The effects of educative curriculum materials on teachers' Use of instructional strategies for English language learners in science and on student learning

Contemporary Educational Psychology

Volumn 40, Issue , 2015, Pages 86-98

  Cervetti, Gina N ^a   Kulikowich, Jonna M ^b   Bravo, Marco A ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN   (United States)

^b PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^c SANTA CLARA UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Educative curriculum materials; English language learners; Instructional strategies; Science instruction; Teacher learning

Indexed keywords

EID: 84920273918     PISSN: 0361476X     EISSN: 10902384     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.cedpsych.2014.10.005     Document Type: Article

References (71)

1. Alexander P.A. Mapping the multidimensional nature of domain learning: The interplay of cognitive, motivational, and strategic forces. Advances in motivation and achievement 1997, Vol. 10:213-250. JAI Press, Greenwich, CT.
2. Armstrong J.E., Collier G.E. Science in biology: An introduction 1990, Waveland Press, Prospect Heights, IL.
3. August D., Branum-Martin L., Cardenas-Hagan E., Francis D.J. The impact of an instructional intervention on the science and language learning of middle grade ELLs. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness 2009, 2:345-376.
4. Ball D.L., Cohen D.K. Reform by the book: What is-or might be-the role of curriculum materials in teacher learning and instructional reform?. Educational Researcher 1996, 25(6-8):14.
5. Batalova J., Fix M., Murray J. Measures of change: The demography and literacy of adolescent English language learners 2006, Migration Policy Institute, Washington, DC.
6. Beyer C.J., Davis E.A. Using educative curriculum materials to support preservice elementary teachers' curricular planning: A comparison between two different forms of support. Curriculum Inquiry 2009, 39:679-703.
7. Beyer C.J., Delgado C., Davis E.A., Krajcik J. Investigating teacher learning supports in high school biology curricula programs to inform the design of educative curriculum materials. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 2009, 46:977-998.
8. Billman, A. K., & Cervetti, G. N. (2012, April). Building a teaching intervention for English language learners. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Vancouver, Canada.
9. Blank, R. K., de las Alas, N., & Smith, C. (2008). Does teacher professional development have effects on teaching and learning? Analysis of evaluation findings from programs for mathematics and science teachers in 14 states. Washington, D.C.: The Council of Chief State School Officers. http://www.ccsso.org/documents/2008/does_teacher_professional_development_2008.pdf.
10. Borko, H., & Putnam, R. T. (1996). Learning to teach. New York, NY: Macmillan Library Reference USA; London, England: Prentice Hall International.
11. Bodzin A., Peffer T., Kulo V. The efficacy of educative curriculum materials to support geospatial science pedagogical content knowledge. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education 2012, 20:361-386.
12. Bravo M.A., Cervetti G.N. Teaching vocabulary through text and experience. What research has to say about vocabulary instruction 2008, 130-149. International Reading Association, Newark, DE. A.E. Farstrup, S.J. Samuels (Eds.).
13. Bravo M.A., Cervetti G.N. Attending to the language and literacy needs of English Learners in science. Equity & Excellence in Education 2014, 47:230-245.
14. Butler R. Striving to connect: Extending an achievement goal approach to teacher motivation to include relational goals for teaching. Journal of Educational Psychology 2012, 104:726-742.
15. California Department of Education (CDE). (2014). CalEdFacts. http://www.cde.ca.gov/re/pn/fb/index.asp.
16. Carlo M.S., August D., McLaughlin B., Snow C.E., Dressler C., Lippman D.N., et al. Closing the gap: Addressing the vocabulary needs of English language learners in bilingual and mainstream classrooms. Reading Research Quarterly 2004, 39:188-215.
17. Cervetti G.N., Barber J., Dorph R., Pearson P.D., Goldschmidt P. The impact of an integrated approach to science and literacy in elementary school classrooms. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 2012, 49(5):631-658.
18. Cervetti, G. N., Bravo, M. A., Duong, T., Hernandez, S., & Tilson, J. (2008). A research-based approach to instruction for English language learners in science. Report prepared for the Noyce Foundation. June 27, 2008.
19. Cervetti G.N., Pearson P.D., Bravo M.A., Barber J. Reading and writing in the service of inquiry-based science. Linking science and literacy in the K-8 classroom 2006, 221-244. NSTA, Arlington, VA. R. Douglas, M. Klentschy, K. Worth (Eds.).
