Interdisciplinary perspectives linking science and literacy in grades K-5: Implications for policy and practice

Second International Handbook of Science Education

Volumn , Issue , 2012, Pages 1351-1373

  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: 84906366126     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.1007/978-1-4020-9041-7_87     Document Type: Chapter

References (109)

1. Amaral, O., Garrison, L., & Klentschy, M. (2002). Helping English learners increase achievement through inquiry-based science instruction. Bilingual Research Journal, 26, 213-239.
2. Anderson, J. R. (1982). Acquisition of cognitive skill. Psychological Review, 89, 369-403.
3. Anderson, J. R. (1987). Skill acquisition: Compilation of weak-method problem solutions. Psychological Review, 94, 192-210.
4. Anderson, J. R. (1992). Automaticity and the ACT theory. American Journal of Psychology, 105, 15-180.
5. Anderson, J. R. (1993). Problem solving and learning. American Psychologist, 48, 35-44.
6. Anderson, J. R. (1996). ACT: A simple theory of complex cognition. American Psychologist, 51, 335-365.
7. Anderson, J. R., & Fincham, J. M. (1994). Acquisition of procedural skills from examples. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 20, 1322-1340.
8. Anderson, J. R., & Lebiere, C. (1998). The atomic components of thought. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
9. Armga, C., Dillon, S., Jamsek, M., Morgan, E. L., Peyton, D., & Speranza, H. (2002). Tips for helping children do science. Texas Child Care, 26, 2-7.
10. Artzen, E., & Holth, P. (1997). Probability of stimulus equivalence as a function of training decision. Psychological Record, 47, 309-320.
11. Asoko, H. (2002). Developing conceptual understanding in primary science. Cambridge Journal of Education, 32, 153-164.
12. Block, C. C., & Pressley, M. (Eds.). (2002). Comprehension instruction: Research-based best practices. New York: Guilford Press.
13. Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (Eds.). (2000). How people learn. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
14. Bredderman, T. (1983). Effects of activity-based elementary science on student outcomes: A quantitative synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 53, 499-518.
15. Carnine, D. (1991). Curricular interventions for teaching higher order thinking to all students: Introduction to a special series. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 24, 261-269.
16. Cavanagh, S. (2004). NCLB could alter science teaching. Education Week, 24, 1 & 12-13.
17. Cervetti, G., & Pearson, P. D. (2006). Reading and writing in the service of inquiry-based science. In R. Douglas, M. Klentschy, & K. Worth (Eds.), Linking science and literacy in the K-8 classroom (pp. 221-244). Arlington, VA: NSTA Press.
18. Chall, J. S., & Jacobs, V. A. (2003). The classic study on poor children's fourth grade slump. American Educator, 27, 14-16.
19. Colker, L. J. (2002). Teaching and learning about science. Young Children. 57, 10-11, 47.
20. 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, 12-18.
21. Dillon, S. (2006). Schools cut back subjects to push reading and math. Retrieved March 26, 2006, from http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/26/education/26child.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1
22. Dolan, M. F. (2005). Assessment success today or learning success tomorrow? How a longitudinal perspective helps standards-based accountability systems eliminate the persistent gap between nominal and actual achievement for high school graduates. Dissertation Abstracts International, 66, 567.
23. 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 (pp. 71-90). Reno, NV: Context Press.
24. Duke, N. K. (2000a). 3.6 minutes per day. The scarcity of informational texts in first grade. Reading Research Quarterly, 35, 202-224.
25. Duke, N. K. (2000b). For the rich it's richer: Print experiences and environments offered to children in very low- and very high-socioeconomic status first grade classrooms. American Educational Research Journal, 37, 441-478.
26. Duke, N. K. (2007). Let's look in a book: Using nonfiction reference materials with young children. Young Children, 62, 12-16.
27. Duke, N. K., Bennett-Armistead, V. S., & Roberts, E. M. (2003). Filling the nonfiction void. American Educator, 27, 30-35.
28. 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 (pp. 205-242). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
29. Farstrup, A. E., & Samuels, S. J. (Eds.). (2002). What research has to say about reading instruction. Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
30. French, L. (2004). Science as the center of a coherent, integrated early childhood curriculum. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 19, 138-149.
31. Gamse, B. C., Bloom, H. S., Kemple, J. J., & Jacob, R. T. (2008). Reading First impact study: Interim report (NCEE 2008-4016). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U. S. Department of Education.
32. Gelman, R., & Brenneman, K. (2004). Science learning pathways for young children. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 19, 150-158.
33. 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.
34. Glaser, R. (1984). Education and thinking: The role of knowledge. American Psychologist, 39, 93-104.
35. 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: National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.
36. Gould, S. J., Weeks, V., & Evans, S. (2003). Science starts early. Gifted Child Today Magazine, 26, 38-43.
37. Guthrie, J. T., & Ozgungor, S. (2002). Instructional contexts for reading engagement. In C. C. Block & M. Pressley (Eds.), Comprehension instruction: Research-based best practices (pp. 275-288). New York: The Guilford Press.
