View Item 

Show simple item record

The impact of an integrated approach to science and literacy in elementary school classrooms
dc.contributor.authorCervetti, Gina N.en_US
dc.contributor.authorBarber, Jacquelineen_US
dc.contributor.authorDorph, Renaen_US
dc.contributor.authorPearson, P. Daviden_US
dc.contributor.authorGoldschmidt, Pete G.en_US
dc.date.accessioned2012-05-21T15:47:11Z
dc.date.available2013-07-01T14:33:05Zen_US
dc.date.issued2012-05en_US
dc.identifier.citationCervetti, Gina N.; Barber, Jacqueline; Dorph, Rena; Pearson, P. David; Goldschmidt, Pete G. (2012). "The impact of an integrated approach to science and literacy in elementary school classrooms." Journal of Research in Science Teaching 49(5): 631-658. <http://hdl.handle.net/2027.42/91115>en_US
dc.identifier.issn0022-4308en_US
dc.identifier.issn1098-2736en_US
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/2027.42/91115
dc.description.abstractThis study investigates the efficacy of an integrated science and literacy approach at the upper‐elementary level. Teachers in 94 fourth grade classrooms in one Southern state participated. Half of the teachers taught the treatment unit, an integrated science–literacy unit on light and energy designed using a curriculum model that engages students in reading text, writing notes and reports, conducting firsthand investigations, and frequent discussion of key concepts and processes to acquire inquiry skills and knowledge about science concepts, while the other half of the teachers taught a content‐comparable science‐only unit on light and energy (using materials provided by their districts) and provided their regular literacy instruction. Students in the treatment group made significantly greater gains on measures of science understanding, science vocabulary, and science writing. Students in both groups made comparable gains in science reading comprehension. © 2012 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Res Sci Teach 49: 631–658, 2012en_US
dc.publisherWiley Subscription Services, Inc., A Wiley Companyen_US
dc.subject.otherLanguage and Literacyen_US
dc.subject.otherScience Educationen_US
dc.subject.otherCurriculum Developmenten_US
dc.titleThe impact of an integrated approach to science and literacy in elementary school classroomsen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
dc.rights.robotsIndexNoFollowen_US
dc.subject.hlbsecondlevelEducationen_US
dc.subject.hlbsecondlevelManagementen_US
dc.subject.hlbsecondlevelScience (General)en_US
dc.subject.hlbsecondlevelWomen's and Gender Studiesen_US
dc.subject.hlbsecondlevelEconomicsen_US
dc.subject.hlbtoplevelHumanitiesen_US
dc.subject.hlbtoplevelScienceen_US
dc.subject.hlbtoplevelBusinessen_US
dc.subject.hlbtoplevelSocial Sciencesen_US
dc.description.peerreviewedPeer Revieweden_US
dc.contributor.affiliationumUniversity of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michiganen_US
dc.contributor.affiliationumUniversity of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michiganen_US
dc.contributor.affiliationotherCalifornia State University, Northridge, Californiaen_US
dc.contributor.affiliationotherUniversity of California, Berkeley, Californiaen_US
dc.description.bitstreamurlhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/91115/1/tea_21015_sm_SuppAppendix.pdf
dc.description.bitstreamurlhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/91115/2/21015_ftp.pdf
dc.identifier.doi10.1002/tea.21015en_US
dc.identifier.sourceJournal of Research in Science Teachingen_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceRivard, L., & Straw, S. ( 2000 ). The effect of talk and writing on learning science: An exploratory study. Science Education, 84, 566 – 593.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceLawrence Hall of Science. (n.d.). Foss science stories. Nashua, NH: Delta Education.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceMcNamara, D. S., O'Reilly, T. P., Best, R. M., & Ozuru, Y. ( 2006 ). Improving adolescent students' reading comprehension with iSTART. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 34, 147 – 171.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceMercer, N., Dawes, L., Wegerif, R., & Sams, C. ( 2004 ). Reasoning as a scientist: Ways of helping children to use language to learn science. British Educational Research Journal, 30, 359 – 372.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceMetz, K. E. ( 2000 ). Young children's inquiry in biology: Building the knowledge bases to empower independent inquiry. In: J. Minstrell & E. van Zee (Eds.), Inquiring into inquiry in science learning and teaching (pp. 371 – 404 ). Washington, D.C: AAAS.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceMinner, D. D., Levy, A. J., & Century, J. ( 2010 ). Inquiry‐based science instruction—What is it and does it matter? Results from a research synthesis years 1984 to 2002. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47, 474 – 496.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceNational Research Council. ( 1996 ). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceNational Research Council. ( 2000 ). Inquiry and the national science education standards: A guide for teaching and learning. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceNational Research Council. ( 2011 ). A Framework for K‐12 Science Education: Practices, Crosscutting Concepts, and Core Ideas. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceNational Sciences Resource Center. (n.d.). Science and Technology Concepts Program. Washington, DC: National Academies.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceNeuman, S. ( 2006 ). How we neglect knowledge—And why. American Educator, 30, 24 – 27.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferencePadilla, M. J., Muth, K. D., & Lund Padilla, R. K. ( 1991 ). Science and reading: Many process skills in common?. In: C. M. Santa & D. E. Alvermann (Eds.), Science learning—Processes and applications (pp. 14 – 19 ). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferencePalincsar, A. S. ( 2005 ). Reading in science: Why, what, and how (Brief). Washington, DC: National Science Resources Center. Retrieved from http://nsrconline.org/pdf/ReadingInScienceEssay.pdfen_US
