Improving middle school students' science literacy through reading infusion

Journal of Educational Research

Volumn 103, Issue 4, 2010, Pages 262-273

  Fang, Zhihui ^a   Wei, Youhua ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA   (United States)

^b EDUCATIONAL TESTING SERVICE   (United States)

Author keywords

Content area reading; Middle school; Science literacy

Indexed keywords

EID: 77951076393     PISSN: 00220671     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/00220670903383051     Document Type: Article

References (55)

1. Alvermann, D.,&Moore, D. (1991). Secondary school reading. In R. Barr, M. Kamil, P. Mosenthal, & P. D. Pearson (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. 2, pp. 951-983). New York: Longman.
2. Anderson, R. (2004). Role of the reader's schema in comprehension, learning and memory. In R. Ruddell&N. Unrau (Eds.), Theoretical models and processes of reading (5th ed., pp. 594-606). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
3. Artley, A. S. (1944). A study of certain relationships existing between general reading comprehension and reading comprehension in a specific subject-matter area. The Journal of Educational Research, 37, 464-473.
4. Berman, I., & Biancarosa, G. (2005). Reading to achieve: A governor's guide to adolescent literacy. Washington, DC: National Governors Association Center for Best Practices.
5. Biancarosa, G., & Snow, C. (2004). Reading next-A vision for action and research in middle and high school literacy:Areport fromCarnegieCorporation of New York. Washington, DC: Alliance for Excellent Education.
6. Block, C.,&Pressley, M. (2007). Best practices in teaching comprehension. In L. Gambrell, L. Morrow, & M. Pressley (Eds.), Best practices in literacy instruction (pp. 220-242). New York: Guilford Press.
7. Brown, R., Pressley, M., van Meter, P., & Schuder, T. (2004). A quasiexperimental validation of transactional strategies instruction with lowachieving second-grade readers. In R. Ruddell & N. Unrau (Eds.), Theoretical models and processes of reading (5th ed., pp. 998-1039). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
8. Craig, M.,&Yore, L. (1995).Middle school students' metacognitive knowledge about science reading and science text: An interview study. Reading Psychology, 16, 169-213.
9. Crocker, L., & Algina, J. (1986). Introduction to classical and modern test theory. New York: Holt.
10. DiGisi, L.,&Willet, J. (1995).What high school biology teachers say about their textbook use: A descriptive study. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 32, 123-142.
11. Draper, R. (2002). Every teacher a literacy teacher? An analysis of the literacy-related messages in secondary methods textbooks. Journal of Literacy Research, 34, 357-384.
12. Eccles, J. S., Wigfield, A., Midgley, C., Reuman, D., Maclver, D., & Feldlaufer, H. (1993). Negative effects of traditional middle schools on students' motivation. The Elementary School Journal, 93, 553-574.
13. Fang, Z. (2005). Science literacy: A systemic functional linguistics perspective. Science Education, 89, 335-347.
14. Fang, Z., & Schleppegrell, M. (2010). Disciplinary literacies across content areas: Supporting secondary reading through functional language analysis. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 53, 587-597.
15. Gaskins, I., Guthrie, J., Satlow, E., Ostertag, J., Six, L., Byrne, J., et al. (1994). Integrating instruction of science, reading, and writing: Goals, teacher development, and assessment. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31, 1039-1056.
16. Glencoe. (2000). Science voyages: Exploring the life, earth, and physical sciences (Florida ed.). Columbus, OH: Author.
17. Grigg, W., Lauko, M., & Brockway, D. (2006). The nation's report card: Science 2005 assessment of student performance in grades 4, 8 and 12 (NCES 2006466).Washington, DC: National Center for Educational Statistics.
18. Griffin, C., Simmons, D., & Kameenui, E. (1991). Investigating the effectiveness of graphic organizer instruction on the comprehension and recall of science content by students with learning disabilities. Reading, Writing, and Learning Disabilities, 7, 355-376.
19. Guskey, T. (1986). Staff development and the process of teacher change. Educational Researcher, 15, 5-12.
20. Guthrie, J., & Davis, M. (2003). Motivating struggling readers in middle school through an engagement model of classroom practice. Reading and Writing Quarterly, 19, 59-85.
21. Guthrie, J., Van Meter, P., Hancock, G., McCann, A., Anderson, E., & Alao, S. (1998). Does concept-oriented reading instruction increase strategy use and conceptual learning from text? Journal of Educational Psychology, 90, 261-278.
22. Halliday, M. A. K. (1998). Things and relations: Regrammaticising experience as technical knowledge. In J. R. Martin & R. Veel (Eds.), Reading science: Perspectives on discourses of science (pp. 185-235). London: Routledge.
23. Halliday, M. A. K., & Martin, J. R. (1993). Writing science: Literacy and discursive power. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.
24. Hand, B., Alvermann, D., Gee, J., Guzzetti, B., Norris, S., Phillips, L., et al. (2003). Guest editorial: Message from the "Island Group": What is literacy in science literacy? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40, 607-615.