38. Guthrie, J. T., Wigfield, A., Barbosa, P., Perencevich, K. C., Taboada, A., Davis, M. H., et al. (2004a). Increasing reading comprehension and engagement through concept-oriented reading instruction. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96, 403-423.
39. Guthrie, J. T., Wigfield, A., & Perencevich, K. C. (Eds.). (2004b). Motivating reading comprehension: Concept-oriented reading instruction. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
40. Hand, B., Hohenshell, L., & Prain, V. (2004). Exploring students' responses to conceptual questions when engaged with planned writing experiences. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41, 186-210.
41. 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, 455-505.
42. Hapgood, S., & Palincsar, A. S. (2007). Where literacy and science intersect. Educational Leadership, 64, 56-60.
43. Hirsch, E. D. (1996). The schools we need. And why we don't have them. New York: Doubleday.
44. Hirsch, E. D. (2001). Seeking breadth and depth in the curriculum. Educational Leadership, 59, 21-25.
45. 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, 10-29.
46. Hirsch, E. D. (2006). The knowledge deficit. New York: Houghton Mifflin.
47. Holliday, W. G. (2004). Choosing science textbooks: Connecting science research to common sense. In W. Saul (Ed.), Crossing borders in literacy and science instruction (pp. 383-394). Newark, DE: International Reading Association and NSTA Press.
48. Jones, J., & Courtney, R. (2002). Documenting early science learning. Young Children, 57, 34-38, 40.
49. 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.
50. Jorgenson, O., & Vanosdall, R. (2002). The death of science? What are we risking in our rush toward standardized testing and the three r's. Phi Delta Kappan, 83, 601-605.
51. Kearsley, G. P. (Ed.). (1987). Artificial intelligence and instruction: Applications and methods. New York: Addison-Wesley.
52. Kintsch, W. (1994). Text comprehension, memory, and learning. American Psychologist, 49, 294-303.
53. Kintsch, W. (1998). Comprehension: A paradigm for cognition. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
54. Kintsch, W. (2004). The construction-integration model of text comprehension and its implications for instruction. In R. B. Ruddell & N. J. Unrau (Eds.), Theoretical models and processes of reading (5th ed.) (pp. 1270-1328). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
55. Klentschy, M. P. (2003). The science literacy connection. California Curriculum News Report, 28, 1-2.
56. Klentschy, M. P. (2006). Connecting science and literacy through student science notebooks. California Journal of Science Education, 6, 51-79.
57. 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 (pp. 340-354). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
58. Klentschy, M. P., & Thompson, L. (2008). Scaffolding science inquiry through lesson design. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
59. Kolodner, J. L. (1993). Case-based reasoning. San Mateo, CA: Morgan Kaufmann.
60. Kolodner, J. L. (1997). Educational implications of analogy: A view from case-based reasoning. American Psychologist, 82, 57-66.
61. Lee, J., Grigg, W. S., & Donahue, P. L. (2007). The nation's report card: Reading 2007 (NCES 2007496). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.
62. Lee, M., Lostoski, M., & Williams, K. (2000). Diving into a school wide science theme. Science and Children, 38, 31-35.
63. Luger, G. F. (2008). Artificial intelligence: Structures and strategies for complex problem-solving. Reading, MA: Addison Wesley.
64. Lutkus, A. D., Lauko, M. A., & Brockway, D. M. (2006). The nation's report card: Science 2005 trial urban school district assessment (NCES 2007453). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.
65. Magnusson, S. J., & Palincsar, A. S. (2003). Learning from text designed to model scientific thinking in inquiry-based instruction. In E. W. Saul (Ed.), Crossing borders in literacy and scientific instruction (pp. 316-339). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
66. Maniates, H., & Pearson, P. D. (2008). The curricularization of comprehension strategies instruction: A conspiracy of good intentions. In Y. Kim, V. J. Risco, et al. (Eds.), The fifty-seventh yearbook of the national reading conference (pp. 271-284). Oak Creek, WI: National Reading Conference.
67. McNamara, D. S., de Vega, M., & O'Reilly, T. (2007). Comprehension skill, inference making, and the role of knowledge. In F. Schmalhofer & C. A. Perfetti (Eds.), Higher level language processes in the brain: Inference and comprehension processes (pp. 233-253). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
68. McNamara, D. S., & Kintsch, W. (1996). Learning from text: Effects of prior knowledge and text coherence. Discourse Processes, 22, 247-288.
69. National Academy of Sciences. (1997). Science for all children: A guide for improving elementary science education in your school district. Washington, DC: National Sciences Resources Center, Smithsonian Institution.
70. National Reading Panel. (2000). Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction. Jessup, MD: National Institute for Literacy.
71. National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards (National Committee on Science Education Standards and Assessment). Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
72. Newton, L. D. (2001). Teaching for understanding in primary science. Evaluation and Research in Education, 15, 143-153.
73. Niedelman, M. (1992). Problem solving and transfer. In D. Carnine & E. J. Kameenui (Eds.), Higher order thinking (pp. 137-156). Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.
