A research-based instructional model for integrating meaningful learning in elementary science and reading comprehension: Implications for policy and practice

Developmental Cognitive Science Goes to School

Volumn , Issue , 2013, Pages 127-142

  Romance, Nancy R ^a   Vitale, Michael R ^b  

^a FLORIDA ATLANTIC UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b EAST CAROLINA UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84859436155     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: None     Document Type: Chapter

References (79)

1. American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1993). Benchmarks for science literacy. New York: Oxford University Press.
2. Anderson, J. R. (1992). Automaticity and the ACT theory. American Journal of Psychology, 105, 15-180.
3. Anderson, J. R. (1993). Problem solving and learning. American Psychologist, 48, 35-44.
4. Anderson, J. R. (1996). ACT: A simple theory of complex cognition. American Psychologist, 51, 335-365.
5. Armbruster, B. B., & Osborn, J. H. (2001). Reading instruction and assessment: Understanding IRA standards. New York: Wiley.
6. Artzen, E., & Holth, P. (1997). Probability of stimulus equivalence as a function of training design. Psychological Record, 47, 309-320.
7. Asoko, H. (2002). Developing conceptual understanding in primary science. Cambridge Journal of Education, 32(2), 153-164.
8. Beane, J. A. (1995). Curriculum integration and the disciplines of knowledge. Phi Delta Kappan, 76, 646-622.
9. Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., Cocking, R. R., Donovan, S., & Pellegrino, J. W. (Eds.) (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school (Expanded edition). Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
10. Bush, G. W. (2001). No child left behind. Washington, DC: Educational Resources Information Center.
11. Carnine, D. (1991). Curricular interventions for teaching higher order thinking to all students: Introduction to a special series. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 24(5), 261-269.
12. Chall, J. S. (1985). Afterword. In R. C. Anderson et al. (Eds.), Becoming a nation of readers: The report of the commission on reading. Washington, DC: National Institute of Education. pp. 123-124.
13. Conezio, K., & French, L. (2002). Science in the preschool classroom: Capitalizing on children's fascination with the everyday world to foster language and literacy development. Young Children, 57(5), 12-18.
14. Dillon, S. (March 26, 2006). Schools push back subjects to push reading and math. New York Times. http://nytimes.com/2006/03/26/education/26child.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1.
15. Donovan, M. S., Bransford, J. D., & Pellegrino, J. W. (Eds.) (1999). How people learn: Bridging research and practice. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
16. Dougher, M. J., & Markham, M. R. (1994). Stimulus equivalence, functional equivalence and the transfer of function. In S. C. Hays, L. J. Hays, M. Santo, & O. Koichi (Eds.), Behavior analysis of language and cognition. Reno: Context Press. pp. 71-90.
17. Duke, N., & Pearson, P. D. (2002). Effective practices for developing reading comprehension. In A. E. Farstrup & S. J. Samuels (Eds.), What research has to say about reading instruction. Newark: International Reading Association. pp. 205-242
18. Duschl, R. A., Schweingruber, H. A., & Shouse, A. W. (2007). Taking science to school: Learning and teaching science in grades K-8. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
19. Ellis, A. K. (2001). Research on educational innovations. Larchmont, NY: Eye on Education.
20. French, L. (2004). Science as the center of a coherent, integrated early childhood curriculum. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 19, 138-149.
21. Gamse, B. C., Jacob, R. T., Horst, M., Boulay, B., Unlu, F., Bozzi, L., et al. (2008). Reading first impact study final report. (NCES 2009-4038). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.
22. Gelman, R., & Brenneman, K. (2004). Science learning pathways for young children. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 19, 150-158.
23. Ginsburg, H. P. & Golbeck, S. L. (2004). Thoughts on the future of research on mathematics and science learning and education. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 19, 190-200.
24. Glaser, R. (1984). Education and thinking: The role of knowledge. American Psychologist, 39(2), 93-104.
25. Gonzales, P., Williams, T., Jocelyn, L., Roey, S., Kastberg, D., & Brenwald, S. (2008). Highlights from TIMSS 2007: Mathematics and science achievement of U.S. fourth- and eighth-grade students in an international context. (NCES 2009-001). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
26. Gould, C. J., Weeks, V., & Evans, S. (2003). Science starts early. Gifted Child Today Magazine, 26(3), 38-41.
