The literacy component of mathematical and scientific literacy

International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education

Volumn 5, Issue 4, 2007, Pages 559-589

  Yore, Larry D ^a   Pimm, David ^b   Tuan, Hsiao Lin ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF VICTORIA   (Canada)

^b UNIVERSITY OF ALBERTA   (Canada)

^c NATIONAL CHANGHUA UNIVERSITY OF EDUCATION   (Taiwan)

Author keywords

Educational reform; Literacy; Mathematical literacy; Scientific literacy

Indexed keywords

EID: 35348950679     PISSN: 15710068     EISSN: 15731774     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s10763-007-9089-4     Document Type: Article

References (82)

1. American Association for the Advancement of Science (1993). Benchmarks for science literacy. New York: Oxford University Press.
2. Anderson, J.O., Lin, H.-S., Treagust, D.F., Ross, S.P. & Yore, L.D. (this issue). Using large-scale assessment datasets for research in science and mathematics education: Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA). Int J Sci Math Edu.
3. Barton, D. & Hamilton, M. (1998). Local literacies: Reading and writing in one community. London: Routledge.
4. Barwell, R. (2004). What is numeracy? For the Learning of Mathematics, 24(1), 20-22.
5. Baxter, J.A., Woodward, J. & Olson, D. (2005). Writing in mathematics: An alternative form of communication for academically low-achieving students. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 20(2), 119-135.
6. Boero, P., Douek, N. & Ferrari, P.L. (2002). Developing mastery of natural language: Approaches to theoretical aspects of mathematics. In L.D. English (Ed.), Handbook of international research in mathematics education (pp. 241-268). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum/National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
7. Borasi, R. & Siegel, M. (2000). Reading counts: Expanding the role of reading in mathematics classrooms. New York: Teachers College Press.
8. British Columbia Ministry of Education (2007a). Foundation skills assessment. Retrieved 28 May 2007, from http://www.bced.gov.bc.ca/assessment/ fsa/.
9. British Columbia Ministry of Education (2007b). FSA numeracy specifications. Retrieved 28 May 2007, from http://www.bced.gov.bc.ca/ assessment/fsa/specifications/numeracy_specs.pdf.
10. Cooper, B. (2004). Dilemmas in designing problems in " realistic" school mathematics: A sociological overview and some research findings. In M. Olssen (Ed.), Culture and learning: Access and opportunity in the classroom (pp. 183-202). Greenwich, CT: Information Age.
11. Cooper, B. & Dunne, M. (2000). Assessing children's mathematical knowledge: Social class, sex and problem-solving. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.
12. Council of Ministers of Education, Canada 1997 Common framework of science learning outcomes, K to 12 Author Toronto, ON
13. Council of Ministers of Education, Canada (1997). Common framework of science learning outcomes, K to 12. Toronto, ON: Author. Retrieved 21 June 2007, from http://www.cmec.ca/science/framework/.
14. de Lange, J. (1996). Using and applying mathematics in education. In A. Bishop, K. Clements, C. Keitel, J. Kilpatrick & C. Laborde (Eds.), International handbook of mathematics education (pp. 49-97). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.
15. Dole, J.A. (2000). Readers, texts and conceptual change learning. Reading and Writing Quarterly, 16, 99-118.
16. Dole, J.A. & Smith, E.L. (1989). Prior knowledge and learning from science text: An instructional study. In S. McCormick & J. Zutell (Eds.), Cognitive and social perspectives for literacy research and instruction (pp. 345-352). Chicago: National Reading Conference.
17. Elliott, P.C. & Kenney, M.J. (Eds.) (1996). Communication in mathematics, K-12 and beyond. Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
18. English, L.D. (2002). Priority themes and issues in international research on mathematics education. In L.D. English (Ed.), Handbook of international research in mathematics education (pp. 3-15). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum/National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
19. Fellows, N.J. (1994). A window into thinking: Using student writing to understand conceptual change in science learning. J Res Sci Teach, 31, 985-1001.
20. Ferreiro, E. (2000). Reading and writing in a changing world. Publishing Research Quarterly, 53-61, Fall.
21. Ferreiro, E. (2003). Past and present of the verbs to read and to write: Essays on literacy. Berkeley, CA: Douglas & McIntyre.
22. Florence, M.K. & Yore, L.D. (2004). Learning to write like a scientist: Co-authoring as an enculturation task. J Res Sci Teach, 41, 637-668.
23. Ford, C.L. (1998). Educating preservice teachers to teach for an evaluative view of knowledge and critical thinking in elementary social studies. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Victoria, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada.
24. Ford, C.L., Yore, L.D. & Anthony, R.J. (1997). Reforms, visions and standards: A cross-curricular view from an elementary school perspective. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 406 168).
25. Fuson, K.C., Kalchman, M. & Bransford, J.D. (2005). Mathematics understanding: An introduction. In National Research Council, How students learn: Mathematics in the classroom. Committee on How People Learn, A Targeted Report for Teachers, M.S. Donovan & J.D. Bransford (Eds.). Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
