This article was downloaded by: [The Aga Khan University]On: 31 October 2014, At: 07:32Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Educational Action ResearchPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/reac20

Building bridges: using science as a tool to teachreading and writingDelna Nixon a & Valarie L. Akerson ba Finley Elementary School , USAb Indiana University , USAPublished online: 20 Dec 2006.

To cite this article: Delna Nixon & Valarie L. Akerson (2004) Building bridges: using science as a tool to teach reading andwriting, Educational Action Research, 12:2, 197-218, DOI: 10.1080/09650790400200245

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09650790400200245

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) containedin the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of theContent. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, andare not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon andshould be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable forany losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use ofthe Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematicreproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in anyform to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Educational Action Research, Volume 12, Number 2, 2004

197

Building Bridges: using science as a tool to teach reading and writing

DELNA NIXON Finley Elementary School, USA VALARIE L. AKERSON Indiana University, USA

ABSTRACT The purpose of this study was to track the development of fifth-

graders’ reading and writing skills in the context of ecosystems science content

using an action research design. A collection of students' work, a researcher

journal, video-taped class sessions, student science journals and a weekly book

choice checklist were used as data sources. Student journals, guided note

taking and the PAR (Preparation-Assistance-Reflection) Lesson Framework were

used for writing activities connected to the science content, and pre-reading

activities, PAR Lesson Framework and book choice checklist were used as

reading activities related to science content. It was found that interdisciplinary

instruction of reading and science offered more advantages to reading than

writing and science did to writing. In fact, the constraints of teaching various

writing structures in the context of science often outweighed any benefits to

either writing or science understanding. Implications include maintaining

specific disciplinary instruction when necessary to ensure students meet both

science and language arts objectives.

Introduction

There are many reasons to consider the interdisciplinary instruction of science and language arts. The most compelling of these reasons is the evidence showing cognitive parallels between the two subjects (Romance & Vitale, 1992; Baker & Saul, 1994; Glynn & Muth, 1994; Rivard, 1994). However, whether there is equal developmental progress in both disciplines concurrently is still unclear. The focus of recent research has been upon using reading and writing to teach science (e.g. Akerson & Flanigan, 2000). The results of this research have persuasively shown that there is a clear benefit to science comprehension when the interdisciplinary instruction of the two subjects is done with careful planning (Romance & Vitale, 1992; Gaskins & Guthrie, 1994; Glynn & Muth, 1994; Keys, 1994; Schmidt,

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Aga

Kha

n U

nive

rsity

] at

07:

32 3

1 O

ctob

er 2

014

Delna Nixon & Valarie L. Akerson

198

1999). What has not been investigated in depth is whether reading and writing skills also show significant development through this interdisciplinary instruction. The shortage of adequate class time is a persuasive reason to combine subject areas, but at the foundation of quality learning in most subjects is the ability to read and write. Moreover, if there is no evidence that reading and writing improve while using science as a context, it is not worthwhile to always teach in an interdisciplinary fashion. It is important to focus upon the impact of the interdisciplinary instruction of these subject areas on the reading and writing objectives, as well as the science objectives. Thus, the focus of this study is to track development of reading and writing skills when taught in an interdisciplinary science unit.

Purpose

Glynn & Muth (1994) state that ‘learning to read prepares a student for reading to learn’ (p. 1060) and that ‘learning to write prepares students for writing to learn’ (p. 1064). Thus, learning to read and write influences students’ abilities to use those skills to learn science. The question remains as to whether students can learn to read and write successfully within the context of informational content like science. Meaningful activities that teach writing and reading, such as searching through science text and writing a report, can be excellent methods for promoting language art skills, but do not necessarily engage students in actually understanding the science concepts (Dickinson et al, 1997). The use of interactive, inquiry-based science activities to create a reason for reading and writing could theoretically establish a methodical approach to learning that would benefit the development of these language arts skills and may also aid in learning science content.