27. Guthrie, J. T., & Ozgungor, S. (2002). Instructional contexts for reading engagement. In C. C. Block & M. Pressley (Eds.), Comprehension instruction: Research-based best practices. New York: Guilford Press. pp. 275-288.
28. Guthrie, J. T., Wigfield, A., & Perencevich, K. C. (Eds.) (2004). Motivating reading comprehension: Concept-oriented reading instruction. Mahwah, NJ: LEA.
29. Hapgood, S., Magnusson, S. J., & Palincsar, A. S. (2004). Teacher, text, and experience: A case of young children's scientific inquiry. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(4), 455-505.
30. Harlen, W. (1988). The teaching of science. London: David Fulton.
31. Harlen, W. (2001). Primary science, taking the plunge (2nd edn.). Portsmouth: Heinemann.
32. Hart, B. H., & Risley, T. R. (2003). The early catastrophe: The 30 million word gap. American Educator, 27(1), 4-9.
33. Hirsch, E. D. (1996). Schools we need: And why we don't have them. New York: Doubleday.
34. Hirsch, E. D. (2001). Seeking breadth and depth in the curriculum. Educational Leadership, 59(2), 21-25.
35. Hirsch, E. D. (2003). Reading comprehension requires knowledge-of words and the world: Scientific insights into the fourth-grade slump and stagnant reading comprehension. American Educator, 27(1), 10-29.
36. Holliday, W. G. (2004). Choosing science textbooks: Connecting science research to common sense. In W. Saul (Ed.), Crossing borders in literacy and science instruction. Newark: International Reading Association and NSTA Press. pp. 383-394.
37. Jones, M. G., Jones, B. D., Hardin, B., Chapman, L., Yarbrough, T., & Davis, M. (1999). The impact of high-stakes testing on teachers and students in North Carolina. Phi Delta Kappan, 81, 199-203.
38. Kearsley, G. P. (Ed.) (1987). Artificial intelligence and instruction: Applications and methods. New York: Addison-Wesley.
39. King, M. B., & Newmann, F. M. (2001). Building school capacity through professional development: Conceptual and empirical considerations. International Journal of Education Management, 15(2), 86-93.
40. Kintsch, W. (1998). Comprehension: A paradigm for cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
41. Klentschy, M. P., & Molina-De La Torre, E. (2004). Students' science notebooks and the inquiry process. In E. W. Saul (Ed.), Crossing borders in literacy and science instruction: Perspectives on theory and practice. Newark, DE: International Reading Association. pp. 340-354.
42. Lee, J., Grigg, W., & Donahue, P. (2007). The nation's report card: Reading 2007. National assessment of educational progress at grades 4 and 8. (NCES 2007-496). Jessup: National Center for Education Statistics.
43. Luger, G. F. (2008). Artificial intelligence: Structures and strategies for complex problem-solving. Reading: Addison Wesley.
44. Lutkus, A. D., Lauko, M. A., & Brockway, D. M. (2006). The nation's report card: Trial urban district assessment science 2005 (NCES 2007-453). U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
45. Magnusson, S. J., & Palincsar, A. S. (2006). Teaching and learning inquiry-based science in the elementary school. In J. Bransford & S. Donovan (Eds.), Visions of teaching subject matter guided by the principles of how people learn. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
46. Mintzes, J. J., Wandersee, J. H., & Novak, J. D. (1998). Teaching science for understanding: A human constructivist view. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Academic Press.
47. National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
48. Newton, L. D. (2001). Teaching for understanding in primary science. Evaluation and Research in Education, 15(3), 143-153.
49. Niedelman, M. (1992). Problem solving and transfer. In D. Carnine & E. J. Kameenui (Eds.), Higher order thinking. Austin: Pro-Ed.
50. Ogle, D., & Blachowicz, C. L. Z. (2002). Beyond literature circles: Helping students comprehend informational texts. In C. C. Block & M. Pressley (Eds.), Comprehension instruction. New York: Guilford Press. pp. 247-258.
51. Palincsar, A. S., & Magnusson, S. J. (2001). The interplay of first-hand and second-hand investigations to model and support the development of scientific knowledge and reasoning. In S. M. Carver & D. Klahr (Eds.), Cognition and instruction: Twenty-five years of progress. Mahwah, NJ: LEA.
52. Palmer, R. G., & Stewart, R. A. (2003). Nonfiction trade book use in primary grades. Reading Teacher, 57(1), 38-48.
53. Pellegrino, J. W., Chudowsky, N., & Glaser, R. (Eds.) (2001). Knowing what students know. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
54. Rakow, S. J., & Bell, M. J. (1998). Science and young children: The message from the National Science Education Standards. Childhood Education, 74(3), 164-167.
55. Revelle, G., Druin, A., Platner, M., Bederson, B., Hourcade, J. P., & Sherman, L. (2002). A visual search tool for early elementary science students. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 11(1), 49-57.
