mathemat-
ics to other subjects and to the world outside the
classroom" (p. 70), and "the use of real-world prob-
lems to motivate and apply theory" (p. 126) are rec-
ommended.
Our position on integrated school science and
mathematics is somewhat tentative and still in the
conceptualization stage, based mainly upon theory
and intuition. Support for integration is often
couched in the context of constructivist (Anderson,
1992; McBride and Silverman, 1991) and neuropsy-
chological (Caine and Caine, 1991a,b; Krupnik-Got-
tlieb and Berlin, 1994) learning theory. While these
theories are often put forth as a rationale for inte-
grated school science and mathematics, there is little
research to document the benefits of this integration
(see Berlin, 1991). Part of the problem has been the
lack of a comprehensive definition of integrated
school science and mathematics.
TwO recent conferences have been held related
to integration: (1) A Network for Integrated Science
and Mathematics Teaching and Learning, jointly
sponsored in 1991 by the National Science Founda-
tion, School Science and Mathematics Association,
and The Johnson Foundation (see Berlin and White,
1992 for a report on this conference); and (2) Inte-
grated Science & Mathematics Education: Concep-
Berlin and White
tualization and Writers Conference, sponsored in
1993 by The National Center for Science Teaching
and Learning through the Office of Educational Re-
search and Improvement, U.S. Department of Edu-
cation. Of major concern was the development of a
definition of integrated science and mathematics
education that would enable discussion and the ex-
change of ideas based upon a shared understanding.
The definitions of integration suggested by the par-
ticipants in each conference varied. It became clear
that the integration of science and math can not be
simply defined; a broad range of aspects is necessary.
In an effort to provide the common language to
advance the research base related to integrated sci-
ence and mathematics teaching and learning, the
Berlin-White Integrated Science and Mathematics
Model (BWISM) was developed. BWlSM identifies
sex aspects: ways of learning, ways of knowing, proc-
ess and thinking skills, content knowledge, attitudes
and perceptions, and teaching strategies. [See Berlin
and White (1994) for g r e a t e r e l a b o r a t i o n of
BWISM.]
Ways of Learning--How Students Experience, Or-
ganize, and Think about Science and Mathematics
(Constructivist/Neuropsychological Perspective or Ra-
tionale). Integration can be based on how students
experience, organize, and think about science and
math. To learn science and math effectively, students
must do science and math. They need to be actively
involved in a learning environment that encourages
pattern-seeking, the exploration of big ideas, and the
interrelationships between concepts and processes;
promotes social discourse; and is personally and so-
cially relevant.
Ways of Knowing--The Cyclical Relationship be-
tween Inductive-Deductive, Qualitative-Quantitative
Views of the World. In science and mathematics, new
knowledge is generally produced through a combina-
tion of induction and deduction. For this discussion,
induction is described as the process of looking at
numerous examples to find a pattern (qualitative),
which can then be translated into a rule (quantita-
tive). The application of this rule in a new context
is the process of deduction. The process of induction
can then provide the empirical verification of the
rule. If the rule is not verified, new patterns are
sought and a modified/new rule is generated (induc-
tion). Integrated science and math activities can pro-
vide opportunities to move back and forth between
the inductive and deductive ways of knowing.
Process and Thinking Skills--Related to Inquiry,
Problem Solving, Higher-Order Thinking Skills. Inte-
Assessing Integrated Science and Mathematics Learning
gration of science and math may focus on ways of
collecting and using information gathered by investi-
gation, exploration, experimentation, and problem
solving. Skills such as classifying, collecting, and or-
ganizing data; communicating; controlling variables;
developing models; estimating; experimenting;
graphing; inferring; interpreting data; making hy-
potheses; measuring; observing; recognizing patterns,
and predicting are representative of this aspect.
Content Knowledge--The Overlap of Science and
Mathematics Content. Science and math can be inte-
grated in terms of the overlap of the content. The
examination of the concepts, principles, laws, and
theories of science and math may reveal those areas
of science and math where ideas are unique to each
discipline and other areas where ideas overlap or are
analogous (e.g., the fulcrum of a balance and the
mean of a distribution).
Attitudes and Perceptions--The Values, Attitudes,
and Ways of Thinking about Science and Mathematics.
Integration may also be viewed from what children
believe about science and math, their involvement,
and the confidence in their ability to do science and
math. The values, attitudes, and ways of thinking
shared between science and mathematics education
include: accepting the changing nature of science and
mathematics; basing decisions and actions on data;
a desire for knowledge; a healthy degree of skepti-
cism, honesty, and objectivity; relying on logical rea-
soning; willingness to consider other explanations;
and working together to achieve better under-
standing.