Background

Casteel & Isom (1994) emphasise the interrelated connection between language arts and science in their statement that ‘one way to ensure improved science learning is to begin with what students know about the reading and writing processes’ (p. 538). Science can provide a context through which students can communicate their ideas through already known language arts skills. They can then further their language arts’ understandings by using science as a context. Smith & Johnson (1994) believe that ‘literature can become the lens through which content is viewed’ (p. 198) and that the interdisciplinary connections of the curriculum set the stage for students to read, think, communicate and make decisions about all kinds of information that they encounter.

While science and language arts may have objectives that are at times disparate (Dickinson & Young, 1998; Akerson, 2001) there are also sub-structural elements in both which are analogous (Romance & Vitale, 1992; Gaskins & Guthrie, 1994; Schmidt, 1999). Reading, writing and science all require a combination of the utilisation of cognitive processes and the

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Aga

Kha

n U

nive

rsity

] at

07:

32 3

1 O

ctob

er 2

014

USING SCIENCE TO TEACH READING AND WRITING

199

activation of conceptual knowledge. The cognitive strategies that are applicable to reading and writing are comparable with the strategies used to construct science understanding (Baker & Saul, 1994; Glynn & Muth, 1994; Rivard, 1994). A study by Keys (1994) demonstrated a direct correlation between students’ writing for structured investigation reports and the development of scientific reasoning skill. Casteel & Isom (1994) formulated an illustration of the supportive nature of literacy processes to science understanding that included predicting, organising, questioning and evaluating. The process of reading begins with identifying the topic of the text and then using relevant background knowledge about that topic; the initial step of experimenting in science involves identifying the problem and making connections and observations about it. Padilla et al (1991) believe that ‘it would be naïve to assume that a one-to-one relationship exists among all the science and reading processes’, but they also state that ‘several critical similarities exist’ and that we can ‘use these similarities to apply the skills taught in science to comprehension of written assignments’ (p. 17). (See Table I for a comparison of reading and science elements.) Liu & Akerson (2002) found that fourth grade students’ science inquiry skills improved as a result of writing in science, but state that a need exists to explore the influence of such a curriculum on reading and writing skills. There obviously is good reason to use language arts skills of reading and writing to aid in science instruction, and science instruction to prompt reading and writing. Integration of the curriculum involves the activation of conceptual knowledge and cognitive processes that help create a meaningful connection.

Reading Science Use observation of textual elements to predict topic – format, pictures, cover and title pages

Use observation of materials and activities to predict causes

Identifying topic of the text Identifying the problem that needs explanation

Use background knowledge to make connections

Use background knowledge to make connections

Make inferences about what is happening in the text

Make inferences about observations and interactions

Draw conclusions about what happened in the text and why

Draw conclusions about what is happening with the materials and why

Table I. Common elements between reading and science.

Research Questions

As prior research discussed above has shown, the process skills that science and language arts have in common are making and verifying predictions, making inferences and drawing conclusions. It seems that the use of hands-on activities, which are inherent to a good science program, could provide a stimulating arena for the concurrent teaching of the basic

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Aga

Kha

n U

nive

rsity

] at

07:

32 3

1 O

ctob

er 2

014

Delna Nixon & Valarie L. Akerson

200

skills in communication. Drawing upon the parallels between the two disciplines, the questions that drove this study were:

• How does the use of science topics during language arts instruction influence the development of reading and writing skills?

• Does using science to provide a purpose for reading and writing influence non fiction science reading choices?

Procedures

Because I was interested in exploring the influence of a science context on the development of elementary students’ language arts skills, I designed an action research project to be carried out in my internship in a fifth grade classroom. While I was interested in what other researchers had to say about the subject, it seemed that most researchers had studied the influence of writing and reading skills on science knowledge. Moreover, I wanted to see the kinds of strategies I could use, as a classroom teacher, to influence my students’ reading and writing skills in the context of science. Thus, I decided to use an action research project where I designed and carried out a study in my own internship placement, using Hubbard & Power (1993) as a guide. I also worked with a university researcher for support and advice in designing, carrying out, analysing and interpreting the data from the study.