74. Norton-Meier, L., Hand, B., Hockenberry, L., & Wise, K. (2008). Questions, claims, and evidence: The important place of argument in children's science writing. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
75. Ogle, D., & Blachowicz, C. L. Z. (2002). Beyond literature circles: Helping students comprehend informational texts. In C. C. Block & M. Pressley (Eds.), Comprehension instruction (pp. 247-258). New York: Guilford Press.
76. 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 (pp. 151-195). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
77. Palmer, R. G., & Stewart, R. (2003). Nonfiction trade book use in primary grades. The Reading Teacher, 57, 38-48.
78. Pearson, P. D., & Duke, N. (2002). Comprehension instruction in the primary grades. In C. C. Block & M. Pressley (Eds.), Comprehension instruction (pp. 247-258). New York: Guilford Press.
79. Pearson, P. D., & Fielding, L. (1995). Comprehension instruction. In R. Barr, M. L. Kamil, P. B. Mosenthal, & P. D. Pearson. (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol II, pp. 815-860). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
80. Pressley, M., Rankin, J., & Yokoi, L. (1996). A survey of instructional practices of primary teachers nominated as effective in promoting literacy. Elementary School Journal, 96, 363-384.
81. 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, 49-57.
82. Rivet, A. E., & Krajcik, J. S. (2008). Contextualizing instruction: Leveraging students' prior knowledge and experiences to foster understanding of middle school science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45, 79-100.
83. 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 year-long study in grade 4. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29, 545-554.
84. 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.
85. 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 (pp. 391-405). Washington, DC: National Science Teachers Association.
86. Romance, N. R., & Vitale, M. R. (2007, April). 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, Chicago, IL.
87. Romance, N. R., & Vitale, M. R. (2008, April). 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.
88. Sandall, B. R. (2003). Elementary science: Where are we now? Journal of Elementary Science Education, 15, 13-30.
89. Saul, W. (Ed.). (2004). Crossing borders in literacy and science instruction. Newark, DE: International Reading Association and NSTA Press.
90. Schmidt, W. H., McKnight, C., Cogan, L. S., Jakwerth, P. M., & Houang, R. T. (1999). Facing the consequences: Using TIMSS for a closer look at U.S. mathematics and science education. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.
91. Schmidt, W. H., McKnight, 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.
92. Schmidt, W. H., McKnight, C., & Raizen, S. (1997). A splintered vision: An investigation of U.S.science and mathematics education. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.
93. Shymansky, J. A., Hedges, L. V., & Woodworth, G. (1990). A reassessment of the effects of inquiry-based science curricula of the 60's on student performance. Journal of Research on Science Teaching, 27, 127-144.
94. Sidman, M. (1994). Stimulus equivalence. Boston: Author's Cooperative.
95. Siegler, R. S. (2000). The rebirth of children's learning. Child Development, 71, 26-35.
96. Smith, A. (2001). Early childhood-A wonderful time for science learning. Investigating: Australian Primary & Junior Science Journal, 17, 18-21.
97. Snow, C. E. (2002). Reading for understanding: Toward a research and development program in reading comprehension. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Reading Study Group.
98. Sowa, J. F. (2000). Knowledge representation: Logical, philosophical, and computational foundations. New York: Brooks Cole.
99. Swan, E., & Guthrie, J. T. (1999, April). Influences of science observation and science trade books on reading comprehension and motivation. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Montreal, Canada.
100. Tytler, R., & Peterson, S. (2001). Deconstructing learning in science-Young children's responses to a classroom sequence on evaporation. Research in Science Education, 30, 339-355.
101. 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 (pp. 168-197). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
102. Vitale, M. R., & Romance, N. R. (2005, April). A model for scaling up a research-validated instructional intervention: Implications for leadership in educational reform. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Montreal, Canada.
103. Vitale, M. R., & Romance, N. R. (2006a). 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 (pp. 1-14). Arlington, VA: NSTA.
104. Vitale, M. R., & Romance, N. R. (2006b, April). 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.
105. Vitale, M. R, & Romance, N. R. (2007a, April). 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.
106. Vitale, M. R., & Romance, N. R. (2007b). A knowledge-based framework for unifying contentarea reading comprehension and reading comprehension strategies. In D. McNamara (Ed.), Reading comprehension strategies (pp. 73-104). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
107. Vitale, M. R., Romance, N. R., & Klentschy, M. (2006, April). Improving school reform by changing curriculum policy toward content-area instruction in elementary schools: A research-based model. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA.
108. Walsh, K. (2003). Lost opportunity. American Educator, 27 (1), 24-27.
109. Weaver, C. A., & Kintsch, W. (1995). Expository text. In R. Barr, M. L. Kamil, P. B. Mosenthal, & P. D. Pearson (Eds.), Handbook of reading research, Volume II (pp. 230-245). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.