Expanding the Role of K-5 Science Instruction in Educational Reform: Implications of an Interdisciplinary Model for Integrating Science and Reading

School Science and Mathematics

Volumn 112, Issue 8, 2012, Pages 506-515

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

^a FLORIDA ATLANTIC UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b EAST CAROLINA UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

integrated science models; integrating reading in science; science and school reform

Indexed keywords

EID: 84907859075     PISSN: 00366803     EISSN: 19498594     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/ssm.12000     Document Type: Article

References (73)

1. ACT, Inc. (2006). College readiness: Reading between the lines. Iowa City, IO: American College Teaching, Inc.
2. American Federation of Teachers (AFT). (1997). Making standards matter 1997. An annual fifty state report on efforts to raise academic standards. Washington, DC: AFT.
3. Anderson, J. R. (1992). Automaticity and the ACT theory. American Journal of Psychology, 105, 15–180.
4. Anderson, J. R. (1993). Problem solving and learning. American Psychologist, 48, 35–44.
5. Anderson, J. R. (1996). ACT: A simple theory of complex cognition. American Psychologist, 51, 335–365.
6. Anderson, J. R., & Fincham, J. M. (1994). Acquisition of procedural skills from examples. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 20, 1322–1340.
7. Banilower, E. R., Smith, P. S., Pasley, J. D., & Weiss, I. R. (2006). The status of K-12 science teaching in the United States: Results from a national observation survey. In D. Sunal & E. Wright (Eds.), The impact of state and national standards on K-12 teaching (pp. 83–112). Greenwich, CT: Information Age.
8. Bransford, J. D, Brown, A. L, & Cocking, R. R. (Eds.). (2000). How people learn. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
9. Chall, J. S., & Jacobs, V. A. (2003). The classic study on poor children's fourth grade slump. American Educator, 27(1), 14–16.
10. Dillon, S. (March 26, 2006). Schools push back subjects to push reading and math. New York Times. Retrieved from http://nytimes.com/2006/03/26/education/26child.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1.
11. Donahue, P. L., Voekl, K. E., Campbell, J. R., & Mazzeo, J. (1999). NAEP 1998 Reading Report Card for the States. National Center for Educational Statistics, Office of Educational Research and Improvement, U.S. Department of Education, Washington, DC.
12. Donovan, M. S, Bransford, J. D, & Pellegrino, J. W. (Eds.) (2003). How people learn: Bridging research and practice. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
13. Duke, N. K. (2010). The real world reading and writing U.S. children need. Phi Delta Kappan, 91(5), 68–71.
14. Duschl, R. A., Schweingruber, H., & Shouse, A. W. (2007). Taking science to school: Learning and teaching science in grades K-8. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
15. Feldman, S. (2000). Standards are working: But states and districts need to make some mid-course corrections. American Educator, 24(3), 5–7.
16. 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.
17. Geier, R., Blumenfeld, P. C., Marx, R. W., Krajcik, J. S., Fishman, B., & Soloway, E. (2008). Standardized test outcomes for students engaged in inquiry-based science curricula in the context of urban reform. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45, 922–939.
18. Grigg, W. S., Lauko, M. A., & Brockway, D. M. (2006). The Nation's Report Card: Science 2005 (NCES 2006–466). U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
19. 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.
20. Guthrie, J. T, Wigfield, A, & Perencevich, K. C. (Eds.). (2004). Motivating reading comprehension: Concept-oriented reading instruction. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
21. 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.
22. Hirsch, E. D. (1996). Schools we need. And why we don't have them. New York: Doubleday.
23. 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.
24. James-Burdumy, S., Mansfield, W., Deke, J., Carey, N., Lugo-Gil, J., Hershey, A., … Faddis, B. (2009). Effectiveness of selected supplemental reading comprehension interventions: Impacts on a first cohort of fifth grade students. (NCEE 2008-4015). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance.
25. James-Burdumy, S., Myers, D., & Deke, J. (2006). The national evaluation of reading comprehension Interventions: Design report. Final report. Mathematica Policy Research, Inc. 154 pp. (ED496295) (Full Text from ERIC).
26. Johnson, C., Fargo, J., & Kahle, J. B. (2010). The cumulative and residual impact of a systemic reform program on teacher change and student learning of science. School Science and Mathematics, 111, 144–159.
27. Johnson, C. C., & Marx, S. (2009). Transformative professional development: A model for urban science education reform. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 20, 113–134.
28. 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.
29. Kemple, J. J., Corrin, W., Nelson, E., Salinger, T., Herrmann, S., & Drummon, K. (2008). The Enhanced Reading Opportunities Study: Early Impacts and Implementation Findings (NCEE 2008-4015). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance.
30. Kintsch, W. (1998). Comprehension: A paradigm for cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
31. 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.
32. 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.
33. Kolodner, J. L. (1993). Case-based reasoning. San Mateo, CA: Morgan Kaufmann.
34. Kolodner, J. L. (1997). Educational implications of analogy: A view from case-based reasoning. American Psychologist, 52, pp. 57–66.
35. Krajcik, J. S., & Sutherland, L. M. (2010). Supporting students in developing literacy in science. Science, 328, 456–459.
36. Lehrer, R., Catley, K., & Reiser, B. (2004). Tracing a perspective learning progression for developing understanding of evolution. Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences.
37. Lutkus, A. D., Lauko, M. A., & Brockway, D. M. (2006). The nation's report card: Science 2005 trial urban district assessment. National Assessment of Educational Progress: Washington, DC: U. S. Department of Education.
