Child characteristics by science instruction interactions in second and third grade and their relation to students' content-area knowledge, vocabulary, and reading skill gains

Elementary School Journal

Volumn 113, Issue 1, 2012, Pages 52-75

  Connor, Carol McDonald ^a   Rice, Diana C ^b   Canto, Angela I ^b   Southerland, Sherry A ^a   Underwood, Phyllis ^b   Kaya, Sibel ^c   Fishman, Barry ^d   Morrison, Frederick J ^d  

^a School of Education   (United States)

^b FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^c KOCAELI UNIVERSITY   (Turkey)

^d UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84867270468     PISSN: 00135984     EISSN: 15548279     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1086/665815     Document Type: Article

References (47)

1. Alfieri, L., Brooks, P. J., Aldrich, N. J., & Tenenbaum, H. R. (2010). Does discovery-based instruction enhance learning? Journal of Educational Psychology. Advance online publication, doi: 10.1037/a0021017
2. Beck, I. L., McKeown, M. G., & Kucan, L. (2002). Bringing words to life: Robust vocabulary instruction; solving problems in the teaching of literacy. New York: Guilford.
3. Biemiller, A., & Boote, C. (2006). An effective method for building meaning vocabulary in primary grades. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98(1), 44-62.
4. Blanchard, M. R., Southerland, S. A., Osborne, J. W., Sampson, V., Annetta, L. A., &Granger, E. M. (2010). Is inquiry possible in light of accountability? Investigating the relative effectiveness of guided inquiry and traditional, didactic laboratory instruction. Science Education, 94(4), 577-616.
5. Bronfenbrenner, U., & Morris, P. A. (2006). The bioecological model of human development. In R. M. Lerner & W. Damon (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology: Theoretical models of human development (6th ed., Vol. 1, pp. 793-828). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
6. Cervetti, G., Damico, J., & Pearson, P. D. (2006). Multiple literacy, new literacies, and teacher education. Theory into Practice, 45(4), 378-386.
7. Chall, J. S. (1996). Stages of reading development (2nd ed.). Orlando, FL: Harcourt Brace.
8. Connor, C. M. (2011). Child by instruction interactions: Language and literacy connections. In S. B. Neuman&D. K. Dickinson (Eds.), Handbook on early literacy (3rd ed., pp. 256-275). New York: Guilford.
9. Connor, C. M., Kaya, S., Luck, M., Toste, J., Canto, A., Rice, D. C., Underwood, P. (2010). Content-area literacy: Individualizing student instruction in second grade science. Reading Teacher, 63(6), 474-485.
10. Connor, C. M., Morrison, F. J., Fishman, B., Ponitz, C. C., Glasney, S., Underwood, P., Schatschneider, C. (2009). The ISI classroom observation system: Examining the literacy instruction provided to individual students. Educational Researcher, 38(2), 85-99.
11. Connor, C. M., Morrison, F. J., Fishman, B. J., Schatschneider, C., & Underwood, P. (2007). The early years: Algorithm-guided individualized reading instruction. Science, 315(5811), 464-465. doi:10.1126/science.1134513
12. Connor, C. M., Morrison, F. J., & Petrella, J. N. (2004). Effective reading comprehension instruction: Examining child by instruction interactions. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96(4), 682-698.
13. Connor, C. M., Morrison, F. J., Schatschneider, C., Toste, J., Lundblom, E. G., Crowe, E., & Fishman, B. (2011). Effective classroom instruction: Implications of child characteristic by instruction interactions on first graders' word reading achievement. Journal for Research on Educational Effectiveness, 4(3), 173-207.
14. Connor, C. M., Piasta, S. B., Fishman, B., Glasney, S., Schatschneider, C., Crowe, E., Morrison, F. J. (2009). Individualizing student instruction precisely: Effects of child by instruction interactions on first graders' literacy development. Child Development, 80(1), 77-100.
15. Cronbach, L. J., & Snow, R. E. (1977). Aptitudes and instructional methods: A handbook for research on interactions. New York: Irvington.
16. Dunn, L. M., & Dunn, L. M. (1981). Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test-Revised. Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service.
17. Duschl, R. A., Schweingruber, H. A., & Shouse, A. W. (Eds.). (2007). National Research Council, taking science to school: Learning and teaching science in grades K-8. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
18. Fulp, S. L. (2002). 2000 National Survey of Science and Mathematics Education: Status of elementary school science teaching. Chapel Hill, NC: Horizon Research.
19. Guthrie, J. T., Wigfield, A., Barbosa, P., Perencevich, K. C., Taboada, A., Davis, M. H., Tonks, S. (2004). Increasing reading comprehension and engagement through concept-oriented reading instruction. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94(3), 403-423.
20. Hart, B., & Risley, T. R. (1995). Meaningful differences in the everyday experience of young American children. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.