26. Gee, J.P. (2004). Language in the science classroom: Academic social languages as the heart of school-based literacy. In E.W. Saul (Ed.), Crossing borders in literacy and science instruction: Perspectives in theory and practice (pp. 13-32). Newark, DE: International Reading Association/National Science Teachers Association.
27. Gerofsky, S. (2004). A man left Albuquerque heading east: Word problems as genre in mathematics education. New York: Peter Lang.
28. Good, R.G., Shymansky, J.A. & Yore, L.D. (1999). Censorship in science and science education. In E.H. Brinkley (Ed.), Caught off guard: Teachers rethinking censorship and controversy (pp. 101-121). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
29. Halliday, M. (1978). Sociolinguistic aspects of mathematical education. In M. Halliday (Ed.), Language as social semiotic: The social interpretation of language and meaning (pp. 194-204). Baltimore: University Park Press.
30. Hand, B.M., Prain, V. & Yore, L.D. (2001). Sequential writing tasks' influence on science learning. In P. Tynjälä, L. Mason & K. Lonka (Eds.), Writing as a learning tool: Integrating theory and practice (pp. 105-129). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.
31. Hand, B.M., Alvermann, D.E., Gee, J., Guzzetti, B.J., Norris, S.P., Phillips, L.M., Prain, V. & Yore, L.D. (2003). Message from the "Island Group": What is literacy in science literacy? J Res Sci Teach, 40, 607-615.
32. Hurd, P.D. (1998). Scientific literacy: New minds for a changing world. Science Education, 82, 407-416.
33. Jablonka, E. (2003). Mathematical literacy. In A.J. Bishop, M. A. Clements, C. Keitel & F.K.S. Leung (Eds.), Second international handbook of mathematics education (pp. 75-102). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.
34. Kaiser, G. & Willander, T. (2005). Development of mathematical literacy: Results of an empirical study. Teaching Mathematics and Its Applications, 24(2-3), 48-60.
35. Keys, C.W. (1994). The development of scientific reasoning skills in conjunction with collaborative writing assignments: An interpretive study of six ninth-grade students. J Res Sci Teach, 31, 1003-1022.
36. Kilpatrick, J. (2001). Understanding mathematical literacy: The contribution of research. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 47(1), 101-116.
37. Klein, P.D. (2000). Elementary students' strategies for writing-to-learn in science. Cognition and Instruction, 18(3), 317-348.
38. Lemke, J. (1998). Multiplying meaning: Visual and verbal semiotics in scientific text. In J.R. Martin & R. Veel (Eds.), Reading science: Critical and functional perspectives of discourse of science (pp. 87-111). New York: Routledge.
39. Mason, J. (1988). Modelling: What do we really want pupils to learn? In D. Pimm (Ed.), Mathematics, teachers and children: A reader (pp. 201-215). London: Hodder & Stoughton.
40. McEneaney, E. (2003). The worldwide cachet of scientific literacy. Comparative Education Review, 47(2), 217-237.
41. Morgan, C. (1998). Writing mathematically: The discourse of investigation. Bristol, PA: Falmer.
42. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (1989). Curriculum and evaluation standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.
43. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (1991). Professional standards for teaching mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.
44. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.
45. National Research Council (1996). The national science education standards. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
46. National Research Council (1999). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. Committee on Developments in the Science of Learning, J.D. Bransford, A.L. Brown & R.R. Cocking (Eds.), Commission on behavioral and social sciences and education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
47. National Research Council (2005a). How students learn: Mathematics in the classroom. Committee on How People Learn, A Targeted Report for Teachers, M.S. Donovan & J.D. Bransford (Eds.), Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
48. National Research Council (2005b). How students learn: Science in the classroom. Committee on How People Learn, A Targeted Report for Teachers, M.S. Donovan & J.D. Bransford (Eds.), Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
49. National Research Council (2007). Taking science to school: Learning and teaching science in grades K-8. Committee on Science Learning, Kindergarten Through Eighth Grade. R.A. Duschl, H.A. Schweingruber & A.W. Shouse (Eds.), Board on Science Education, Center for Education, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
50. Norris, S. & Phillips, L. (2003). How literacy in its fundamental sense is central to scientific literacy. Science Education, 87(2), 224-240.
51. Noss, R. (1998). New numeracies for a technological culture. For the Learning of Mathematics, 18(2), 2-12.
52. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (2001). Knowledge and skills for life: First results from the OECD Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA). Paris: Author.
53. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (2003). The PISA 2003 assessment framework - mathematics, reading, science and problem solving: Knowledge and skills. Paris: Author.
54. Osborne, R.J. & Wittrock, M.C. (1983). Learning science: A generative process. Science Education, 67, 489-508.
