Drama activities as ideational resources for primary-grade children in urban science classrooms

Journal of Research in Science Teaching

Volumn 47, Issue 3, 2010, Pages 302-325

  Varelas, Maria ^a   Pappas, Christine C ^a   Tucker Raymond, Eli ^b   Kane, Justine ^a   Hankes, Jennifer ^c   Ortiz, Ibett ^c   Keblawe Shamah, Neveen ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT CHICAGO   (United States)

^b TERC   (United States)

^c Chicago Public Schools   (United States)

Author keywords

Language and literacy; Language of science and classrooms; Science Education; Social construction; Urban education

Indexed keywords

BALTIMORE; FOOD WEBS; LANGUAGE OF SCIENCE; LANGUAGE OF SCIENCE AND CLASSROOMS; MATERIAL OBJECTS; METAFUNCTIONS; MULTI-MODAL; SCIENCE CLASSROOM; SCIENCE EDUCATION; STATES OF MATTER; URBAN SCHOOLS; WATER MOLECULE; WHOLE BODY; YOUNG CHILDREN;

ANIMALS; LINGUISTICS; SCHOOL BUILDINGS;

TEACHING;

EID: 77449130786     PISSN: 00224308     EISSN: 10982736     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/tea.20336     Document Type: Article

References (73)