dc.identifier.citedreferencePalincsar, A. S., & Magnusson, S. J. ( 2000 ). The interplay of firsthand and text‐based investigations in science class. Ann Arbor, MI: CIERA Report 2‐007. Retrieved from http://www.ciera.org/library/reports/inquiry‐2/2‐007/2‐007.pdfen_US
dc.identifier.citedreferencePalincsar, A. S., & Magnusson, S. J. ( 2001 ). The interplay of firsthand and text‐based investigations to model and support the development of scientific knowledge and reasoning. In: S. Carver & D. Klahr (Eds.), Cognition and instruction: Twenty five years of progress (pp. 151 – 194 ). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferencePearson, P. D. & Gallagher, M. C. ( 1983 ). The instruction of reading comprehension. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 8, 317 – 344.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceRAND Reading Study Group. ( 2002 ). Reading for understanding. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceRaudenbush, S. W., & Bryk, A. S. ( 2002 ). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceRichmond, G., & Striley, J. ( 1996 ). Making meaning in classrooms: Social processes in small‐group discourse and scientific knowledge building. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33, 839 – 858.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceRomance, N. R., & Vitale, M. R. ( 1992 ). A curriculum strategy that expands time for in‐depth elementary science instruction by using science‐based reading strategies: Effects of a year‐long study in grade four. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29, 545 – 554.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceRomance, N. R., & Vitale, M. R. ( 2001 ). Implementing an in‐depth expanded science model in elementary schools: Multi‐year findings, research issues, and policy implications. International Journal of Science Education, 23, 272 – 304.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceSnijders, T. A. B., & Bosker, R. J. ( 1993 ). Standard errors and sample sizes for two‐level research. Journal of Educational Statistics, 18, 237 – 259.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceStoddart, T., Pinal, A., Latzke, M., & Canaday, D. ( 2002 ). Integrating inquiry science and language development for English language learners. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39 ( 8 ), 664 – 687.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceSyh‐Jong, J. ( 2007 ). A study of students' construction of science knowledge: Talk and writing in a collaborative group. Educational Research, 49, 65 – 81.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceVarelas, M., & Pappas, C. C. ( 2006 ). Intertextuality in read‐alouds of integrated science–literacy units in urban primary classrooms: Opportunities for the development of thought and language. Cognition and Instruction, 42, 211 – 259.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceVarelas, M., Pappas, C. C., & Rife, A. ( 2006 ). Exploring the role of intertextuality in concept construction: Urban second‐graders make sense of evaporation, boiling, and condensation. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43, 637 – 666.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceWang, J., & Herman, J. ( 2005 ). Evaluation of Seeds of Science/Roots of Reading Project: Shoreline Science and Terrarium Investigations. Los Angeles, CA: CRESST, UCLA ( http://scienceandliteracy.org/research/efficacy_studies ).en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceWilkinson, I. A. G., & Son, E. H. ( 2011 ). A dialogic turn in research on learning and teaching to comprehend. In: M. L. Kamil, P. D. Pearson, E. Moje, & P. Afflerbach (Eds.), Handbook of reading research: Volume IV (pp. 359 – 387 ). New York: Erlbaum.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceYore, L. D. ( 2000 ). Enhancing science literacy for all students with embedded reading instruction and writing‐to‐learn activities. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 5, 105 – 122.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceYore, L. D. ( 2004 ). Why do future scientists need to study the language arts? In: E. Saul (Ed.), Crossing borders in literacy and science instruction (pp. 71 – 94 ). Arlington, VA: NSAT Press.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceYore, L. D., Hand, B., Goldman, S. R., Hildebrand, G. M., Osborne, J. F., Treagust, D. F., & Wallace, C. S. ( 2004 ). New directions in language and science education research. Reading Research Quarterly, 39, 347 – 352.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceAitkin, M., & Longford, N. T. ( 1986 ). Statistical modeling issues in school effectiveness studies. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, A, 149 ( 1 ), 1 – 43.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceAlberts, B. ( 2010 ). Prioritizing science education. Science, 328, 405.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceArmbruster, B. B. ( 1992 ). Vocabulary in content area lessons. The Reading Teacher, 45, 550 – 551.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceBransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (Eds.) ( 2000 ). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. Washington, D.C: National Academy Press.