Recent advances in biology and digital technology represent unique opportunities for teacher educators to rethink the programmatic experiences of prospective secondary science and mathematics teachers. This article discusses the importance of teacher education programs that connect mathematics and science where appropriate, recognize the hybridization of science, and integrate biological and digital features into program learning experiences. In addition, recommendations for incorporating these design features into teacher education are offered.
American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1993). Benchmarks for science literacy, Project 2061. New York: Oxford University Press.
2.
American Mathematical Society. (2001). The mathematical education of teachers. Providence, RI: Author.
3.
Anderson, R. D., & Mitchener, C. P. (1994). Research on science teacher education. In D. L. Gabel (Ed.), Handbook of research on science teaching and learning (pp. 3-44). New York: Macmillan.
4.
Committee for Economic Development. (2003). Learning for the future: Changing the culture of math and science education to ensure a competitive workforce. New York: Author.
5.
Kamens, D. H., & Benavot, A. (1991). Elite knowledge for the masses: The origins and spread of mathematics and science education in national curricula. American Journal of Education, 99(2), 137-180.
6.
Kaput, J., Noss, R., & Hoyles, C. (2002). Developing new notations for a learnable mathematics in the computational era. In L. D. English (Ed.), Handbook of international research in mathematics education (pp. 51-80). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
7.
Marven, C., & Ewers, G. (1996). A simple approach to digital signal processing. New York: John Wiley.
8.
McClellan, J. H., Schafer, R. W., & Yoder, M. A. (1998). DSP first: A multimedia approach. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
9.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.
10.
National Research Council. (1996). The national science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
11.
National Research Council. (1999). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience and school. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
12.
Newmann, F., Secada, W., & Wehlage, G. (1995). A guide to authentic instruction and assessment: Vision, standards, and scoring. Madison: Wisconsin Center for Education Research.
13.
Orsak, G. C., Wood, S. L., Douglas, S. C., Munson, D. C., Treichler, J. R., Athale, R., et al. (2004). The Infinity Project: Engineering our digital future. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.
14.
Spellings, M. (2005, April 29). Schools of Excellence in Student Achievement Banquet speech. Retrieved January 13, 2006, from http://www.ed.gov/news/speeches/2005/04/04292005.html
15.
Tate, W. F., & Johnson, H. C. (1999). Mathematical reasoning and educational policy: Moving beyond the politics of dead language. In L. V. Stiff (Ed.), Developing mathematical reasoning in Grades K-12 (pp. 221-233). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
16.
U.S. Department of Education. (1991). America 2000: An education strategy. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
17.
Wright, M., & Chorin, A. (1999, April 5). Mathematics and science (Report to the Division of Mathematical Sciences). Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation.