Teaching Strategies--The Methods and Materials
that Provide Opportunities for Students to Encounter
Science and Mathematics and Construct Meaning. In-
tegrated science and mathematics teaching should in-
clude a broad range of content, provide time for
inquiry-based learning, provide opportunities to use
laboratory instruments and other tools, provide ap-
propriate and ongoing use of technology such as cal-
culators and computers, and maximize opportunities
for successful connections between science and
mathematics.
These aspects can be used to characterize cur-
rent resources, guide in the development of new ma-
terials, and provide a common language to advance
the research base related to integrated school science
and mathematics. These six aspects will provide the
framework for our discussion of the role of technol-
ogy in the assessment of integrated school science
and mathematics.
49
ASSESSMENT
Assumption: Assessment should be multifaceted
and aligned with the goals and objectives of curricu-
lum and instruction.
Rather than review the copious assessment lit-
erature, we will focus our discussion upon those as-
sessment characteristics r e c o m m e n d e d in both
mathematics education and science education docu-
ments. Primarily, we will draw from documents pub-
lished by the National Council of Teachers of
Mathematics (NCTM) and the National Committee
on Science Education Standards and Assessment
(NCSESA). We will also report the results of a recent
research study designed to identify student outcomes
associated with an integrated science and mathemat-
ics environment and its implications for assessment.
Varied purposes for assessment have been iden-
tified in the literature. The National Council of
Teachers of Mathematics (1993) describes seven cate-
gories of assessment purposes: making instructional
decisions; monitoring student progress in the class-
room; creating, communicating, and using summative
evaluations; monitoring student progress externally;
validating student achievement; evaluating programs;
and addressing accountability issues. Similarly, the
National Committee on Science Education Standards
and Assessment (1993) suggests the following func-
tions of assessment: serves learning, serves teaching,
informs decisions about individuals, informs policy
formulation and evaluation, and monitors the system.
Our discussion of assessment will focus upon the use
of assessment to guide planning and make instruc-
tional decisions, monitor student understanding and
progress (what they know and can do), and challenge
and enhance student learning by providing self-regu-
latory and self-monitoring opportunities.
Both the science and mathematics education
communities have disseminated documents related
to curriculum/content, instruction/teaching, and
evaluation/assessment standards. For mathematics
educators, problem solving is clearly the focus of the
mathematics curriculum (National Council of Teach-
ers of Mathematics, 1980, 1989) and equally domi-
nant in their evaluation standards. For example,
Standard 4: Mathematical Power includes " . . . the
ability to apply their knowledge to solve problems
within mathematics and in other disciplines . . ."
(p. 205) Standard 5: Problem Solving explicitly deals
with "the assessment of students' ability to use
mathematics in solving problems . . ." Students
"should provide evidence that they can formulate
50
problems, apply a variety of strategies to solve prob-
lems, solve problems, verify and interpret results, and
generalize solutions." (p. 209)
The important role of problem solving is also
recognized in the science education reform docu-
ments. "Students should be given problems--at levels
appropriate to their maturity--that require them to
decide what evidence is relevant and to offer their
i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s of what the evidence means."
(Rutherford and Ahlgren, 1990, p. 188.) The emerg-
ing science standards (National Committee on Sci-
ence Education Standards and Assessment, 1993)
focus upon inquiry. Science as Inquiry is identified
as one of four general categories of school science
content.
When students engage in inquiry, they use a wide
range of tools and skills, make choices among alter-
natives and determine what factors are important.
They use both hands-on skills and thinking skills. In-
quiry in the classroom can and should engage stu-
dents in inquiry as it is actually practiced--a series
of creative, iterative, and systematic procedures that
lead to facts, concepts, principles, theories, and
deeper understanding of natural phenomena [Na-
tional Committee on Science Education Standards
and Assessment, p. 4].
Consequently, inquiry plays a central role in the
assessing of student learning. Students should be able
to " . . . explain science concepts and apply them in
new contexts; formulate questions and develop hy-
potheses; plan and carry out observations, explora-
tions and investigations; and identify patterns,
synthesize data, and formulate generalizations from
experience" (p. 10). For both problem solving and
inquiry, the ability to work with others is an impor-
tant component.