20. Chamot A.U., O'Malley J.M. The Cognitive Academic Language Learning Approach (CALLA): A model for linguistically diverse classrooms. The Elementary School Journal 1996, 96:259-273.
21. Charalambous C.Y., Hill H.C. Teacher knowledge, curriculum materials, and quality of instruction: Unpacking a complex relationship. Journal of Curriculum Studies 2012, 44:443-466.
22. Cohen J. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences 1988, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ. 2nd ed.
23. Collopy R. Curriculum materials as a professional development tool: How a mathematics textbook affected two teachers' learning. The Elementary School Journal 2003, 103:287-311.
24. Cooper T.C. Processing of idioms by L2 learners of English. Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages Quarterly 1999, 33:233-262.
25. Cuevas P., Lee O., Hart J., Deaktor R. Improving science inquiry with elementary students of diverse backgrounds. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 2005, 42:337-357.
26. Davis E.A., Beyer C., Forbes C.T., Stevens S. Understanding pedagogical design capacity through teachers' narratives. Teaching and Teacher Education 2011, 27:797-810.
27. Davis E.A., Krajcik J. Designing educative curriculum materials to promote teacher learning. Educational Researcher 2005, 34:3-14.
28. Drake C., Sherin M.G. Practicing change: Curriculum adaptation and teacher narrative in the context of mathematics education reform. Curriculum Inquiry 2006, 36:153-187.
29. Duncan R.G., El-Moslimany H., McDonnell J., Lichtenwalner S. Supporting teachers' use of a project-based learning environment in ocean science: Web-based educative curriculum materials. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education 2011, 19:449-472.
30. Echevarria J., Richards-Tutor C., Chinn V.P., Ratleff A.R. Did they get it? The role of fidelity in teaching English learners. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy 2011, 54:425-434.
31. Echevarria J., Vogt M., Short D.J. Making content comprehensible for English Language Learners: The SIOP Model 2008, Allen & Bacon, Boston, MA.
32. Fradd S.H., Lee O., Sutman F.X., Saxton M.K. Materials development promoting science inquiry with ELLs: A case study. Bilingual Research Journal 2002, 25:479-501.
33. Fulp S.L. Status of elementary school science teaching: 2000 survey of science and mathematics education 2002, Horizon Research Inc., Chapel Hill, NC.
34. Gándara P., Hopkins M. Forbidden languages: English learners and restrictive language policies 2010, Teachers College Press, New York, NY.
35. Gandara P., Maxwell-Jolly J., Driscoll A. Listening to teachers of English language learners: A survey of California teachers' challenges, experiences, and professional development needs 2005, Center for the Future of Teaching and Learning, Santa Cruz, CA.
36. Gibbons B. Supporting elementary science education for English learners: A constructivist evaluation instrument. Journal of Educational Research 2003, 96:371-380.
37. Guglielmi R.S. Math and science achievement in English language learners: Multivariate latent growth modeling and predictors, mediators, and moderators. Journal of Educational Psychology 2012, 104:580-602.
38. Jöreskog K.G., Sörbom D. LISREL 8: User's reference guide 1999, Scientific Software International, Lincolnwood, IL.
39. Jimenez R.T., Garcia G.E., Pearson P.D. The reading strategies of bilingual Latina/o students who are successful English readers: Opportunities and obstacles. Reading Research Quarterly 1996, 31:90-112.
40. Kasden L.M. Some problems in dealing with gain scores. Reading World 1977, 16:178-187.
41. Krashen S. Explorations in language acquisition and use: The Taipei lectures 2002, Crane Publishing Co, Taipei, Taiwan.
42. Lara-Alecio R., Tong F., Irby B.J., Guerrero C., Huerta M., Fan Y. The effect of an instructional intervention on middle school English learners' science and English reading achievement. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 2012, 49:987-1011.
43. Lee O., Fradd S.H. Interactional patterns of linguistically diverse students and teachers: Insights for promoting science learning. Linguistics and Education 1996, 8:269-297.
44. Lee O. Science education with English language learners: Synthesis and research agenda. Review of Educational Research 2005, 75:491-530.
45. Lee O., Deaktor R.A., Hart J.E., Cuevas P., Enders C. An instructional intervention's impact on the science and literacy achievement of culturally and linguistically diverse elementary students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 2005, 42:857-887.
46. Lee O., Maerten-Rivera J., Penfield R.D., LeRoy K., Secada Urban elementary teachers' perspectives on teaching science to English language learners. Journal of Science Teacher Education 2009, 20:263-286.
