Vasiliki Tsiachta, Stefanos Paraskevopoulos


The aim of this paper is to present and evaluate the Integrated Teaching Method (ITM) which is an innovative teaching model incorporating comprehensive teaching content, effective teaching strategies, and specifically-designed lesson plans. ITM was developed based on modern learning theories in conjunction with the latest findings in cognitive psychology and the neuroscience of the brain. ITM was implemented on Year 8 Greek secondary school students to teach the ecosystem and was assessed in comparison to Didactic Teaching Strategies (DTS), based on a traditional teaching method. The data collection tools were questionnaires on students’ knowledge, comprehension, application and attitudes/opinions towards the environment. ANOVA and t-Test showed that students who were taught with ITM as opposed to those taught with DTS: a) achieved better results in knowledge, comprehension and application of the teaching content, and b) achieved equally good results in terms of attitudes/opinions towards the environment. The findings suggest that ITM had a greater impact and improved the level of student knowledge to a larger extent than DTS. ITM can thus be considered an effective teaching methodology and is proposed to be implemented in the multi-disciplinary teaching of biology, environmental education and Ecology; its effectiveness in the other science subjects should also be assessed.


Article visualizations:

Hit counter



multi-disciplinary approach, Integrated Teaching Method, Aristotle teaching strategy


Adamson, S. L., Banks, D., Burtch, M., Cox, F., Judson, E., Turley, J. B., Benford, R. & Lawson, A. E. (2003). Reformed undergraduate instruction and its subsequent impact on secondary school teaching practice and student achievement. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40(10), 939-957.

Aini, M. S., Nurizan, Y., Fakhru’l-Razi, A. (2007). Environmental comprehension and participation of Malaysian secondary school students. Environmental Educational Research, 13(1), 17-31.

Anderson, O. R. (1997). A neurocognitive perspective on current learning theory and science instructional strategies. Science Education, 81(1), 67-89.

Arcury, T. A. (1990). Environmental attitude and environmental knowledge. Human Organization, 49(4), 300-304.

Aristotle Collected Works. (1997). Organon: 1 Categories 23. Athens: Kaktos (in Greek).

Armstrong, J. B. & Impara, J. C. (1991). The impact of environmental education program on knowledge and attitude. Journal of Environmental Education, 22(4), 36-40.

Atherton, J. S. (2005). Learning and Teaching: Experiential Learning [On-line: UK] retrieved October 18, 2008, from

Ausubel, D. P. (2000). The acquisition and retention of knowledge: a cognitive view. Dordrecht: Kluwer academic publishers.

Ball, C. (2001). Closing remarks. Paper presented at a conference on learning sciences and brain research: potential implications for education policies and practices, Granada, Spain, retrieved from:

Bartkus, K. R., Hartman, C. L. & Howell, R. D. (1999). The measurement of consumer environmental knowledge: revisions and extensions. Journal of Social Behavior & Personality 14(1), 129-147.

Bloom, B. S. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: Handbook I. Cognitive domain. New York: David McKay.

Bloom, B. S. & Krathwohl, D. R. (1991). Taxonomy of didactic goals. Vol. Α- Cognitive domain. Thessaloniki: Kodikas (in Greek).

Bradley, J. C., Waliczek, T. M. & Zajicek, J. M. (1999). Relationship between environmental knowledge and environmental attitude of high school students. The Journal of Environmental Education, 30(3), 17-22.

Brody, M. J. (1996). An assessment of 4th, 8th and 11th- grade students’ environmental science knowledge related to Oregon’s Marine Resources. The Journal of Environmental Education, 27(3), 21-27.

Brody, M. J. & Koch, H. (1989). An assessment of 4th, 8th, and 11th grade students’ knowledge related to marine science and natural resource issues. The Journal of Environmental Education, 21(2), 16-26.

Burden, R. P. & Byrd, M. D. (2007). Methods for effective teaching. Promoting K-12 student understanding. Boston: Pearson Education, Inc.

Byrnes, J. (2001). Minds, brains and learning. New York: Guilford books.

Carlsson, B. (2002). Ecological understanding 2: Transformation - a key to ecological understanding. International Journal of Science Education, 24(7), 701-715.

Cochran, W. G. (1977). Sampling techniques (3rd Ed.). New York, London: Wiley.

Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd Ed.). Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Earlbaum Associates.

Cole, A. G. (2007). Expanding the field: revisiting environmental education principles through multidisciplinary frameworks. The Journal of Environmental Education, 38(2), 35-44.