The science and mathematics educators are also
in accord as to the need to align curriculum, instruc-
tion, and assessment. For example,
Standard 1: Alignment
Methods and tasks for assessing students' learning
should be aligned with the curriculum's--
9 goals, objectives, and mathematical content;
9 relative emphases given to various topics and
processes and their relationships;
9 instrUctional approaches and activities, including
the use of calculators, computers, and manipulat-
ive materials [National Council of Teachers of
Mathematics, 1989, p. 193].
More recently, the National Council of Teachers
of Mathematics (1993) has suggested that assessment
should be an integral, routine part of the teaching
and learning that takes place in classrooms as a
Berlin and White
means to enhance mathematics learning. Put another
way, "Curriculum, instruction, and assessment are
three interrelated parts of a single process aimed at
developing students' mathematical power" (National
Council of Teachers of Mathematics, 1993, p. 35).
Although the development of the science standards
is still in progress, the interdependence of curricu-
lum, instruction, and assessment is clearly recog-
nized. " . . . Content, Teaching, and Assessment
Standards are being developed concurrently, so
teaching and assessment practices will be consistent
with the content" (National Committee on Science
Education Standards and Assessment, 1993, p. 4).
This alignment can be achieved through the use
of performance-based and/or embedded assessments.
Performance tasks or situational investigations have
been put forward as a means to "blur the edges
among curriculum, instruction, and assessment"
(Baron, 1990, p. 247). They can serve as a means to
assess conceptual and procedural knowledge, deter-
mine the structure and level of knowledge, integrate
knowledge within and across disciplines, assess
higher level thinking skills, monitor thinking proc-
esses, monitor both the process and the product, and
enhance motivation though a contextualized, relevant
situation (Baker, 1990; Kulm and Stuessy, 1991; Na-
tional Council of Teachers and Mathematics, 1993).
Although embedded assessments often involve per-
formance tasks, they are unique in that their use
makes instruction and assessment indistinguishable.
Both performance-based and embedded assessment
can be interdisciplinary and contextual.
Current mathematics education reform literature
emphasizes the importance of the interconnections
among mathematical topics and the connections of
mathematics to other domains and disciplines . . . .
Assessment developers will need to find new ways
to reflect these connections in the assessment tasks
posed for students [Mathematical Sciences Educa-
tion Board, 1993, p. 47].
One suggestion is to
9 set tasks in a real-world context. Such tasks will
more likely capture student's interest and enthusi-
asm and may also suggest new ways to under-
standing the world through mathematical models so
that the assessment becomes part of the learning
process [National Research Council, 1993, p. 47].
Real-world contexts often involve cross-content
assessment. For example, students could participate
in a science investigation that could provide evidence
related to student's data collection, analysis, and
Assessing Integrated Science and Mathematics Learning
communication ability (mathematics concepts and
skills); science processes; and science concepts.
Other recommendations found in the science
and mathematics education literature relate to the use
of multimodal representations. Collis and Romberg
(1991) discuss two modes of thinking: ikonic, the basis
for intuitive thinking, and concrete-symbolic, the ba-
sis for thinking in elementary mathematical systems.
Based upon a Piagetian perspective, Berlin and White
(1987) identify nine movement-representational
modes: manipulated-concrete, animated-concrete;
static-concrete; manipulated-semiconcrete; animated-
semiconcrete; static-semiconcrete, manipulated-ab-
stract; a n i m a t e d - a b s t r a c t ; and static-abstract.
Standard 4: Mathematical Connections suggests that
students can " . . . explore problems and describe re-
sults using graphical, numerical, physical, algebraic,
and verbal mathematical models or representations"
(National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, 1989,
p. 94). The design of instruction and assessment
should consider these varied modes of thinking or
representation as well as opportunities to translate
between and connect these modes.
We now turn our attention to the results of a
collaborative research project between The National
Center for Science Teaching and Learning, Colum-
bus, Ohio, and the AIMS Education Foundation,
Fresno, California (Berlin and Hillen, 1994). The
goal of this project was to identify student outcomes
as perceived by classroom teachers to be related to
participation in a hands-on, integrated mathemat-
ics/science program called AIMS. Relying upon the
professional judgment of teachers, the purpose was
to identify indicators of thinking, feeling, and under-
standing that may assist in the development of an
assessment package. The participants included seven
research team leaders, 45 teacher-researchers, and
2025 students in grades four, five, and six in six
states. A total of 423 cognitive, 234 affective, and 188
social outcomes were identified across all sites. The
following cognitive, affective, and social outcomes
can be used to guide in the development of assess-
ment items appropriate to an integrated school sci-
ence and mathematics experience.