Intervention

The setting of this study was a typical fifth grade classroom in Southeastern Washington. There were 27 students, 16 girls and 11 boys, between the ages of 10 and 12. The school was set in a middle-class neighborhood. The research was conducted during the solo-teaching phase of my internship. The cooperating teacher had no special interest in science, but did teach it on a regular basis. The science content was ecosystems, which was already selected by my cooperating teacher. I used the National Science Resource Center (NSRC, 1996) Science and Technology for Children Ecosystems curriculum for instruction. As is emphasised in this curriculum, I focused on inquiry methods and hands-on investigations during science. The student reading selections were included in the student guides. The investigations included observing and making inferences of student-built terrariums and aquaria under different simulated conditions, such as pollution. The inquiry and hands-on science instruction took place during the class time allotted for science instruction.

My definition of interdisciplinary instruction was modeled after Akins & Akerson (2002), which delineates a distinction between integrated and interdisciplinary instruction. Integrated instruction is a kind of instruction where the distinctions between disciplines are lost, where teachers are not making explicit when students are learning science or when they are learning reading, for instance. I used the interdisciplinary instruction definition, which states that students can use and see connections between

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Aga

Kha

n U

nive

rsity

] at

07:

32 3

1 O

ctob

er 2

014

USING SCIENCE TO TEACH READING AND WRITING

201

disciplines, but the disciplines still remain distinct. That is, whilst students use reading and writing to learn science and science is used as a context for reading and writing, they still know the distinctions between the disciplines. Thus, the language arts content was taught in an interdisciplinary fashion with the science content.

The specific objectives for the language arts portion of the study were for students to increase the amount of time spent reading non-fiction science trade books and appropriately use various writing structures, such as expository, business letter format, descriptive, writing to learn (journal) and essay. The reading and writing intervention, modeled after the PAR Lesson Framework (Richardson & Morgan, 2000) took place during the language arts portion of the day, and took the entire class time allotted for literacy instruction. This framework for content-reading instruction included the following steps:

• Preparation, which considers textual features and student background knowledge;

• Assistance, where the instructional context for the lesson is provided; • Reflection, which provides critical thinking opportunities and openings

for extension activities and enhancement (pp. 6-7).

Each of these steps included a writing segment, which focused upon the science topic that was being investigated.

During the Preparation portion the students performed hands-on science activities and experimentation. The reading material used for this investigation was the Ecosystems Student Activity Books (NSRC, 1996). They completed What-I-Know-Activity (WIKA, Figure 1) and Anticipation Guide sheets (Figure 2) to help preview and ask questions about the upcoming reading.

What I know activity sheet: ___ Topic_________

What I know about ...

What I know about ... after preview

What I need to know as I read

What I know after reading

What I still need to know

Figure 1. Sample ‘What I Know Activity Sheet’.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Aga

Kha

n U

nive

rsity

] at

07:

32 3

1 O

ctob

er 2

014

Delna Nixon & Valarie L. Akerson

202

Anticipation Guide: (topic) Instructions: Before reading pages ... through ... in ... place a check mark in the space to the left of each of the statements with which you agree. Then during the reading, place a check on the right of the ones you find to be true. BE SURE YOU ARE ABLE TO REFER BACK TO THE TEXT TO PROVIDE EVIDENCE FOR OR AGAINST EACH STATEMENT.

True False True or false statement from text. True False

Figure 2. Sample Anticipation Guide.

The writing portion at this stage consisted of guided note taking in student science journals (Appendix 1) during investigation activities, as well as the completion of the pre-reading guides.

The Assistance step involved guided reading procedures that included pre- and post-reading activities with the whole class. Through the use of Venn diagrams for comparison and contrast, vocabulary lists, key concept clarification, and listing what the students learned from the reading I looked for inconsistencies in their knowledge. Keeping in mind the recommendation by Richardson & Morgan (2000) to set up a matrix for students to fill in as they read, I provided organisational charts that assisted the students to discover comparisons and contrasts that they completed during silent reading. These completed charts were used as study aides and included the social aspects of learning when groups or pairs of students finished them. The important vocabulary words were discussed and placed on a chart in the classroom.