Cook, T. D. & Campbell, D. T. (1979). Quasi-Experimentation. Design & analysis issues for field settings. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

Dillon, J., Rickinson, M., Teamey, K., Morris, M., Choi, M. Y., Sanders, D. & Benefield, P. (2006). The value of outdoor learning: evidence from research in the UK and elsewhere. School Science Review, 87(320), 107-113.

Donovan, M. S. & Branford, J. D. (Eds.). (2005). How students learn: science in the classroom. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Draper, F. (1993). A proposed sequence for developing systems thinking in a grades 4-12 curriculum. Dynamics Review 9(2), 207-214.

Duvall, J. & Zint, M. (2007). A review of research on the effectiveness of environmental education in promoting intergenerational learning. The Journal of Environmental Education, 38(4), 14-24.

Eilam, B. (2002). Strata of comprehending ecology: looking through the prism of feeding relations. Science Education, 86(5), 645-671.

Fischer, K. W., Daniel, D. B., Immordino-Yang, M. H., Stern, E., Battro, A., & Koizumi, H. (2007). Why Mind, Brain, and Education? Why now? Mind, Brain and Education, 1(1), 1-2.

Gardner, H. (2006). Multiple intelligences. New York: New Horizons Basic Books.

Gardner, G. T. & Stern, P. C. (1996). Environmental problems and human behavior. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Grotzer, T. A. & Basca, B. (2003). How does grasping the underlying causal structures of ecosystems impact students’ understanding? Journal of Biological Education, 38(1): 16-29.

Heffler, B. (2001). Individual learning style and the learning style inventory. Educational Studies, 27(3), 307-316.

Helldén, G. A. (1998). Longitudinal study of pupils’ conceptualization of ecological processes. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, San Diego.

Hogan, K. (2000). Assessing students systems reasoning in ecology. Journal of Biological Education, 35(1), 22-28.

Hungerford, R. H. & Volk, L. T. (2003). Notes from Harold Hungerford and Trudi Volk

The Journal of Environmental Education, 34(2), 4-6.

Illeris, K. (2004). The three dimensions of learning. Contemporary learning theory in the tension field between the cognitive, the emotional and the social. Malabar, Florida: Krieger Publishing Company.

Jensen, E. (2005). Teaching with the brain in mind. Alexandria, Virginia: Association for supervision and curriculum development (ASCD) publications.

Judson, E. (2013). The relationship between time allocated for science in elementary schools and state accountability policies, Science Education 97 (4), 621-636

Kafetzopoulos, K., Fotiadou, T., & Chrysohoos, I. (2003). Natural sciences, vocational guidance, foreign languages: Interdisciplinary approach and practical applications. Epitheorisi Ekpedeftikon Thematon, 190-204 (in Greek).

Karten, J. T. (2005). Inclusion strategies that work. Research-based methods for the classroom. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Kassotakis, M. (1993). The evaluation of students’ performance, Athens: Grigoris (in Greek).

Kempa, R. F., Diaz, M. M. (1990). Students’ motivational traits and preferences for different instructional modes in science education. International Journal of Science Education,12(2), 205-216.

Kinchin, M. I. (2006). Concept mapping, PowerPoint, and pedagogy of access. Journal of Biological Education, 40(2), 79-83.

Kirschner, P., Sweller, J. & Clark, R. (2006). Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: an analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential and inquiry-based teaching. Educational Psychologist, 41(2), 75-86.

Knapp, D. (2000). The Thessaloniki declaration: A wake-up call for environmental education? The Journal of Environmental Education, 31(3), 9-32.

Kolb, D. A. (1981). Learning styles and disciplinary differences. In A. W. Chickering (Ed.), The modern American College. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Kolb, D. A. & Fry, R. (1975). Toward an applied theory of experiential learning, In C. Cooper (Ed.), Theories of group process. London: John Wiley.

Kuhlemeier, H., Bergh, H. V. D. & Lagerweij, N. (1999). Environmental knowledge, attitude and behavior in Dutch secondary education. The Journal of Environmental Education,30(2), 4-15.

Lannon, C. P. (1994). A beginner’s guide to systems thinking. Waltham, Massachusetts: Pegasus Communications.

Leach, J., Driver, R., Scott, P. & Wood-Robinson, C. (1995). Children’s’ ideas about ecology 1. Theoretical background, design and methodology. International Journal of Science Education, 17(6), 721-732.

Leach, J., Driver, R., Scott, P. & Wood-Robinson, C. (1996). Children’s’ ideas about ecology 3. Ideas found in children age 5-16 about the interdependency of organisms International Journal of Science Education 18(2), 129-141.