Cognitive
9 development of process skills
9 using appropriate terminology
9 selecting and using scientific equipment
9 making interdisciplinary connections
9 application of concepts to the real world
9 use of the scientific method
51
9 development of life skills such as communi-
cation, understanding of graphs, measure-
ment, visual/spatial relationships
Affective
9 interest in math, science, and learning in gen-
eral
9 valued dispositions such as curiosity, persist-
ence, risk-taking
9 confidence in ability to do science and mathe-
matics
enhanced self-esteem
heightened self-efficacy
Social
respecting and valuing one another
increased student interaction
development of ability to work cooperatively
as well as independently
9 increased home involvement
The design of assessments related to integrated
school science and mathematics should reflect and
specifically tap into these outcomes.
TECHNOLOGY
Assumption: Technology should be integrated
into curriculum, instruction, and assessment.
The advancement of technology into both cur-
riculum and instruction is quite apparent in current
mathematics and science education reform docu-
ments.
Because technology is changing mathematics and its
uses, we believe t h a t - - a p p r o p r i a t e calculators
should be available to all students at all times; a
computer should be available in every classroom for
demonstration purposes; every student should have
access to a computer for individual and group work;
students should learn to use the computer as a tool
for processing information and performing calcula-
tions to investigate and solve problems [National
Council of Teachers of Mathematics, 1989, p. 8].
Technology can be useful for identifying connec-
tions among various mathematical topics. "Because
the computer allows students to enter countless val-
ues and immediately see the resulting geometric
shape, they might find it both interesting and reward-
ing to investigate interrelationships between number
and geometry" (National Council of Teachers of
Mathematics, 1989, p. 85).
Technology is also recognized as an important
connection in the school science content (National
Committee on Science Education Standards and As-
52
sessment, I993; Rutherford and Ahlgren, 1990) as
well as a tool for scientific inquiry. Calculators and
computers should be used by all students (Ruther-
ford and Ahlgren, 1990).
Specific to the use of computers, Lesh (1990)
suggests four types of assessment problems aimed at
higher-order thinking in mathematics: interactive
word problems, short stories, graph-based or table-
based problems, and simulations. Some of the bene-
fits associated with the use of these computer-based
assessment problems include the opportunity for
multiple questions and multiple solutions, extra in-
formation (relevant and irrelevant), the use of num-
ber crunching or graphics tools, real-life contexts
(multiple concept and multiple step), revisiting inter-
active video, making predictions and then comparing
hypothetical and actual results, follow-up questions
based upon student responses, and facilitating the
development of problem solving strategies.
The use of calculators in assessment has also
been proposed. Harvey (1989) suggests that calcula-
tor-active test items be designed to contain "data that
can be usefully explored and manipulated using a cal-
culator and . . . has been designed to require active
calculator use" (p. 78). Four-function, scientific, and
graphics calculators can play a significant role in per-
formance-based and/or embedded assessment.
The role of technology has been specifically ad-
dressed in the '~ssessment Standards for School
Mathematics. Working Draft" (National Council of
Teachers of Mathematics, 1993). Technology can be
used as a delivery system, context (i.e., real world,
problem solving/inquiry), monitor, or manager for as-
sessment. Some of the exciting technology-based as-
sessments include the recording of observation and
interview notes on electronic pads; scanning of stu-
dent work for portfolios; software programs that
monitor and record work; tests and quizzes that are
electronically administered, scored, modified, and re-
corded; and the generation of multidimensional,
graphics-based student profiles. [See Helgeson and
Kumar (1993) for a review of various applications of
microcomputers and hypermedia to assessment in
science education.] "The potential impact of the va-
riety of new electronic tools for the development of
new assessment systems has yet to be tapped" (Na-
tional Council of Teachers of Mathematics, 1993,
p. 229).
Others have suggested that technology can be
used to address some of the challenges associated
with alternative assessments. "The problems the
world will serve up to our students will also most
Berlin and White
likely involve technology. So it would follow that
technology could play a major role in alternative as-
sessments in schools" (Bruder, 1993, p. 23). Technol-
ogy is proposed as a way to "make alternative
assessment less labor intensive" (Worthen, 1993). For
example, simulations could not only yield a final
product, but also provide a detailed record of the stu-
dent's decision-making process. Videotaping inter-
views during the planning and creating of a product
could provide insight into how students are thinking,
reasoning, and communicating as well as serve as a
record of performance to be used by the teacher for
evaluation and/or the student for self-assessment.