1. Abell, S.K., & Roth, W.-M. (1995). Reflections on a fifth-grade life science lesson: Making sense of children's understanding of scientific models. International Journal of Science Education, 17, 59-74.
2. Alrutz, M. (2004). Granting science a dramatic license: Exploring a 4th grade science classroom and the possibilities for integrating drama. Teaching Artist Journal, 2, 31-39.
3. Bakhtin, M.M. (1981). The dialogic imagination: Four essays by. M.M. Bakhtin (Ed.), M. Holquist. Trans. M. Holquist & C. Emerson. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.
4. Bakhtin, M.M. (1986). Speech genres and other later essays. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.
5. Barton, A.C., & Tan, E. (2009). Funds of knowledge and Discourses and hybrid space. Journal of Research for Science Teaching, 46, 50-73.
6. Becker, J., & Varelas, M. (1993). Semiotic aspects of cognitive development: Illustrations from early mathematical cognition. Psychological Review, 100, 420-431.
7. Berger, M. (1992). Look out for turtles! New York: HarperCollins.
8. Bolton, G. (1984). Drama as education. Essex: Longman.
9. Bomer, R., Dworin, J.E., May, L., & Semingson, P., (2009). What's wrong with a deficit perspective? Teachers College Record, Date Published: June 03, 2009. http://www.tcrecord.org ID Number: 15648, Date Accessed: 6/5/2009 12:31:10 PM.
10. Boykin, W.A. (1986). The triple quandary of the schooling of Afro-American children. In U. Neisser (Ed.), The school achievement of minority children (pp. 57-92). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
11. Brickhouse, N.W. (2001). Embodying science: A feminist perspective on learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38, 282-295.
12. Bryman, A. (2001). Social research methods. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
13. Cheville, J. (2006). The bias of materiality in sociocultural research: Reconceiving embodiment. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 13, 25-37.
14. Chin, C. (2007). Teacher questioning in science classrooms: Approaches that stimulate productive thinking. Journal of Research for Science Teaching, 44, 815-843.
15. Coffey, A., & Atkinson, P. (1996). Making sense of qualitative data. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
16. Coll, R.K., France, B.,&Taylor, I. (2005). The role of models/and analogies in science education: Implications from research. International Journal of Science Education, 27, 183-198.
17. Cope, B.,&Kalantzis,M. (Eds.). (2000). Multiliteracies: Literacy learning and the design of social futures. London: Rutledge.
18. Dewey, J. (1934). Art as experience. New York: Penguin.
19. Duit, R. (1991). On the role of analogies and metaphors in learning science. Science Education, 75, 649-672.
20. Efland, A.D. (2002). Art and cognition: Integrating the visual arts in the curriculum. New York: Teachers College Press.
21. Erickson, F. (2004). Origins: A brief intellectual history of the emergence of multimodal discourse analysis. In P. Levine & R. Scollon (Eds.), Discourse and technology: Multimodal discourse analysis (pp. 196-207). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
22. Flannery, M.C. (1991). Science and aesthetics:Apartnership for science education. Science Education, 75, 577-593.
23. Foucault, M. (1979). The history of sexuality. London: Tavistock.
24. Geertz, C. (1973). The interpretation of cultures. New York: Basic Books.
25. Gilbert, J.K. (Ed.). (1993). Models and modelling in science education. Hatfield, UK: Association for Science Education.
26. Gilbert, J.K., & Boulter, C.J. (Eds.). (2000). Developing models in science education. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.
27. Givry, D.,&Roth,W.-M. (2006). Toward a newconception of conceptions: Interplay of talk, gestures, and structures in the setting. Journal of Research for Science Teaching, 43, 1086-1109.
28. Glaser, B.G., & Strauss, A.S. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory. Chicago: Aldine.
29. Halliday, M.A.K. (1978). Language as social semiotic: The social interpretation of language and meaning. Baltimore, MD: University Park Press.
30. Halliday, M.A.K., & Hasan, R. (1989). Language, context and text: A social semiotic perspective. London: Oxford University Press.
31. Henry, M. (2000). Drama's ways of learning. Research in Drama Education, 5, 45-62.
32. Holliday, A. (2002). Doing and writing qualitative research. London: Sage.
33. Jewitt, C., & Kress, G. (2003). Multimodal literacy. New York: Peter Lang.
34. Kress, G., Jewitt, C., Ogborn, J., & Tsatsarelis, C. (2001). Multimodal teaching and learning: The rhetorics of the science classroom. London: Continuum.
35. Kress, G., & van Leeuwen, T.J. (1996). Reading images: The grammar of visual design. London: Routledge.
36. Kress, G., & van Leeuwen, T.J. (2001). Multimodal discourse: The modes and media of contemporary communication. London: Arnold.
37. Kress, G., & van Leeuwen, T.J. (2006). Reading images: The grammar of visual design. London: Routledge.
38. Luke, A. (1992). The body literate: Discourse and inscription in early literacy instruction. Linguistics and Education, 4(1), 107-129.
39. Mathewson, J.H. (2005). The visual core of science: Definition and applications to education. International Journal of Science Education, 27, 529-548.
40. Metz, K.E. (1995). Reassessments of developmental constraints on children's science instruction. Review of Educational Research, 65, 93-127.
41. Metz, K.E. (1997). On the complex relations between cognitive developmental research and children's science curricula. Review of Educational Research, 67, 151-163.
42. Miles, M.B., & Huberman, A.M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
43. Moje, E.B., Ciechanowski, K.M., Kramer, K., Ellis, L., Carrillo, R.,&Collazo, T. (2004).Working toward third space in content area literacy: An examination of everyday funds of knowledge and discourse. Reading Research Quarterly, 39, 38-70.