21. Hill, C., Bloome, H., Black, A. R., & Lipsey, M. W. (2008). Empirical benchmarks for interpreting effect sizes in research. Child Development Perspectives, 2(3), 172-177.
22. Jencks, C., & Phillips, M. (1998). The Black-White test score gap. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Juel, C., & Minden-Cupp, C. (1998). Learning to read words: Linguistic units and strategies. Ann Arbor, MI: Center for the Improvement of Early Reading Achievement.
23. Juel, C., & Minden-Cupp, C. (1998). Learning to read words: Linguistic units and strategies. Ann Arbor, MI: Center for the Improvement of Early Reading Achievement.
24. Krajcik, J. S., & Sutherland, L. M. (2010). Supporting students in developing literacy in science. Science, 328, 456-459.
25. Lee, O., & Luykx, A. (2006). Science education and student diversity. New York: Cambridge University Press.
26. Markwardt, F. C. (1989). Peabody Individual Achievement Test-revised. Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service.
27. Marx, R. W., & Harris, C. J. (2006). No Child Left Behind and science education: Opportunities, challenges and risks. Elementary School Journal, 106, 476-477.
28. Morrison, F. J., Smith, L., & Dow-Ehrensberger, M. (1995). Education and cognitive development: A natural experiment. Developmental Psychology, 31(5), 789-799.
29. Morrow, L. M., Pressley, M., Smith, J. K., &Smith, M. (1997). The effect of a literacy-based program integrated into literacy and science instruction with children from diverse backgrounds. Reading Research Quarterly, 32(1), 54-76.
30. National Academy of Science. (2006). Rising above the gathering storm: Energizing and employing America for a brighter economic future. Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering and Institute of Medicine.
31. National Assessment of Educational Progress. (2007). National Assessment of Educational Progress: The nation's report card. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/
32. National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. (2000). National Reading Panel report: Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, National Institutes of Health, National Institute of Child Health and Human Development.
33. National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, Early Child Care Research Network. (2004). Multiple pathways to early academic achievement. Harvard Educational Review, 74(1), 1-29.
34. Palincsar, A. S., Collins, K. M., Marano, N. L., & Magnusson, S. J. (2000). Investigating the engagement and learning of students with learning disabilities in guided inquiry science teaching. Speech, Language, and Hearing Services in Schools, 31(3), 240-251.
35. Pearson, P. D., Moje, E., & Greenleaf, C. (2010). Literacy and science: Each in the service of the other. Science, 328, 459-463.
36. Raudenbush, S. W., & Bryk, A. S. (2002). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
37. 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(4), 373-404.
38. Schatschneider, C., Buck, J., Torgesen, J. K., Wagner, R., Hassler, L., Hecht, S. A., & Powell-Smith, K. (2004). A multivariate study of individual differences in performance on the reading portion of the Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test: A brief report. Retrieved August 4, 2006, from http:// www.fcrr.org/TechnicalReports/Multi_variate_study_december2004.pdf
39. Snow, C. E. (2001). Reading for understanding. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Education and the Science and Technology Policy Institute.
40. Snow, C. E. (2002). Reading for understanding: Toward an R&D program in reading comprehension. Arlington, VA: RAND.
41. Thorndike, R. L., Hagen, E. P., & Sattler, J. M. (1986). Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scale (4th ed.). Chicago: Riverside.
42. Torgesen, J. K. (2000). Individual differences in response to early intervention in reading: The lingering problem of treatment resisters. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 15, 55-64.
43. Tuyay, S., Jennings, L., & Dixon, C. (1995). Classroom discourse and opportunities to learn: An ethnographic study of knowledge construction in a bilingual third-grade classroom. Discourse Processes, 19, 75-110.
44. Van den Broek, P. (2010). Using texts in science education: Cognitive processes and knowledge representation. Science, 328, 453-456.
45. Von Secker, C. (2002). Effects of inquiry-based teacher practices on science excellence and equity. Journal of Educational Research, 95(3), 151-160.
46. Williams, J. P., Hall, K. M., Lauer, K. D., Stafford, B., DeSisto, L. A., &deCani, J. (2005). Expository text comprehension in the primary grade classroom. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97(4), 538-550.
47. Yore, L. D., Bisanz, G. L., & Hand, B. M. (2003). Examining the literacy components of science literacy: 25 years of language arts and science research. International Journal of Science Education, 25(6), 689-725.