Student products and presentations using pen-based
drawings and diagrams, videotapes, audiotapes, mul-
timedia, or hypercard stacks illustrate the varied uses
of technology in assessment (Bruder, 1993). Kumar
(1994) provides a description, rationale, and selected
prototypes of the use of hypermedia in performance
assessment along with research results suggesting
that hypermedia can be used to "facilitate process-
oriented performance assessment in science educa-
tion" (p. 64).
Commenting upon the relationship between the
"testing context" and the "learning context," Lipson
et al. (1990) argue that " . . . tests of material that
benefit from the use of such tools [e.g., calculators,
computers] must be administered on the same com-
puters and intimately integrated with those tools"
(p. 123). This type of assessment could present many
different kinds of problems (real-world, multistep,
different contexts, as well as context-free); present
graphics, video, realistic images, and photos; track
and interpret both the solution as well as the inter-
mediate steps; ask questions that probe the reasoning
process; ask follow-up questions; and permit students
to respond in a variety of formats including words,
symbols, and drawings. Lipson et al. (1990) also pro-
pose that a technology-based assessment system that
presents real-world problems "provides a context in
which science and mathematics can be fruitfully in-
tegrated" (p. 129). '~,n assessment system that gen-
erates a broad array of interdisciplinary problems
may serve as a tool that will finally lead to the de-
velopment of successful interdisciplinary instruction"
(p. 132).
PUTTING IT ALL TOGETHER
Based upon the discussions in the three previous
sections (integrated school science and mathematics,
Assessing Integrated Science and Mathematics Learning 53

Concrete -- Semiconcrete-- w A b s ~ c t m

u
I Dispb~
Pictures
Charts Textual materials
Exhibits Diagrams. .
Graphs
tJq Slides
F'dmstrlps

Television Calculator
~ Teacher F'dms
Demonstration Computer graphics Overhead
Ill ._ with concrete Videompcs projection
~ objects Transparent

tt
0 materials

] Learner rise5
concrete ohject~
lnterac~ve
computer
].,earner uses
calculator
C graphics
simulations
I C o n c m t e ~ - Semiconcrete ~ ~ Abstract - -

REPRESENTATIONAL LEVEL
Fig. 1. Berlin-White Integration of Technology (BWIT) model (Berlin and White, 1987).

assessment, and technology), the following charac-
teristics should guide in the development of assess-
ment for integrated school science and mathematics
that can capture the potential of technology:
9 Engage students in problem solving
9 Engage students in inquiry
9 Invoke real world applications; contextualized
problems
* Use performance-based tasks
9 Use tasks embedded within instruction
9 Use appropriate technology
9 Provide for multimodal experiences and op-
portunities for modal translations
9 Provide opportunities for communication,
collaboration, socialization
9 Encourage multiple modes of expression
9 Encourage higher order thinking skills
, Reveal conceptual knowledge
9 Reveal procedural knowledge
9 Reveal student processing, reasoning
9 Recognize student attitudes and perceptions
In order to systematically tap into the potential
of technology in assessment, it must be used in a de-
liberate and rational way, integrated with other re-
sources. The Berlin-White Integration of Technology
(BWlT) model can serve as a template to charac-
terize and link various assessment tasks (Berlin and
White, 1987).
Figure 1, originally conceived as a model for the
integration of technology into instruction, now serves
as a link between the learning context and the as-
sessment context. The BWIT model identifies two di-
mensions: movement (manipulated-animated-static)
and representational level (concrete-semiconcrete-
abstract). Dimension 1, movement, is a continuum
from manipulation of objects and materials to things
in static form. Manipulation is the condition in which
students are responsible for observable changes by
active interaction and control of their surroundings.
The students handle and move science equipment,
arrange and modify images, or interact with com-
puter simulations or calculator keys and experience
the direct consequences of such activity. Animation
involves observable change under the control of
someone or thing other than the learner. In the static
condition, there is no direct observation of a change.
Evidence of change can only be inferred. The learner
may observe stationary objects, illustrations, or
printed words and symbols. The representational
level dimension can be traced back to both Piaget
and Bruner. Dimension 2, representational level, is
a continuum from concrete to abstract. At the con-
crete level, tasks involve physical objects. The semi-
concrete level includes pictures, drawings, and
images of concrete objects and materials. Symbols,
formulas, and written or verbal descriptions of ideas
are used at the abstract level of representation.