47. Lee O., Maerten-Rivera J., Penfield R.D., LeRoy K., Secada Science achievement of ELLs in urban elementary schools: Results of a first-year professional development intervention. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 2008, 45:31-52.
48. Lin S., Lieu S., Chen S., Huang M., Chang W. Affording explicit-reflective science teaching by using an educative teacher's guide. International Journal of Science Education 2012, 34:999-1026.
49. Lynch S., Kuipers J., Pyke C., Szesze M. Examining the effects of a highly rated science curriculum unit on diverse students: Results from a planning grant. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 2005, 42:912-946.
50. MacCallum R.C., Browne M.W., Sugawara H.M. Power analysis and determination of sample size for covariance structure modeling. Psychological Methods 1996, 1:130-149.
51. McDonald R.P. Test theory: A unified treatment 1999, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ.
52. Moschkovich J. Language and mathematics education: Multiple perspectives and directions for research 2010, Information Age Publishing, Charlotte, NC.
53. National Education Association. (2011). An NEA Policy Brief: Professional development of general education teachers of English Language Learners. Washington, DC: NEA Quality School Programs and Resources Department. http://www.nea.org/assets/docs/PB32_ELL11.pdf.
54. Penuel W.R., Fishman B., Yamaguchi R., Gallagher L. What makes professional development effective? Strategies that foster curriculum implementation. American Educational Research Journal 2007, 44:921-958.
55. Peregoy S.F., Boyle O.F. Reading, writing, and learning in ESL: A resource book for K-12 teachers 2008, Addison-Wesley, New York, NY. 5th ed.
56. Raudenbush S.W., Bryk A.S. Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods 2002, Sage, Newbury Park, CA. 2nd ed.
57. Remillard J.T. Can curriculum materials support teachers' learning? Two fourth-grade teachers' use of a new mathematics text. The Elementary School Journal 2000, 100:331-350.
58. Remillard J.T., Bryans M.B. Teachers' orientations toward mathematics curriculum materials: Implications for teacher learning. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education 2004, 35(5):352-388.
59. Schneider R.M. Opportunities for teacher learning during enactment of inquiry science curriculum materials: Exploring the potential for teacher educative materials. Journal of Science Teacher Education 2013, 24:323-346.
60. Schneider R.M., Krajcik J., Blumenfeld P. Enacting reform-based science materials: The range of teacher enactments in reform classrooms. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 2005, 42:283-312.
61. Schneider R.M., Krajcik J., Marx R. The role of educative curriculum materials in reforming science education. Fourth international conference of the learning sciences 2000, 54-61. Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ. B. Fishman, S. O'Connor-Divelbiss (Eds.).
62. Scribner J.P. Professional development: Untangling the influences of work context on teacher learning. Educational Administration Quarterly 1999, 35:238-266.
63. Short D.J., Fidelman C., Louguit M. Developing academic language in English language learners through the SIOP model. TESOL Quarterly 2012, 46:334-361.
64. Singer J.D. Using SAS PROC Mixed to fit multilevel models, hierarchical models, and individual growth models. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics 1998, 24(4):323-355.
65. Snijders T., Bosker R.J. Multilevel analysis: An introduction to basic and advanced multilevel modeling 1999, Sage Publications, London, UK.
66. Truscott D.M., Truscott S.D. A professional development model for the positive practice of school-based reading consultation. Psychology in the Schools 2004, 41(1):51-65.
67. Walqui A. Scaffolding instruction for English language learners: A conceptual framework. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 2006, 9:159-180.
68. Webster-Wright A. Reframing professional development through understanding authentic professional learning. Review of Educational Research 2009, 79:702-739.
69. Weiss I.R., Banilower E.R., McMahon K.C., Smith P.S. Report of the 2000 National Survey of Science and Mathematics Education 2001, Horizon Research, Chapel Hill, NC.
70. Wong-Fillmore L. English learners and mathematical learning: Language issues to consider. Assessing Mathematical Proficiency 2007, 53:333-344.
71. Yoon, K. S., Duncan, T., Lee, S. W., Scarloss, B., & Shapley, K. L. (2007). Reviewing the evidence on how teacher professional development affects student achievement (Issues & Answers Report, REL 2007-No. 033). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Regional Educational Laboratory Southwest. http://www.ies.ed.gov/ncee/edlabs.