25. Harp, B. (2000). The handbook of literacy assessment and evaluation.Norwood, MA: Christopher-Gordon.
26. Harvey, S. (2002). Non-fiction matters: Reading, writing and research in grades 3-8. Portland, ME: Stenhouse.
27. Hirsch, E. D. Jr. (2006). The knowledge deficit: Closing the shocking education gap for American children. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
28. Hollander, M., & Wolfe, D.A. (1999). Nonparametric statistical methods. New York: Wiley.
29. International Reading Association & National Middle School Association. (2001). Supporting young adolescents' literacy learning. Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
30. Kaplan, R. M., & Saccuzzo, D. P. (2001). Psychological testing: Principles, applications, and issues (5th ed.). Stamford, CT: Wadsworth.
31. Lederman, N. G., & Flick, L. B. (2005). Beware of the unit of analysis: It may be you! School Science and Mathematics, 105, 381-383.
32. MacGinitie, W. H., MacGinitie, R. K. Maria, K. & Dreyer, L. G. (2002). Gates-MacGinitie reading tests (4th ed.). Itasca, IL: Riverside Publishing Company.
33. Lemke, J. (1990). Talking science: Language, learning and values. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
34. Martin, J. R., & Veel, R. (1998). Reading science: Critical and functional perspectives on discourses of science. New York: Routledge.
35. Morrow, L., Pressley, M., Smith, J., & Smith, M. (1997). The effect of a literature-based program integrated into literacy and science instruction with children from diverse backgrounds. Reading Research Quarterly, 32, 54-76.
36. National Reading Panel. (2000). Teaching children to read:An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction. Washington, DC: National Institute of Child Health and Human Development.
37. National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
38. National Research Council. (2000). Inquiry and the national science education standards: A guide for teaching and learning. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
39. Norris, S., & Phillips, L. (2003). How literacy in its fundamental sense is central to scientific literacy. Science Education, 87, 224-240.
40. O'Brien, D., Stewart, R., & Moje, E. (1995). Why content literacy is difficult to infuse into the secondary school: Complexities of curriculum, pedagogy, and school culture. Reading Research Quarterly, 30, 442-463.
41. O'Reilly, T., & McNamara, D. (2007). The impact of science knowledge, reading skill, and reading strategy knowledge on more traditional "high stakes" measures of high school students' science achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 44, 161-196.
42. Pressley, M. (2004).The need for research on secondary literacy instruction. In T. L. Jetton&J. A. Dole (Eds.), Adolescent literacy research and practice (pp. 415-432). New York: Guilford.
43. Raudenbush, S. W., & Bryk, A. (2002). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
44. Romance, N.,&Vitale, M. (1992).Acurriculum strategy that expands time for in-depth elementary science instruction by using science-based reading strategies: Effects of a year-long study in grade 4. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 63, 201-243.
45. Saul, E. W. (2004). Crossing borders in literacy and science instruction: Perspectives on theory into practice. Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
46. Singer, H.,&Bean, T. (1988).Models for helping teachers to help students learn from text. In S. J. Samuels & P. D. Pearson (Eds.), Changing school reading programs (pp. 161-182). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
47. Snijders, T., & Bosker, R. (1999). Multilevel analysis. London: Sage.
48. Spiegel, G., & Barufaldi, J. (1994). The effects of a combination of text structure awareness and graphic postorganizers on recall and retention of science knowledge. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31, 913-932.
49. Tobias, S. (1994). Interest, prior knowledge and learning. Review of Educational Research, 64, 37-54.
50. Vickers, A. J. (2005). Parametric versus non-parametric statistics in the analysis of randomized trials with non-normally distributed data. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 5(35). Retrieved April 15, 2007, from http://www. biomedcentral.com/1471-2288/5/35
51. Wade, S., & Moje, E. (2000) The role of text in classroom learning. In M. Kamil, P. Mosenthal, P. D. Pearson, & R. Barr (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. 3, pp. 609-627). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
52. Wellington, J., & Osborne, J. (2001). Language and literacy in science education. Philadelphia: Open University Press.
53. Yore, L. (1991). Secondary science teachers' attitudes toward and beliefs about science reading and science textbooks. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 28, 55-72.
54. Yore, L. (2004). Why do future scientists need to study the language arts? In E. W. Saul (Ed.), Crossing borders in literacy and science instruction: Perspectives on theory into practice (pp. 71-94). Newark: DE: International Reading Association.
55. Yore, L., Hand, B., Goldman, S., Hildebrand, G., Osborne, J., Treagust, D., et al. (2004).New directions in language and science education research. Reading Research Quarterly, 39, 347-352.