The Reflection phase took place when students were given the opportunity to ask themselves what they learned and demonstrate their learning by writing a formal paper on the topic studied. Using the notes from science journals, the organisational charts and the Student Activity Books as informational sources the students concluded the unit with a one page expository paper. Preparation for this final paper included writing several drafts of a business letter, writing a descriptive paragraph, and a compare and contrast paragraph. The first topic, ‘What We are Doing in Science’, was used to model for the whole class how to write a letter to the principal to explain what they had been studying. This model included two paragraphs that each had a topic sentence, supporting details and a concluding sentence. After demonstration of the format of a business letter, each individual student wrote a letter. A modified rubric that is based on the six writing traits was used to score the papers (Figure 3). The original rubric that inspired this version was obtained from http://www.jerichoschools.org/seaman/classrooms/specials/reading/

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Aga

Kha

n U

nive

rsity

] at

07:

32 3

1 O

ctob

er 2

014

USING SCIENCE TO TEACH READING AND WRITING

203

writing.rubric.htm, which is published by the Jericho School District in New York. It allowed for assessment of important science content in the writing, as well as the completion of multiple drafts and revisions of written work.

WOW!!! YES! OK OOPS!

4 3 2 1

FOLLOWING DIRECTIONS Did I follow directions?

•Follows all directions

•Follows most directions

•Follows some directions

•Follows few directions

MEANING Did I show understanding? Did I make clear connections?

• Shows insightful understanding of important ideas •Makes strong connections and reflections

• Shows understanding of most of the important ideas•Makes a few connections and reflections

• Shows partial understanding of important ideas •Makes weak connections and reflections

• Show no understanding of important ideas (misses the point) •Makes no connections or reflections

SUPPORTING DETAILS Did I develop my writing?

• Uses specific details and accurate examples

• Uses adequate examples and details

• Uses minimal details and examples

• Uses few or no details and examples

ORGANISATION Did I organise my writing?

• Shows strong organisation with beginning, middle, and end

•Shows good attempt at organisation

• Shows some organisation

• Shows no organisation; confusing

EDITING Did I edit my work?

•No errors •Few errors that affect meaning

•Some errors that make meaning unclear

•Many errors that make meaning unclear

SPELLING

Misspellings only on challenging words

Misspellings on some basic grade-level words

Misspellings on many basic grade-level words

Misspellings make meaning unclear

WOW!!! YES! OK OOPS!

4 3 2 1

Figure 3.Writing Rubric used to assess student samples.

Data Collection

The data collection sources included the following:

• a collection of student written work prior to intervention, during the instruction phase and their final drafts;

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Aga

Kha

n U

nive

rsity

] at

07:

32 3

1 O

ctob

er 2

014

Delna Nixon & Valarie L. Akerson

204

• my daily journal in which I recorded observations and reflections of the implementation of writing in science activities;

• 16 hours of video-taped class sessions that specifically recorded student investigations prior to writing their papers and science and language arts instruction;

• collection of student science journals; • a weekly checklist that recorded book choices that were made by the

students during free reading time (Figure 4).

Non-Fiction? Student Name Book Title Yes No

Figure 4. Book choice checklist. The student journals were not graded for conventions, sentence fluency or word choice, but for evidence of thought and interpretation surrounding the science content. These journals were intended to be a forum for the students to combine the interactive, inquiry-based science activities with the information from reading into an informal written format. The process skills that language arts and science have in common (questioning, predicting, organising and evaluating) were all included in the Note Taking Guidelines (Appendix 1) used as writing prompts for science journals. The timeline for data collection is shown in Figure 5.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Aga

Kha

n U

nive

rsity

] at

07:

32 3

1 O

ctob

er 2

014

USING SCIENCE TO TEACH READING AND WRITING

205

Week One & Two Recorded observations in journal Video-taped during language arts and science instruction time Collected two book choice checklists

Week Three Recorded observations in journal Video-taped group instruction of letter to principal Implemented and collected student science journals

Week Four Recorded observations in journal Video-taped student investigations & research Collect student science journals Collect two book choice list Collected rough and final drafts of individual letters to principal

