"The solution which I am urging is to eradicate the fatal disconnection of subjects which kills the vitality of our modern curriculum. There is only one subject-matter for education, and that is Life in all its manifestations." These are the words of of Alfred North Whitehead written in the year 1929. And they were the inspiration for six Science Instructors and a Research Specialist at the Illinois Mathematics and Science Academy during the fall of 1993. They "reconnected the sciences into one course, they discovered that dialogue and standards became glue for any rifts in their integration process". The idea was to create an integrated science program, a program that would not result in a static textbook of integrated science but a collection of interconnected experiences that other communities can use. The integration they provided allowed for engaging experience for students in multiple and meaningful contexts in response to their own inquiry. This was done because they felt the need to "get rid of two serious deficiencies of traditional secondary school science instruction - deficiencies in transfer of knowledge and in transfer of authority".

In today's world of proficiencies, state standards, and public scrutiny of the education process, this is a real courageous step towards modern education. "When the student directs his or her own learning, the learning is often not neatly compartmentalized within the scientific disciplines." This often causes discussion among those who have learned (or may not have learned) in the traditional method. Learning, according to the American Psychological Association (McCombs 1992), is "an individual process of constructing meaning from information and experience, filtered through each individual's unique perceptions, thoughts, and feelings". The designers of the Integrated Science program asked themselves five questions to assure themselves and others that learning was indeed taking place and standards were met. "Is the program consistent with emerging national and state standards?" "Does student performance match the conceptual and skill outcomes defined by these standards?" "Does the program positively affect the student's attitude towards science?" "Does the program prepare the student for success in more advanced science courses?" And perhaps the most difficult question to answer: "Does the program enhance the growth toward the habits of mind represented by the Academy's Standards of Significant Learning?"

The article makes sense to those of us who have spent time in the classroom teaching science and have a tendency to follow the constructivist method of teaching and learning. The Academy's Integrated Science program, a course reconnecting biology, chemistry, earth and space sciences, and physics had its problems and will continue to have them. According to the instructors, the course is continually evolving. The two main weaknesses are: "(1) some students will be insufficiently motivated to accept the responsibility of active learning, and (2) an individualized and project based curriculum creates great difficulty for assessment". These problems will always exist in education. I believe, as do the designers of this program, "that the problems are outweighed by the intellectual growth for both students and instructors and by the engaging nature of situations framed, not by discipline boundaries, but by their place in the real world". The authors may be reached at the Illinois Mathematics and Science Academy, 1500 W. Sullivan Rd., Aurora, IL 60506 (e-mail: egge@imsa.edu).