56. Rivard, L. (1994). A review ofwriting to learn in science: Implications for practice and research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31(9), 969-983.
57. 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 yearlong study in grade 4. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29, 545-554.
58. Romance, 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, 373-404.
59. Romance, N. R., & Vitale, M. R. (2006). Making the case for elementary science as a key element in school reform: Implications for changing curricular policy. In R. Douglas, M. Klentschy, & K. Worth (Eds.), Linking science and literacy in the K-8 classroom. Washington, DC: National Science Teachers Association. pp. 391-405.
60. Romance, N. R., & Vitale, M. R. (2007). Elements for bringing a research-validated intervention to scale: Implications for leadership in educational reform. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New York, NY, April 11, 2007.
61. Romance, N. R., & Vitale, M. R. (2008). Science IDEAS: A knowledge-based model for accelerating reading/literacy through in-depth science learning. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New York, NY, March 25, 2008.
62. Sandall, B. R. (2003). Elementary science: Where are we now? Journal of Elementary Science Education, 15(2), 13-30.
63. Schmidt, W. H., McKnight, C. C., Houang, R. T., Wang, H. C., Wiley, D. E., Cogan, L. S., et al. (2001). Why schools matter: A cross-national comparison of curriculum and learning. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
64. Schug, M. C., & Cross, B. (1998). The dark side of curriculum integration. Social Studies, 89, 54-57.
65. Sidman, M. (1960). Tactics of scientific research. New York: Basic Books.
66. Sidman, M. (1994). Stimulus equivalence. Boston: Author's Cooperative.
67. Smith, A. (2001). Early childhood-a wonderful time for science learning. Investigating: Australian Primary & Junior Science Journal, 17(2), 18-21.
68. Snow, C. E. (2002). Reading for understanding: Toward a research and development program in reading comprehension. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.
69. Stanley, J., & Campbell, D. (1963). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for research on teaching. In N. Gage (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching. Chicago: Rand-McNally. pp. 171-246.
70. Vitale, M. R., & Romance, N. R. (2000). Portfolios in science assessment: A knowledge-based model for classroom practice. In J. J. Mintzes, J. H. Wandersee, & J. D. Novak (Eds.), Assessing science understanding: A human constructivist view. San Diego: Academic Press. pp. 168-197.
71. Vitale, M. R., & Romance, N. R. (2006a). Research in science education: An interdisciplinary perspective. In J. Rhoton and P. Shane (Eds.), Teaching science in the 21st century. Arlington, VA: NSTA Press. pp. 329-351.
72. Vitale, M. R., & Romance, N. R. (2006b). Effects of embedding knowledge-focused reading comprehension strategies in content-area vs. narrative instruction in grade 5: Findings and research implications. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA, April 10, 2006.
73. Vitale, M. R., & Romance, N. R. (2007a). Adaptation of a knowledge-based instructional intervention to accelerate student learning in science and early literacy in grades 1-2. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL, April 11, 2007.
74. Vitale, M. R., & Romance, N. R. (2007b). A knowledge-based framework for unifying content-area reading comprehension and reading comprehension strategies. In D. McNamara (Ed.), Reading Comprehension Strategies. Mahwah, NJ: LEA. pp. 73-104.
75. Vitale, M. R., Romance, N. R., & Dolan, F. (2006). A knowledge-based framework for the classroom assessment of student science understanding. In M. McMahon, P. Simmons, R. Sommers, D. DeBaets, & F. Crawley (Eds.), Assessment in science: Practical experiences and education research. Arlington, VA: NSTA Press. pp. 1-14.
76. Vitale, M. R., Romance, N. R., & Klentschy, M. (2006). Improving school reform by changing curriculum policy toward content-area instruction in elementary schools. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA, April 9, 2006.
77. Walsh, K. (2003). Lost opportunity. American Educator, 27(1), 24-27.
78. Weiss, I. (2006). Professional development and strategic leadership to support effective integration of science and literacy. In R. Douglas, M. Klentschy, & K. Worth (Eds.), Linking science and literacy in the K-8 classroom. Washington, DC: National Science Teachers Association. pp. 359-372.
79. Yore, L. (2000). Enhancing science literacy for all students with embedded reading instruction and writing-to-learn activities. Journal of Deaf Students and Deaf Education, 5, 105-122.