Week Five Recorded observations in journal Video-taped student investigations & research Collect student science journals Collect one book choice checklist Collected rough and final drafts of descriptive paragraph

Week Six, Seven & Eight Separated Writing and Science Instruction

Recorded observations in journal Collect student science journals Collect one book choice checklist Power Writing Instruction

Week Nine & Ten Recombined Science and Writing Instruction

Record observation in journal Collect and conduct student self-evaluation of science journals with rubric Collect one book choice checklist Collected rough and final drafts of Power Writing Compare and Contrast Paragraph and four-paragraph Expository Science Essay

Figure 5. Timeline for data collection.

Data Analysis

I reviewed all five data sources to determine whether the use of science had influenced students in developing their reading and writing skills. The formal expository essay was evaluated according to the guidelines defined in the rubric and was a tool for the final assessment of the impact of the interdisciplinary instruction of the science activities and writing instruction. I sought patterns of change in writing samples and scores by using the rubric to assess writing samples throughout the investigation. I noted on students’ writing samples any change in writing and whether the writing was sharing important science content knowledge information. Then I compared my written notes across all students’ writings, seeking patterns of change in all students’ writings.

The science journals were considered for their formative value in determining student science content understanding. The note-taking

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Aga

Kha

n U

nive

rsity

] at

07:

32 3

1 O

ctob

er 2

014

Delna Nixon & Valarie L. Akerson

206

guidelines provided a format to estimate whether the student was on track in their science learning or if they need to be guided to texts that would enhance their understanding. Change in student written responses prior to using the note-taking guidelines was noted in my own researcher log.

Videotapes of the instructional and investigative stages of this research project were used to verify that the interdisciplinary methods were being implemented successfully. The videotapes were viewed with the objective of noting student use of reading materials to satisfy a scientific inquiry. I looked for patterns in the videos that would indicate the impact on reading once a purpose had been provided by the science investigations. Student use of the Anticipation Guide and What I Know Activity sheets were specifically videotaped to determine their effectiveness in assessing the students’ ability to read for comprehension.

Comparative tabulation of the book choice checklists was an assessment of whether there was an increase in students who selected non-fiction books during free reading time. This selection of non-fiction books would be an indication that students were reading to seek explanation and meaning in science. Reading for a purpose has been shown to increase comprehension (Gaskins & Guthrie, 1994; Keys, 1994; Schmidt, 1999).

An analysis of the student papers and their rubric writing scores, triangulated with an investigation of the video tapes and my teaching journal, the book choice checklists and the student science journals was used to validate whether the science topic had impacted the students’ reading and writing skills. I also sought counter-examples in the students’ work to ensure my interpretations were accurate and fair.

Results

An analysis of the data sources revealed that the interdisciplinary instruction of reading with science and the interdisciplinary instruction of writing with science needed to be addressed as two separate issues. The science and reading objectives were, to a degree, both being met throughout the study. The writing objectives were not being met throughout the study, though there was an improvement in writing skills by the end of the study. The integration of the writing structures sometimes had a negative influence on the science objectives. This section provides results of the interdisciplinary instruction of reading and writing and science. The first sub-section illustrates results associated with reading skills and science, and the second sub-section shares results associated with writing skills and science.

Reading Skills

From the onset there was substantial success in the interdisciplinary instruction of reading with science. There were several indicators that the interdisciplinary instruction of reading and science was advantageous. These indicators included:

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Aga

Kha

n U

nive

rsity

] at

07:

32 3

1 O

ctob

er 2

014

USING SCIENCE TO TEACH READING AND WRITING

207

• students using their texts as resources to answer content questions; • student responses on the WIKA sheets.

However, the free choice reading log did not provide evidence that free reading choice of non-fiction books changed substantially. Table II gives an overview of the successes and challenges with using interdisciplinary science and reading instruction from this study.

Successes Challenges Students learned to preview texts before reading

Students needed to be prompted to use a text to answer questions

Students gained skills on how to read to obtain information

Self-selection of non-fiction books showed no substantial change

Reading and Science objectives of students verifying predictions were met The majority of the students self-corrected misinformation.

