Current realities and future possibilities: Language and science literacy—empowering research and informing instruction

International Journal of Science Education

Volumn 28, Issue 2-3, 2006, Pages 291-314

  Yore, Larry D ^a   Treagust, David F ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF VICTORIA   (Canada)

^b CURTIN UNIVERSITY   (Australia)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 31344482064     PISSN: 09500693     EISSN: 14645289     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/09500690500336973     Document Type: Article

References (56)

1. Ainsworth, S. E. (1999). The functions of multiple representations. Computers and Education, 33(2/3), 131–152.
2. Akerson, V. L., & Flanigan, J. (2000). Preparing preservice teachers to use an interdisciplinary approach to science and language arts instruction. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 11, 345–362.
3. Alexander, P. A. (2003, August). Expertise and academic development: A new perspective on a classic theme. Keynote presentation at the 10th Biennial Conference of the European Association for Research on Learning and Instruction, Padova, IT.
4. Anarel, O. M., Garrison, L., & Klentschy, M. (2002). Helping English learners increase achievement through inquiry-based science instruction. Bilingual Research Journal, 26, 213–239.
5. Anderson, J. O. (2002). School community characteristics and student achievement in grade 10 reading, writing and numeracy of the British Columbia Foundational Skills Assessment. In L. Hayduk, X. Ma, & C. Carter-Snell (Eds.), Structural equation modeling and hierarchical linear modeling: Communicating across disciplines. Edmonton, A.B.: Population Research Laboratory, University of Alberta.
6. Baker, L. (2003). Reading comprehension and science inquiry: Metacognitive connections. In E. W. Saul (Ed.), Crossing borders in literacy and science instruction: Perspective on theory and practice (pp. 239–257). Newark, DE: International Reading Association/National Science Teachers Association.
7. Bangert-Drowns, R. L., Hurley, M. M., & Wilkinson, B. (2004). The effects of school-based writing-to-learn interventions on academic achievement: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 74, 29–58.
8. Blank, L. M. (2000). A metacognitive learning cycle: A better warranty for student understanding? Science Education, 84, 486–506.
9. Chi, M. T. H. (2003, August). Emergent versus commonsense processes: How misconceptions in science arise and how they can be overcome. Keynote presentation at the 10th Biennial Conference of the European Association for Research on Learning and Instruction, Padova, IT.
10. Collins, K. M., Palincsar, A. S., & Magnusson, S. J. (2005). Science for all: A discursive analysis examining teacher support of student thinking in inclusive classrooms. In R. Yerrick & W.-M. Roth (Eds.), Establishing scientific classroom discourse communities: Multiple voices of teaching and learning research (pp. 199–224). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
11. Copolo, C. F., & Hounshell, P. B. (1995). Using three dimensional models to teach molecular structures in high school chemistry. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 4(4), 295–305.
12. Driver, R., Asoko, H., Leach, J., Mortimer, E., & Scott, P. (1994). Constructing scientific knowledge in the classroom. Educational Researcher, 23(7), 5–12.
13. Duschl, R. (2005). Foreword. In R. Yerrick & W-M. Roth (Eds.), Establishing scientific classroom discourse communities: Multiple voices of teaching and learning research (pp. ix–xi). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
14. Fensham, P. J. (2004). Increasing the relevance of science and technology education for all students in the 21st century. Science Education International, 15(1), 7–26.
15. Ford, C., Yore, L. D., & Anthony, R. J. (1997). Reforms, visions, and standards: A cross-curricular view from an elementary school perspective. (ERIC Document No. ED406168)
16. Gee, J. P. (2005). Language in the science classroom: Academic social languages as the heart of school-based literacy. In R. Yerrick & W-M. Roth (Eds.), Establishing scientific classroom discourse communities: Multiple voices of teaching and learning research (pp. 19–37). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
17. Georghiades, P. (2004a). Making pupils’ conception of electricity more durable by means of situated metacognition. International Journal of Science Education, 26, 85–99.
18. Georghiades, P. (2004b). From the general to the situated: Three decades of metacognition. International Journal of Science Education, 26, 365–383.
19. Gilbert, J. (1999). On the explanation of change in science and cognition. Science and Education, 8, 543–577.
20. Gunstone, R. F. (1994). The importance of specific science content in the enhancement of metacognition. In P. J. Fensham, R. F. Gunstone, & R. T. White (Eds.), The content of science: A constructivist approach to its teaching and learning (pp. 131–146). London: Falmer Press.
21. Hand, B. M., Prain, V., & Yore, L. D. (2001). Sequential writing tasks’ influence on science learning. In P. Tynjala, L. Mason, & K. Lonka (Eds.), Writing as a learning tool: Integrating theory and practice (pp. 105–129). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.
22. Hidi, S. (2003, August). Emotional and cognitive aspects of motivation. Keynote presentation at the 10th Biennial Conference of the European Association for Research on Learning and Instruction, Padova, IT.
23. Holden, T., & Yore, L. D. (1996). Relationships among prior conceptual knowledge, metacognitive awareness, metacognitive self-management, cognitive style, science achievement in grades 6–7 students. Resources in Education. (ERIC Document No. ED395823).
24. Johnstone, A. H. (1982). Macro and micro chemistry. School Science Review, 19(3), 71–73.
25. Kamil, M. L., & Bernhardt, E. B. (2004). The science of reading and the reading of science: Successes, failures, and promises in the search for prerequisite reading skills in science. In E. W. Saul (Ed.), Crossing borders in literacy and science instruction: Perspective on theory and practice. (pp. 123–139). Newark, DE: International Reading Association/National Science Teachers Association.
26. Keys, C. W. (1999). Revitalizing instruction in scientific genres: Connecting, knowledge production in the writing to learn in science. Science Education, 83, 115–130.
