A short response: science taught well is already integrated with at least mathematics, language development and social studies. I invented the idea of 'task based' curriculum about 15 years ago so I could integrate science with what I would call the tools of science, ie mathematics etc in a natural way. In my courses, students (13 to 17 year olds) are allocated 'jobs' like Build an air pressure rocket that will fly as high as possible and report on your findings. To do this well students have to learn a number of physics and maths concepts, then apply them in a design process, then construct a report in an appropriate format. Integration is natural and doesn't get in the way of science teaching.

I guess my comment would be based on the interpretation of the word "relevant". The word relevant has different meaning to different persons (i.e. its subjective). I teach instructional design at UWI and the challenge I'm seeing is that we talk about the theories, technologies, models, strategies, etc... but for some reason we are afraid to take the step towards actual practice in the course rooms. Talking about "inquiry-based" strategies does not mean that the students will get the idea of "inquiry-based". We have to practice through direct implementation. Also, using technology is not a solution, we need to use strategies...an instructional strategy may or may not use technology but if implemented properly can get the desired result...:-)

Good description of the problem. So why don't we move towards implementing the ideas? Probably because social pressure drives our decision making. The pressure of our peers in a school. The pressure of the need to keep students happy (2 effects here : students do try to position teachers to teach the way they believe is right, and tjere is a pressure to keep students active, even when they don't want to be, and many students don't actually want to think hard because thinking hard is much scarier than mere regurgitation. (This last in particular relates to inquiry learning).

True the conception of inquiry learning is 1. Difficult to get and 2. Difficult to implement because it often relies on the good will of the students. The curriculum I described above involves SOME inquiry learning in the mix. I spend a lot of time ensuring that my students understand and accept that they will be given credit for their thinking, not regurgitating what I tell them (actually regurgitating will give a pass, thinking can get a better result). When you say 'for some reason...' for me it is difficult to discuss these issues separately from context. Systems, social contexts etc influence teachers' and students' beliefs, approaches, and willingness to try new ideas. I have spent a career, or at least the second half of it testing and playing with ideas about why teachers have trouble adopting new ideas and my conclusion is that there are 2 main driverss, fear and belief about what is of value to the students.

Technology - sort of irrelevant. Yes it can add to the mix for doing better teaching but is neither a prerequisite for good teaching, nor a panacea for bad teaching. First aim to teach well, then think how to use technology to maximise effect. PS intriducing technology often requires a change of focus in teaching and teachers have trouble coping with that too.

Another issue springs to mind - teachers are bombarded with good ideas that people disagree about. A teacher had to be fairly confident to adopt something when they know that at least some if their peers will disagree or worse.