If these dimensions (movement and repre-
sentational level) are to be considered in the instruc-
tional design, then it is necessary to consider these
same dimensions in the assessment of that instruc-
54
tion. Most of the assessment that has been used in
the past has not been representative of the different
cells in this model. However, attending to these cells
and providing connections between them; in instruc-
tion and through embedded assessment may effec-
tively align instruction and assessment and effectively
integrate technology into both. Based on the BWIT
model, the following integrated school science and
mathematics activities are provided to illustrate the
alignment of instruction and assessment and the sys-
tematic integration of technology into both.
Prototypes
Natural Selection (Modified from Douglass and
Kurtz, 1987)
In this activity, children explore how camouflage
influences natural selection. The children sprinkle
colored dots on a table cloth that has a polka-dot
pattern. After sprinkling the paper dots, they then
proceed to pick them up from the table cloth. A red
and white polka-dotted table cloth would be suitable.
The dots (e.g., the circles resulting from punching
holes in colored paper) can be of a variety of colors,
but must include red. The red paper circles will be
concealed by the red polka-dots of the table cloth.
Procedure. Each team (5 students per team)
takes 20 dots of each of five different colors (100
total dots). One of the colors should be an exact
match to the red of the polka-dots of the table cloth.
These 100 dots represent the first generation and are
spread randomly over the table cloth. Students
should be careful not to lose any of the paper dots;
accuracy is important. Each student in turn looks
away from the table cloth and then looks back pick-
ing the first dot he or she sees. This is similar to
what would happen in nature when a predator hunts
and seizes a victim. This is repeated by each team
member, removing one dot at a time, until 75 of the
100 dots have been removed. The team then sorts
the dots remaining on the table cloth by color and
counts them. After collecting the data, record the
number of the generation and the percentage of col-
ored dots (i.e., percent red, percent blue . . . . ). For
each of the 25 remaining dots, add three of that same
color to represent the next generation. Mix the dots
and repeat the process seven more times for a total
of eight generations. Record the number of the gen-
eration and the percentage of colored dots (i.e., per-
Berlin and White
cent red, percent blue . . .) for the first, second,
third, seventh, and eighth generations.
The assessment might focus on the student's
ability to recognize a pattern, define a rule, test the
prediction by gathering more data, refine the rule
based upon the new data, and retest the application
of the rule.
Assessment Activities.
1. Prepare a written description as to how and
why the percentage of red and nonred dots
changes from generation to generation [pa-
per-and-pencil/computer: static-abstract].
2. Predict the number of red dots in the fifth
generation (within the data range) and the
tenth generation (outside the data range).
Express the prediction rule in textual,
graphical, and/or symbolic (e.g., mathemati-
cal equation) form [static-abstract].
3. Use a graphics calculator or computer soft-
ware program to produce a best-fit graph of
the data collected from the first, second,
third, seventh, and eighth generations. Inter-
pret the graph in terms of a prediction rule
[calculator/computer: animated-abstract].
4. Compare the predicted and experimental re-
sults. Discuss the results.
5. Collect data from additional generations.
Determine if additional data changes the
prediction rule [manipulated-semiconcrete].
6. Design an environment (hand draw and
color or use a computer software program)
such that the percentage of red dots after
four generations would be predicted to be
60% [paper-and-crayon/computer: manipu-
lated-semiconcrete].
7. Determine (estimate) the limit of the per-
centage of red dots using a hand-made
graph (placing the dots on the grid to make
a bar graph) [paper-and-pencil: static-semi-
concrete].
8. Determine (estimate) the limit of the per-
centage of red dots using a graphics calcu-
lator. [calculator: static-abstract].
9. A computer program could be used for
simulating the natural selection activity and
provide the students with the capability of
varying the number and size of the red
polka-dots on the table cloth. The computer
program should be designed to allow for a
random distribution of the colored dots over
the surface of the image of the table cloth.
Students could make predictions and then
Assessing Integrated Science and Mathematics Learning
compare them with the actual simulation re-
sults [computer: animated-semiconcrete].
10. Match pictures of organisms with pictures of
ecological environments where the prob-
ability of survival is maximized [manipu-
lated-semiconcrete].
11. Set up an Easter egg hunt. Determine how
many eggs can be detected and why. [ma-
nipulated-concrete].
12. Photograph an environment with "hidden"
items9 Determine how many items can be
detected and why [static-semiconcrete].
13. List other characteristics besides color that
could influence natural selection (e.g., smell,
sound, shape, size, texture, pattern, taste,
movement) [static-abstract].