44. National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards.Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
45. Nobles, W.W. (1980). Extended self: Rethinking the so-called Negro self-concept. In R.L. Jones (Ed.), Black psychology (2nd ed., pp. 295-304). New York: Harper and Row.
46. Olitsky, S. (2007). Promoting student engagement in science: Interaction rituals and the pursuit of a community of practice. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44, 33-56.
47. O'Neill, C., & Lambert, A. (1983). Drama structures: A practical handbook for teachers. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
48. Pappas, C.C., & Zecker, L.B. (2001a). Urban teacher researchers' struggles in sharing power with their students: Exploring changes in literacy curriculum genres. In C.C. Pappas & L.B. Zecker (Eds.), Transforming literacy curriculum genres: Working with teacher researchers in urban classrooms (pp. 1-31). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
49. Pappas, C.C.,&Zecker, L.B. (2001b). Transforming curriculum genres in urban schools: The political significance of collaborative classroom discourse. In C.C. Pappas & L.B. Zecker (Eds.), Transforming literacy curriculum genres: Working with teacher researchers in urban classrooms (pp. 325-333). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
50. Parsons, E.C. (2008). Learning contexts, Black cultural ethos, and the science achievement of African American students in an urban middle school. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45, 665-683.
51. Prain,V.,&Waldrip, B. (2006). An exploratory study of teachers' and students' use of multi-modal representations of concepts in primary science. International Journal of Science Education, 28, 1843-1866.
52. Rosser, S.V. (1990). Female friendly science: Applying women's studies methods and theories to attract students. New York: Pergamon Press.
53. Roth, W.-M. (2004). Gestures: The leading edge in literacy development. In E.W. Saul (Ed.), Crossing borders in literacy and science instruction: Perspectives on theory and practice (pp. 48-67). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
54. Roth, W.-M. (2005). Talking science: Language and learning in science. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Little-field.
55. Schank, R.C., & Abelson, R.P. (1977). Scripts, plans, goals, and understanding: An inquiry into human knowledge structures. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
56. Schneider, J.J., Crumpler, T.P., &Rogers T. (Eds.). (2006). Process drama and multiple literacies: Addressing social, cultural, and ethical issues. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
57. Seale, C. (1999). The quality of qualitative research. London: Sage.
58. Turner,V.W.,&Bruner, E.M. (Eds.). (1986). The anthropology of experience. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.
59. Varelas, M. (1996). Between theory and data in a 7th grade science class. Journal of Research in ScienceTeaching, 33, 229-263.
60. Varelas, M., & Becker, J. (1997). Internalization of cultural forms of behavior: Semiotic aspects of intellectual development. In B.D. Cox & C. Lightfoot (Eds.), Sociogenetic perspectives on internalization (pp. 203-219). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
61. Varelas, M., Becker, J., Luster, B., &Wenzel, S. (2002). When genres meet: Inquiry into a sixth-grade urban science class. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39, 579-605.
62. Varelas, M., Kane, J.M.,Tucker-Raymond, E.,&Pappas, C.C. (in press). Science learning in urban elementary school classrooms: Liberatory education and issues of access, participation, and achievement. In B.J. Fraser, K. Tobin, & C. McRobbie (Eds.), Second international handbook of science education. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer-Kluwer.
63. Varelas, M., & Pappas, C.C. (2006). Intertextuality in read-alouds of integrated science-literacy units in primary classrooms: Opportunities for the development of thought and language. Cognition and Instruction, 24, 211-259.
64. Varelas, M., Pappas, C.C., Kane, J., Arsenault, A., Hankes, J.,&Cowan, B.M. (2008). Urban primary-grade children think and talk science: Curricular and instructional practices that nurture participation and argumentation. Science Education, 92, 65-95.
65. Varelas, M., Pappas, C.C., Kokkino, S., & Ortiz, I. (2008). Students as authors. Science & Children, 45, 58-62.
66. Varelas, 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.
67. Vygotsky, L.S. (1987). Thinking and speech. In R.W. Rieber & A.S. Carton (Eds.), & N. Minick (Trans.), The collected works of L. S. Vygotsky:Vol.1 Problems of general psychology (pp. 37-285). NewYork: Plenum (Original work published 1934).
68. Warren, B., Ballenger, C., Ogonowski, M., Rosebery, A., & Hudicourt-Barnes, J. (2001). Rethinking diversity in learning science: The logic of everyday language. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38, 529-552.
69. Weltsek-Medina, G.J. (2007). Process drama in education. In A. Blatner (Ed.), Interactive and improvisational drama: Varieties of applied theater and performance (pp. 90-98). Lincoln, NE: iUniverse.
70. Wertsch, J.V. (1991). Voices of the mind: A sociocultural approach to mediated action. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
71. Wertsch, J.V., del Rio, P.,&Alvarez, A. (1995). Sociocultural studies: History, action, and mediation. In J.Wertsch P. del Rio & A. Alvarez (Eds.), Sociocultural studies of mind (pp. 1-34). New York: Cambridge University Press.
72. Winner, E. (1982). Invented worlds: The psychology of the arts. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
73. Yerrick, R.K., Doster, E., Nugent, J.S., Parke, H.M.,&Crawley, F.E. (2003). Social interaction and the use of analogy: An analysis of preservice teachers' talk during physics inquiry lessons. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40, 443-463