27. Klentschy, M. P., & Molina-De La Torre, E. (2003). Students’ science notebooks and the inquiry process. In E. W. Saul (Ed.), Crossing borders in literacy and science instruction: Perspective on theory and practice (pp. 340–354). Newark, DE: International Reading Association/National Science Teachers Association.
28. Koch, A. (2001). Training in metacognition and comprehension of physics texts. Science Education, 85, 758–768.
29. Kozma, R. B. (1997). Multimedia and understanding: Expert and novice responses to different representations of chemical phenomenon. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34(9), 949–968.
30. Lemke, J. L. (1998). Multiplying meaning: Visual and verbal semiotics in scientific text. In J. R. Martin & R. Veel (Eds.), Reading science (pp. 87–113). London: Routledge.
31. Loucks-Horsley, S., & Matsumoto, C. (1999). Research on professional development for teachers of mathematics and science: The state of the scene. School Science and Mathematics, 99, 258–271.
32. Moschner, B., Kiper, H., & Kattmann, U. (Eds.). (2003). Perspectiven fuer Lehren und Lernen: PISA 2000 als Herausforderung [Perspectives for teaching and learning: PISA 2000 as a challenge]. Baltmannsweiler, Germany: Schnieder Verlag Hohengehren GmbH.
33. Norris, S. P., & Phillips, L. M. (2003). How literacy in its fundamental sense is central to scientific literacy. Science Education, 87, 224–240.
34. OECD/PISA. (2001). Measuring student knowledge and skills: The PISA 2000 assessment of reading, mathematical and scientific literacy. Paris: Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development/Programme for International Student Assessment.
35. Olson, R. V. (2004, April). The OECD PISA assessment of scientific literacy: How can it contribute to science education research? Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research on Science Teaching, Vancouver, B.C., Canada.
36. Osborne, J., Erduran, S., & Simon, S. (2004). Enhancing the quality of argumentation in school science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41, 994–1020.
37. Osborne, R. J., & Wittrock, M. C. (1983). Learning science: A generative process. Science Education, 67, 489–508.
38. Posner, G. J., Strike, K. A., Hewson, P. W., & Gertzog, W. A. (1982). Accommodation of a scientific conception: Toward a theory of conceptual change. Science Education, 66, 211–227.
39. Romance, 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.
40. Roth, W-M., & Barton, A. C. (2004). Rethinking science literacy. New York: Routledge Falmer.
41. Ruddell, R. B., & Unrau, N. J. (1994). Reading as a meaning-constructive process: The reader, the text and the teacher. In R. B. Ruddell, M. R. Ruddell, & H. Singer (Eds.), Theoretical models and processes of reading (pp. 996–1056). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
42. Schmidt, W. (2005, January). Science in the NCBL era: The need for curriculum coherence. Keynote address at the International Conference of the Association for the Education of Teachers in Science, Colorado Springs, CO.
43. Shelley, M., & Hand, B. (2005). Education research meets the gold standard: Statistics and mathematics applications in science, reading, and research methodology (Math-Science Partnership Program 84 366B). Washington, DC: National Science Foundation.
44. Shields, P. M., Marsh, J. A., & Adelman, N. E. (1998). Evaluation of NSF’s statewide systemic initiatives (SSI) program: The SSI’s impacts on classroom practice. Menlo Park, CA: SRI.
45. Shymansky, J. A., Yore, L. D., & Anderson, J. O. (2004). Impact of a school district’s science reform effort on the achievement and attitudes of third- and fourth-grade students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41, 771–790.
46. Supovitz, J. A., & Turner, H. M. (2000). The effects of professional development on science teaching practices and classroom culture. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37, 963–980.
47. Varelas, M., Pappas, C. C., & Rife, A. (2005). Dialogic inquiry in an urban second-grade classroom: How intertexuality shapes and is shaped by social interactions and scientific understanding. In R. Yerrick & W-M. Roth (Eds.), Establishing scientific classroom discourse communities: Multiple voices of teaching and learning research (pp. 139–168). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
48. Venville, G. J., & Treagust, D. F. (1997). Analogies in biology education: A contentious issue. The American Biology Teacher, 59(5), 282–287.
49. Wallace, C. S., Hand, B., & Prain, V. (2004). Writing and learning in the science classroom. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Press.
50. Weiss, I. R., Montgomery, D. L., Ridgway, C. J., & Bond, S. L. (1998). Local systemic change through teacher enhancement: Year three cross-site report. Chapel Hill, NC: Horizon Research.
51. Yerrick, R., & Roth W-M. (2005). Introduction: The role of language in science learning and teaching. In R. Yerrick & W-M. Roth (Eds.), Establishing scientific classroom discourse communities: Multiple voices of teaching and learning research (pp. 1–18). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
52. Yore, L. D. (2000). Enhancing science literacy for all students with embedded reading instructive and writing-to-learn activities. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 5, 105–122.
53. Yore, L. D., Bisanz, G. L., & Hand, B. M. (2003). Examining the literacy component of science literacy: 25 years of language arts and science research. International Journal of Science Education, 25, 689–725.
54. Yore, L. D., Craig, M. T., & Maguire, T. O. (1998). Index of science reading awareness: An interactive-constructive model, test verification, and grade 4–8 results. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35, 27–51.
55. Yore, L. D., Shymansky, J. A., & Anderson, J. O. (2005). Sensing the impact of elementary school science reform: A study of stakeholder perceptions of implementation, constructivist strategies, and school-home collaboration. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 16, 65–88.
56. Zohar, A. (in press). The development of teachers’ meta-strategic knowledge following a professional development course in the context of teaching higher order thinking. Journal of the Learning Sciences.