Characteristics of Light
In this activity, students will explore the relation-
ship between the temperature due to the heat ema-
nating from a candle and the distance from the heat
source. The three objectives of this activity are: (1)
to determine the nature of the propagation of heat,
(2) to engage in inductive and deductive ways of
knowing, and (3) to design an experiment to explore
the relationship between the propagation of heat and
the propagation of light intensity.
Procedure. Place a candle on a table in a dark
room. Use a temperature sensor probe (e.g., micro-
computer-based laboratory equipment) to measure
the temperature due to the heat emanating from the
candle at 5, 10, 15, and 20 cm. Record the data col-
lected: temperatures and distances. Make a predic-
tion rule. Use this rule to predict the temperature at
25 and 50 cm. Check your prediction for 25 cm by
measuring with the temperature probe. How does
this datum modify the prediction rule you would use
for 50 cm? What is your prediction for 50 cm using
the modified rule? Is it the same? Different? Why?
Assessment Activities.
1. Using cutouts of thermometers to represent
the temperature, make a bar graph along the
distance axis to represent the relationship
between the temperature measured with the
temperature probe and the distance from
the candle measured with a meter stick [ma-
nipulated-semiconcrete].
2. Using degrees Centigrade (20~ 30~ 40~
9 . .) to represent the temperature, make a
bar graph along the distance axis to repre-
55
sent the relationship between the tempera-
ture and the distance from the candle [ma-
nipulated-abstract].
3 . Express the prediction rule in textual,
graphical, and symbolic (e.g., mathematical
equation) form [static-abstract].
4. Use a graphics calculator to produce a bar
graph of the temperature by the distance
from the candle [calculator: animated-ab-
stract].
5. Use a graphics calculator to produce a best-
fit graph of the temperature related to the
distance from the candle. Interpret the
graph in terms of a prediction rule [calcula-
tor: animated-abstract].
6. Make a prediction based upon the best-fit
graph of the graphics calculator and test
your prediction by collecting additional data.
Make a prediction for a distance which is
outside of the experimental data range (e.g.,
100 cm) [static-abstract].
7. Compare the predicted and experimental re-
suits. Discuss the results.
8. Collect additional data at other distances
within and beyond the range of the original
data range. Determine if the additional data
changes the prediction rule. Provide an ex-
planation for the results [computer: manipu-
lated-concrete].
9. Analog extension: Using a candle, explore
the relationship between light intensity (us-
ing a light sensor probe) and the distance
from the light source [computer: manipu-
lated--concrete].
10. Does the prediction rule for the temperature
related to the distance from the candle cor-
respond to the prediction rule for the inten-
sity of the light related to the distance?
Design and conduct an experiment to deter-
mine whether the rule for the propagation
of heat from the candle will be a good pre-
dictor for the propagation of light intensity
of the candle [computer: manipulated-con-
crete].
POSTSCRIPT
It must be made clear that we do not suggest,
or even believe, that all science and mathematics
should be "integrated." We also do not believe that
all assessment should be embedded or performance-
56
based. Furthermore, we do not believe that technol-
ogy is the solution to the problems in science and
mathematics education or an instructional panacea.
What we do believe is that the connecting of science,
mathematics, instruction, assessment, and technology
in a carefully conceived, logical fashion can enrich
the learning environment and facilitate the develop-
ment of student cognitive, affective, and social out-
comes.
REFERENCES
Anderson, O. R. (1992). Some interrelationships between con-
structivist models of learning and current neurobiological the-
ory with implications for science education. Journal of
Research in Science Teaching 29(1): 1037-1058.
Baker, E. L. (1990). Developing comprehensive assessments of
higher order thinking. In Kulm, G. (Ed.), Assessing Higher Or-
der Thinking in Mathematics, American Association for the
Advancement of Science, Washington, D.C., pp. 7-20.
Baron, J. B. (1990). Performance assessment: Blurring the edges
among assessment, curriculum, and instruction. In Cham-
pagne, A. B., Lovitts, B. E., and Calinger, B. J. (Eds.), As-
sessment in the Service of Instruction, American Association
for the Advancement of Science, Washington, D.C.
Berlin, D. E (1991). Integrating Science and Mathematics in Teach-
ing and Learning. A Bibliography, School Science and Mathe-
matics Association Topicsfor Teachers Series Number 6, ERIC
Clearinghouse for Science, Mathematics, and Environmental
Education, Columbus, Ohio.
Berlin, D. E, and Hillen, J. A. (1994). Making connections in math
and science: Identifying student outcomes. School Science and
Mathematics 94(6): 283-290.