38. Luger, G. F. (2007). Artificial intelligence: Structures and strategies for complex problem-solving. Reading, MA: Addison Wesley.
39. National Assessment of Educational Progress (2003). The nation's report card: Science 2000. Washington, DC: U. S. Government Printing Office. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard
40. National Assessment of Educational Progress (2005a). Trial urban district science assessment. Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
41. National Assessment of Educational Progress (2005b). What does the NAEP reading assessment measure? Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/reading/whatmeasure.asp.
42. National Assessment of Educational Progress (2008). Reading framework for the 2009 National Assessment of Educational Progress. National Assessment Governing Board. Washington, DC: USDOE.
43. National Center for Education Statistics (2009). The nation's report card: Trial urban district assessment- reading 2009. (NCES 2010–459). National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education, Washington, D.C.
44. National Research Council (2011) Framework for K-12 science education. National Science Board. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
45. Norris, S. P., & Phillips, L. M. (2003). How literacy in its fundamental sense is central to scientific literacy. Science Education 87, 224–240.
46. 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.
47. Pearson, P. D., Moje, E., & Greenleaf, C. (2010). Literacy and science: Each in the service of the other. Science, 328, 459–463.
48. Pellegrino, J. W, Chudowsky, N, & Glaser, R. (Eds.). (2001). Knowing what students know. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
49. th century. School Science and Mathematics, 110, 10–20.
50. 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.
51. 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.
52. 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 Douglas, R, Klentschy, M, & Worth, K. (Eds.). Linking science and literacy in the k-8 classroom. (pp. 391–405). Washington, DC: National Science Teachers Association.
53. 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.
54. Romance, N. R., & Vitale, M. R. (2008). Perspectives for improving school instruction and learning: An interdisciplinary model for integrating science and reading in grades K-5. University of Chicago Committee on Education—Workshop on Education, Chicago, IL.
55. Romance, N. R., & Vitale, M. R. (2011). A research-based instructional model for integrating meaningful learning in elementary science and reading comprehension: Implications for policy and practice. (pp. 262–293). In N. Stein, & S. Raudenbush (Eds.). Developmental cognitive science goes to school. New York: Routledge.
56. Romance, N. R., & Vitale, M. R. (2012). Science IDEAS: A research-based K-5 interdisciplinary instructional model linking science and literacy. Science Educator, 21(1), 1–12.
57. Schmidt, W. H., McKnight, C. C., & Raizen, S. A. (1997). A splintered vision: An investigation of U.S. science and mathematics education. (Vol. III). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
58. 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.
59. 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. Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
60. th Annual Literacy Conference, University of Central Florida, Orlando, FL.
61. Smith, C., Wiser, M., Anderson, C. A., & Krajcik, J. (2006). Implications of research on children's learning for standards and assessment: A proposed learning progression for matter and atomic molecular theory. Measurement: Interdisciplinary Research and Perspectives, 4, 45–67.
62. Smith, C., Wiser, M., Anderson, C. A., Krajcik, J., & Coppola, B. (2004). Implications of research on children's learning for assessment: Matter and atomic molecular theory. Committee on Test Design for K-12 Science Achievement, Washington, DC: National Research Council.
63. Snow, C. E. (2002). Reading for understanding: Toward a research and development program in reading comprehension. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.
64. Stephens, M., & Coleman, M. (2007). Comparing PIRLS and PISA with NAEP in reading, mathematics and science (Working Paper). U.S. Department of Education. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/Surveys/PISA/pdf/comppaper12082004.pdf.
65. Van den Broek, P. (2010). Using texts in science education: Cognitive processes and knowledge representation. Science, 328, 453–456.
66. Vitale, M. R., & Romance, N. R. (2007). A knowledge-based framework for unifying content-area reading comprehension and reading comprehension strategies. In D. McNamara (Ed.). Reading comprehension strategies: Theory, interventions, and technologies (pp. 73–104). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
67. Vitale, M. R., & Romance, N. R. (2010). Toward a curricular policy for advancing school reform by integrating reading comprehension within time-expanded science instruction in grades K-5. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Philadelphia, PA.
68. Vitale, M. R., & Romance, N. R. (2011). Adaptation of a knowledge-based instructional intervention to accelerate student learning in science and early literacy in grades 1 and 2. Journal of Curriculum and Instruction, 5(2), 79–93.
69. Vitale, M. R., Romance, N. R., & Crawley, F. (2010). Trends in science education research published in the Journal of Research in Science Teaching: A longitudinal policy perspective. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Philadelphia, PA.
70. Vitale, M. R., Romance, N. R., & Dolan, M. (2006). In M. McMahon, P. Simmons, R. Sommers, D. DeBaets, & F. Crawley (Eds.). Assessment in science: Practical experiences and education research. Arlington, VA: NSTA Press.
71. Vitale, M. R., Romance, N. R., Klentschy, M. (2006). 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.
72. Walsh, K. (2003). Basal readers: The lost opportunity to build the background knowledge that propels comprehension. American Educator, 27(1), 24–27.
73. Webb, P. (2010). Science education and literacy: Imperatives for the developed and developing world. Science, 328, 448–450.