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceBravo, M. A., & Cervetti, G. N. ( 2008 ). Teaching vocabulary through text and experience. In: A. E. Farstrup & S. J. Samuels (Eds.), What research has to say about vocabulary instruction (pp. 130 – 149 ). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceBrown, A. L., & Campione, J. C. ( 1994 ). Guided discovery in a community of learners. In: K. McGilly (Ed.), Classroom lessons: Integrating cognitive theory and classroom practice (pp. 229 – 272 ). Cambridge: MIT Press.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceBurstein, L. ( 1980 ). The analysis of multilevel data in educational research and evaluation. In: E. Berliner (Ed.), Review of research in education, Volume 8 (pp. 158 – 233 ). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceCervetti, G. N., & Barber, J. ( 2008 ). Text in hands‐on science. In: E. H. Hiebert & M. Sailors (Eds.), Finding the right texts: What works for beginning and struggling readers (pp. 89 – 108 ). New York: Guilford.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceCook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. ( 1979 ). Quasi‐experimentation: Design and analysis issues. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Company.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceDriver, R., Newton, P., & Osborne, J. ( 2000 ). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education, 84, 287 – 312.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceDuke, N. K., & Bennett‐Armistead, V. S. ( 2003 ). Reading & writing informational text in the primary grades. New York: Scholastic Teaching Resources.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceDuschl, R. A., & Osborne, J. ( 2002 ). Supporting and promoting argumentation discourse in science education. Studies in Science Education, 38, 39 – 71.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceFang, Z., & Wei, Y. ( 2010 ). Improving middle school students' science literacy through reading infusion. The Journal of Educational Research, 103, 262 – 273.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceGee, J. P. ( 2002 ). Identity as an analytic lens for research in education. Review of Research in Education, 25, 99 – 125.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceGlynn, S., & Muth, K. D. ( 1994 ). Reading and writing to learn science: Achieving scientific literacy. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31 ( 9 ), 1057 – 1073.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceGuthrie, J. T., & Alao, S. ( 1997 ). Designing contexts to increase motivation for reading. Educational Psychologist, 32, 95 – 105.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceGuthrie, J. T., Anderson, E., Alao, S., & Rinehart, J. ( 1999 ). Influences of concept‐oriented reading instruction on strategy use and conceptual learning from text. Elementary School Journal, 99, 343 – 366.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceGuthrie, J. T., & Cox, K. E. ( 2001 ). Classroom conditions for motivation and engagement in reading. Educational Psychology Review, 13, 283 – 302.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceGuthrie, J. T., McRae, A., Coddington, C. S., Klauda, S. L., Wigfield, A., & Barbosa, P. ( 2009 ). Impacts of comprehensive reading instruction on diverse outcomes of low‐ and high‐achieving readers. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 42, 195 – 214.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceGuthrie, J. T., & Wigfield, A., ( 2000 ). Engagement and motivation in reading. In: M. L. Kamil, P. B. Mosenthal, P. D. Pearson, & R. Barr (Eds.), Handbook of reading research: Volume III (pp. 403 – 422 ). New York: Erlbaum.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceHacker, D. J., & Tenant, A. ( 2002 ). Implementing reciprocal teaching in the classroom: Overcoming obstacles and making modifications. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94, 699 – 718.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceHerrenkohl, L. R., Palincsar, A. S., DeWater, L. S., & Kawaski, K. ( 1999 ). Developing scientific communities in classrooms: A sociocognitive approach. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 8 ( 3/4 ), 451 – 493.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceHiebert, E. H. ( 2006 ). Becoming fluent: What difference do texts make? In: S. J. Samuels & A. E. Farstrup (Eds.), What research has to say about reading fluency (pp. 204 – 226 ). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceHowes, E. V., Lim, M., & Campos, J. ( 2009 ). Journeys into inquiry‐based elementary science: Literacy practices, questioning, and empirical study. Science Education, 93, 189 – 217.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceKrashen, S. D. ( 2004 ). The case for narrow reading. Language Magazine, 3 ( 5 ), 17 – 19.en_US
dc.owningcollnameInterdisciplinary and Peer-Reviewed


Files in this item

Name:
tea_21015_sm_SuppAppendix.pdf
Size:
11.56KB
Format:
PDF
View/Open
Name:
21015_ftp.pdf
Size:
172.7KB
Format:
PDF
View/Open

Show simple item record

Remediation of Harmful Language

The University of Michigan Library aims to describe its collections in a way that respects the people and communities who create, use, and are represented in them. We encourage you to Contact Us anonymously if you encounter harmful or problematic language in catalog records or finding aids. More information about our policies and practices is available at Remediation of Harmful Language.

Accessibility

If you are unable to use this file in its current format, please select the Contact Us link and we can modify it to make it more accessible to you.