Berlin, D. E, and White, A. L. (1987). An instructional model for
integrating the calculator. Arithmetic Teacher 34(6): 52-54.
Berlin, D. E, and White, A. L. (1992). Report from the
NSF/SSMA Wingspread Conference: A network for inte-
grated science and mathematics teaching and learning. School
Science and Mathematics 92(6): 340--342.
Berlin, D. E, and White, A. L. (1994). The Berlin-White Inte-
grated Science and Mathematics Model. School Science and
Mathematics 94(1): 2-4.
Bruder, I. (1993). Alternative assessment: Putting technology to
the test, Electronic Learning 22-28.
Caine, G., and Caine, R. N. (1991a). The use of brain research
as a basis for evaluating integrative approaches to education.
Journal of the Society for Accelerative Learning and Teaching
16(4): 365-382.
Caine, R. N., and Caine, G. (1991b). Making Connections. Teaching
and the Human Brain, Association for Supervision and Cur-
riculum Development, Alexandria, Virginia.
Collis, K., and Romberg, T A. (1991). Assessment of mathematical
performance: An analysis of open-ended test items. In Wit-
trock, M. C., and Baker, E. L. (Eds.), Testing and Cognition,
Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, pp. 82-130.
Berlin and White
Douglass, C., and Kurtz, R. (1987). SSMILES. How well hidden.
Modeling natural selection. School Science and Mathematics
87(50): journal insert.
Harvey, J. G. (1989). What about calculator-based placement
tests? The AMATYC Review 11(1, Part 2): 77-81.
Helgeson, S. L., and Kumar, D. D. (1993). A review of educational
technology in assessment. Journal of Computers in Mathemat-
ics and Science Teaching 12(3/4): 227-243.
Krupnik-Gottlieb, M., and Berlin, D. E (1994). Integration with the
Brain in Mind, unpublished manuscript, The Ohio State Uni-
versity, The National Center for Science Teaching and Learn-
ing, Columbus, Ohio.
Kulm, G., and Stuessy, C. (1991). Assessment in science and
mathematics education reform. In Kulm, G. and Malcom, S.
M. (Eds.), Science Assessment in the Service of Reform, Ameri-
can Association for the Advancement of Science, Washington,
D.C., pp. 71-87.
Kumar, D. D. (1994). Hypermedia: A tool for alternative assess-
ment? Educational Training Technology International 31(1):
59-66.
Lesh, R. (1990). Computer-based assessment of higher order un-
derstandings and processes in elementary mathematics. In
Kulm, G. (Ed.), Assessing Higher Order Thinking in Mathemat-
ics, American Association for the Advancement of Science,
Washington, D.C., pp. 82-110.
Lipson, J. I., Faletti, J., and Martinez, M. E. (1990). Advances in
computer-based mathematics assessment. In Kulm, G. (Ed.),
Assessing Higher Order Thinking in Mathematics, American
Association for the Advancement of Science, Washington,
D.C., pp. 122-134.
Mathematical Sciences Education Board. (1990). Reshaping School
Mathematics. A Philosophy and Framework for Curriculum,
National Academy Press, Washington, D.C.
Mathematical Sciences Education Board. (1993). Measuring
Counts. A Conceptual Guide for Mathematics Assessment, Na-
tional Academy Press, Washington, D.C.
McBride, J. W., and Silverman, E L. (1991). Integrating elemen-
tary/middle school science and mathematics. School Science
and Mathematics 91(7): 285-292.
National Committee on Science Education Standards and Assess-
ment. (1993). National Science Education Standards: July '93
Progress Report, National Research Council, Washington, D.C.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (1980). An Agenda
for Action: Recommendations for School Mathematics of the
1980s, National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, Reston,
Virginia.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (1989). Curriculum
and Evaluation Standards for School Mathematics, National
Council of Teachers of Mathematics, Reston, Virginia.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (1993). Assessment
Standards for School Mathematics. Working Draft, National
Council of Teachers of Mathematics, Reston, Virginia.
National Research Council. (1993). Measuring What Counts. A
Conceptual Guidefor Mathematics Assessment, National Acad-
emy Press, Washington, D.C.
Rutherford, E J., and Ahlgren, A. (1990). Science for All Ameri-
cans, Oxford University Press, New York.
Worthen, B. R. (1993). Critical issues that will determine the fu-
ture of alternative assessment. Phi Delta Kappan 74(6): 444-
448, 450--454.