Manzanal, F. R., Barreiro, M., L. & Jimenez, C. M. (1999). Relationship between ecology fieldwork and student attitudes toward environmental protection. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36(4), 431-453.

Mappin, M. & Johnson, E. (2005). Changing perspectives of ecology and education in environmental education. In E. Johnson & M. Mappin (Eds.), Environmental education and advocacy: Changing perspectives of ecology and education. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

Marzano, J. R., Pickering, J. D. & Pollock, E. J. (2001). Classroom instruction that works. Research-based strategies for increasing student achievement. Alexandria, Virginia: Association for supervision and curriculum development (ASCD) publications.

Mayer, R. (2004). Should there be a three-strikes rule against pure discovery learning? The case for guided methods of instruction. American Psychologist, 59(1), 14-19.

McNeill, K. L., Lizotte, D. J., Krajcik, J., & Marx, R. W. (2006). Supporting students' construction of scientific explanations by fading scaffolds in instructional materials. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15(2), 153-191.

Pimentel, D. S., McNeill, K. L. (2013). Conducting talk in secondary science classrooms: Investigating instructional moves and teachers’ beliefs, Science Education 97 (3), 367-394

Morrone, M. K., Mancl, K., & Carr, K. (2001). Development of a metric to test group differences in ecological knowledge as one component of environmental literacy. The Journal of Environmental Education, 32(4), 33-42.

Munson, B. H. (1994). Ecological misconceptions. The Journal of Environmental Education, 25(4), 30-34.

Orr, D. W. (2006). The problem of education. New directions for higher education. 1992(77), 3-8.

Osborne, J. F. (1996). 'Beyond Constructivism'. Science Education 80(1): 53-82.

Papanastasiou, K. (1993). Measurement and evaluation in education. Cyprus Pedagogical Institute, Nicosia (in Greek).

Piaget, J. (1988). The intelligence’s psychology. Athens: Kastaniotis (in Greek).

Resnick, M. (1994). Turtles, termites and traffic jams: Explorations in massively parallel microworlds. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.

Siegler, R. S. (2005). Children’s learning. American Psychologist 60, 769-778.

Siemer, W. F. & Knuth. B. A. (2001). Effects of fishing education programs on antecedents of responsible environmental behavior. Journal of Environmental Education, 32(4), 23-29.

Slingsby, D. & Barker, S. (2003). Making connections: biology, environmental education and education for sustainable development. Journal of Biological Education, 38(1), 4-7.

Soulioti, E. & Pagge, T. (2004). Interdisciplinary approach and teaching. The Project method. Nea Paideia, 112, 40-50. (in Greek).

Sousa, D. (2001). How the brain learns: A classroom teacher’s guide. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Stern, E. (2005). Pedagogy meets neuroscience. Science, 310, 745-800.

Sternberg, R. J., & Grigorenko, E. L. (2000). Teaching for successful intelligence to increase student learning and achievement. Arlington Heights, III. Skylight.

Tartaris, Ch. E. K. (1997). Teaching approach on certain units of Biology with an emphasis on understanding the functions of natural ecosystems. Ph.D. Thesis (in Greek).

Tikka, P. M., Kuitunen, M. T. & Tynys, S. M. (2000). Effects of educational background on students’ attitudes, activity levels and knowledge concerning the environment. Journal of Environmental Education Research, 31(3), 12-20.

Willis, J. (2007). Brain-friendly strategies for the inclusion classroom. Alexandria, Virginia: Association for supervision and curriculum development (ASCD) publications.

Zelezny, L. (2000). Educational interventions that improve environmental behaviors: a meta-analysis. Journal of Environmental Education, 31(1), 5-14.


  • There are currently no refbacks.

Copyright (c) 2018 Vasiliki Tsiachta, Stefanos Paraskevopoulos

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Copyright © 2015-2018. European Journal of Education Studies (ISSN 2501 - 1111) is a registered trademark of Open Access Publishing Group. All rights reserved.

This journal is a serial publication uniquely identified by an International Standard Serial Number (ISSN) serial number certificate issued by Romanian National Library (Biblioteca Nationala a Romaniei). All the research works are uniquely identified by a CrossRef DOI digital object identifier supplied by indexing and repository platforms. All authors who send their manuscripts to this journal and whose articles are published on this journal retain full copyright of their articles. All the research works published on this journal are meeting the Open Access Publishing requirements and can be freely accessed, shared, modified, distributed and used in educational, commercial and non-commercial purposes under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0).