55. Phillips, E. & Crespo, S. (1996). Developing written communication in mathematics through math penpal letters. For the Learning of Mathematics, 16(1), 15-22.
56. Pimm, D. (1987). Speaking mathematically: Communication in mathematics classrooms. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
57. Pimm, D. (1988). Mathematical metaphor. For the Learning of Mathematics, 8(1), 30-34.
58. Pimm, D. & Wagner, D. (2003). Investigation, mathematics education and genre. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 53(2), 159-178.
59. Rivard, L.P. (1994). A review of writing to learn in science: Implications for practice and research. J Res Sci Teach, 31, 969-983.
60. Sfard, A., Nesher, P., Streefland, L., Cobb, P. & Mason, J. (1998). Learning mathematics through conversation: Is it as good as they say? For the Learning of Mathematics, 18(1), 41-51.
61. Shymansky, J.A., Yore, L.D., Treagust, D.F., Thiele, R.B., Harrison, A., Waldrip, B.G., Stocklmayer, S.M. & Venville, G. (1997). Examining the construction process: A study of changes in level 10 students' understanding of classical mechanics. J Res Sci Teach, 34, 571-593.
62. Siegel, M., Borasi, R., Fonzi, J.M., Sanridge, L.G. & Smith, C. (1996). Using reading to construct mathematical meaning. In P.C. Elliott & M.J. Kenney (Eds.), Communication in mathematics, K-12 and beyond (pp. 66-75). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
63. Siegel, M., Borasi, R. & Smith, C. (1999). A critical review of reading in mathematics instruction: The need for a new synthesis. In S. McCormick & J. Zutell (Eds.), Cognitive and social perspectives for literacy research and instruction (pp. 269-277). Chicago: National Reading Conference.
64. Swafford, J. & Bryan, J. K. (2000). Instructional strategies for promoting conceptual change: Supporting middle school students. Reading and Writing Q, 16, 139-161.
65. Tall, D. (2007, May). The long-term cognitive development of different types of reasoning and proof. Paper presented at the international conference on Reading, Writing, and Argumentation in Science and Mathematics Education, National Changhua University of Education, Changhua, Taiwan.
66. Tall, D. & Mejia-Ramos, J.P. (2007, May). Embodiment, symbolism, argumentation and proof. Paper presented at the international conference on Science and Mathematics Education, National Taitung University, Taitung City, Taiwan.
67. United Kingdom Ministry of Education (1959). 15-18: A report of the Central Advisory Council for Education (England). London: Her Majesty's Stationery Office.
68. United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (2000). Science and technology education: Philosophy of project 2000+. Retrieved 20 June 2007, http://www.unesco.org/education/educprog/ste/projects/2000/meaning. htm.
69. Unsworth, L. (2007, May). The grammatical construction of meaning in science books in English for primary and junior secondary school students: Implications for reading to learn in science. Paper presented at the international conference on Reading, Writing, and Argumentation in Science and Mathematics Education, National Changhua University of Education, Changhua, Taiwan.
70. Wallace, C.S. (2004). An illumination of the roles of hands-on activities, discussion, text reading, and writing in constructing biology knowledge in seventh grade. School Science and Mathematics, 104(2), 70-78.
71. Waywood, A. (1992). Journal writing and learning mathematics. For the Learning of Mathematics, 12(2), 34-43.
72. Western and Northern Canadian Protocol 2006 Common curriculum framework for mathematics Alberta Education Edmonton
73. AB Western and Northern Canadian Protocol (2006). Common curriculum framework for mathematics. Edmonton, AB: Alberta Education. Retrieved 18 June 2007, from http://www.wncp.ca/
74. Wittrock, M.C. (1974). Generative model of mathematics learning. J Res Math Edu, 5, 181-196.
75. Yore, L.D. (2004). Why do future scientists need to study the language arts? In E.W. Saul (Ed.), Crossing borders in literacy and science instruction: Perspectives in theory and practice (pp. 71-94). Newark, DE: International Reading Association/National Science Teachers Association.
76. Yore, L.D. (in press). Science literacy for all students: Language, culture, and knowledge about nature and naturally occurring events. L1-Educational Studies in Language and Literature.
77. Yore, L.D. & Treagust, D. (2006). Current realities and future possibilities: Language and science literacy-empowering research and informing instruction. Int J Sci Educ, 28(2-3), 291-314.
78. Yore, L.D., Hand, B.M. & Prain, V. (2002). Scientists as writers. Science Education, 86(5), 672-692.
79. 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. Int J Sci Edu, 25, 689-725.
80. Yore, L.D., Hand, B.M. & Florence, M.L. (2004a). Scientists' views of science, models of writing, and science writing practice. J Res Sci Teach, 41(4), 338-369.
81. Yore, L.D., Hand, B.M., Goldman, S.R., Hildebrand, G.M., Osborne, J.F., Treagust, D.F. & Wallace, C.S. (2004b). New directions in language and science education research. Reading Res Q, 39(3), 347-352.
82. Yore, L.D., Florence, M.K., Pearson, T.W. & Weaver, A.J. (2006). Written discourse in scientific communities: A conversation with two scientists about their views of science, use of language, role of writing in doing science, and compatibility between their epistemic views and language. Int J Sci Edu, 28, 109-141.