In order to achieve conceptual integration (CI) among different subject areas in science, students must have enough prior knowledge and promote meaningful learning (diSessa, 1993; Matthews, 1993, Taber, 2005). Therefore, the CI can be defined as the promoting meaningful learning that learners can employ pre-requisite knowledge or concepts in a certain science subject whilst learning a concept or topic in another science subject (Taber, 2003; Toomey & Garafalo, 2003). Likewise, Taber (2005) defined CI as the person’s organized knowledge structures which is formed making connections between different areas. For instance, when teachers teach certain chemistry topics at a more advanced level, they should use more fundamental chemistry topics, ideas, and concepts at a less advanced level and think about some pre-requisite knowledge taken physics or biology topics since learners can learn this topic meaningfully (Taber, 2008). It is important to investigate the CI in terms of eliminating misconceptions (Ganaras, Duman, & Larcher, 2008), providing meaningful learning (Taber, 2005). Moreover, when scientists are dealing with a paradigm, they should look science completely (Lederman, 2007). As the CI requires combining different disciplines, it helps students to behave as a scientist. If science concepts are not integrated with each other properly, students cannot achieve the CI among science concepts. Also, they cannot link between new knowledge and prior learning, facilitate new meaningful learning and reinforce the previous learning. Chemistry, physics, and biology are closely linked domains and needs conceptual integration in order to provide meaningful learning. In this integration, using appropriate instructional strategies and assessment techniques is crucial. Thus, studying on teacher education need to understand opinions of science teachers about CI are worth to study in that

• it is difficult to deeply understand science concepts without connecting physics chemistry and biology concepts each other,

• it is important to examine whether science teachers know the CI since it affects directly students’ science learning. (Caudill, Hill, Hoke, & Lipan, 2010; Godrick & Hartman 2000, Taber, 2005), and

• when we looked at the studies on the CI in the literature, there are very few studies on the subject, which are mainly high school and university students (Taber, 2005, 2008; Toomey & Garafalo, 2003) and pre-service physics and chemistry teachers (Nakipoğlu, 2003; Sinan, 2009; Tuysuz, Bektas, & Geban, 2014).

  It is hoped that this study might provide some information about usage of the CI. In today’s science education, teachers should have ability and skills to teach science in an integrated way to introduce it as a whole, because contemporary science understanding requires integration of different disciplines and collaboration among different fields. In this sense, science technology engineering mathematics (STEM) movement in education is a good example to indicate how integration is important in science education where integration is best practiced. Especially, science teachers are expected to teach physics, chemistry, and biology in primary schools’ science classes, understanding their ideas about the CI and how they conceptualize it will help both educators and curriculum designers understand how the CI can be effectively integrated into curriculum. This study might put a brick to the construction. Hence, the study examines how science teachers’ views regarding the CI with following research questions are:

  What are the views of science teachers about conceptual integration in terms of

1. whether they use CI between concepts related to physics, chemistry, and biology in the past and future?

2. whether they have difficulties in using CI in their instructions?

3. whether they use different instructional strategies when they use CI in their lessons?

4. whether they ask questions related with CI in their lessons?

5. whether they have examined curriculum in terms of CI?

    

Caudill, L., Hill, A., Hoke, K., & Lipan, O. (2010). Impact of interdisciplinary undergraduate research in mathematics and biology on the development of a new course integrating five STEM disciplines. CBE-Life Sciences Education, 9(3), 212-216. Creswell, J. W. (2013). Qualitative inquiry & resaerch design: Choosing among five approaches (Third edition). New York: Sage. diSessa, A.A. (1993). Toward an epistemology of physics. Cognition and Instruction, 10(2&3), 105-225. Duit, R., & Treagust, D. F. (2003). Conceptual change: a powerful framework for improving science teaching and learning. International Journal of Science Education, 25, 671-688. Frankel, J. R., & Wallen, N. E. (2000). How to design and evaluate research in education, 3rd ed., New York: Mc Grawhill, Inc. Ganaras, K., Dumon, A., & Larcher, C. (2008). Conceptual integration of chemical equilibrium by prospective physical sciences teachers. Chemistry Education Research and Practice. 9, 240–249. Godrick, E., Hartman, S. (2000). Integrating Introductory Biology and General Chemistry Laboratories. Journal of College Science Teaching, 29 (3), 184-86. Lederman, N. G. (2007). Nature of science: Past, present, and future. In S. K. Abell & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (pp. 831-879). Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Publishers. Matthews, M. R. (1993). Constructivism and science education: Some epistemological problems, (Journal of Science Education and Technology, 2(l), 359-370. Nakiboglu, C. (2003). Instructional misconceptions of Turkish prospective chemistry teachers about atomic orbitals and hybridization, Chemistry Education: Research & Practice, 4, 171-188. Sinan O. (2009). Öğretmen Adaylarının Kimya ve Biyoloji Derslerinde Kullanılan Bazı Ortak Kavramları Tanımlamalarındaki Farklılıklar. Necatibey Eğitim Fakültesi Elektronik Fen ve Matematik Eğitimi Dergisi, 3(2), 1-21. http://www.nef.balikesir.edu.tr/~dergi/makaleler/yayinda/7/EFMED_FBE121.pdf Taber, K. S. (2003). Understanding ionization energy: Physical, chemical and alternative conceptions, Chemistry Education: Research & Practice, 4, 149-169. Taber, K. S. (2005) Conceptual integration and science learners - do we expect too much?, Invited seminar paper presented at the Centre for Studies in Science and Mathematics Education, University of Leeds, February 2005. The text is in the Education-line internet document collection at: http://www.leeds.ac.uk/educol/documents/00003875.htm Taber, K. S. (2008). Exploring Conceptual Integration in Student Thinking: Evidence from a case study, International Journal of Science Education, 30(14), 1915-1943. Toomey, R. & Garafalo, F. (2003). Linking physics with chemistry - opportunities in a constructivist classroom, Chemistry Education: Research & Practice, 4, 189-204. Tuysuz, M., Bektas, O., & Geban, O. (2014). “Investigating Pre-service Physics and Chemistry Teachers’ Conceptual Integration between Physics and Chemistry”. 87th NARST Annual International Conference, Pittsburgh, USA. , 30 March-02 April, 2014.