A multitude of aspects related to reading were not addressed due to the limitations set by science objectives (e.g. reader response, poetry, fairy tales, etc.)

Table II. Successes and challenges of interdisciplinary reading and science instruction. The successful achievement of science objectives using reading as a tool (Romance & Vitale, 1992) supports my prediction that there should also be a corresponding benefit to language arts. The processes that are intrinsic to efficient science comprehension are compatible with the processes that increase reading skills. Baker (1991) asserts that ‘one of the most important self-regulatory skills for reading is monitoring comprehension, which involves deciding whether we have understood (evaluation) and taken appropriate steps to correct whatever comprehension problems are noted (regulation)’ (p. 3). Evaluation and regulation are essential components of both science and reading. The goal was to encourage students to utilise reading strategies in their attempt to make sense of the science topics and as a result refine those reading skills as well.

A videotaped class session verified that students did use reading to make sense of science topics, but that the students initially needed to be prompted by the teacher before they thought to use the text to investigate a question. During the process of creating a Venn diagram of the similarities and differences of aquarium and terrarium animals a question was raised as to whether snails had eyes. There was an illustration in the text that the students had already read, but still a very vocal debate ensued among the students. At my prompting a student retrieved the text and read the appropriate segment aloud for the class. Thus, a desire to understand the science content encouraged students to read for meaning. Another incident occurred in which several students were arguing that the jelly-like masses in their ecocolumn were snail eggs and, again, when they turned to me for verification I directed them to the text. This incident was particularly encouraging because they read beyond the information that they were

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Aga

Kha

n U

nive

rsity

] at

07:

32 3

1 O

ctob

er 2

014

Delna Nixon & Valarie L. Akerson

208

seeking and added new knowledge about the reproduction of the fish, as well as the snails.

Further evidence that science and reading instruction are compatible is extracted from the analysis of the Anticipation Guide and What I Know Activity (WIKA) sheets. The Anticipation Guide prediction that a statement related to the science reading was true resulted in an average of 68% correct before the reading. The fact that 68% of the students’ predictions were accurate in advance of the reading could indicate that the reading selection may have been simple for them. However, the percentage that was correct after the text had been read increased to 92.3%. These percentages remained generally consistent for three separate Anticipation Guide science-reading assignments. The WIKA reading worksheets asked the students to record what they knew before the reading, what they knew after looking at the text with its pictures and diagrams, and what they knew after they read the text. The final section of WIKA asked the students if there was anything that they still were wondering. Comparative analysis of these sections gave evidence that the reading was used to process science information during the act of reading. The first time they completed the WIKA activity sheet, 10 students were able to correct misinformation that they had written in the first section (that isopods are insects) after they had completed the reading (they are related to lobsters). There were five students who did not correct their erroneous information after reading. The second time that the students completed the WIKA assignment there were 38 incidents in which students corrected misinformation statements and six that remained uncorrected. The relevancy of the questions that the students posed in the last section was inconsistent, with 27 questions being posed that were relevant and 15 questions that were either extraneous or were answerable from reading the text. The shared metacognitive skills, in both reading and science, of posing and verifying predictions, making inferences and drawing conclusions (Padilla et al, 1991), resulted in the data demonstrating a direct and beneficial correlation between them. Teaching students the reading strategies of how to preview a text and seek specific information was very compatible with science.

The evidence from the videotapes and journal entries that students needed to be prompted to expand scientific information from a text was verified by a review of the book choice checklists. The data collection was somewhat inhibited by the fact that there was no classroom library and the students were only allowed to visit the school library on Friday. Additionally, students did meet during library time on two Fridays because of snow days and school was closed two of the Fridays because of teacher workdays. The number of non-fiction books checked out by the students over the course of the implementation showed a slight positive change.

A further review of the book titles revealed that there were only four out of the total 67 non-fiction books checked out that could be viewed as books that were related to our specific science topic. (See Table III for quantities of non-fiction books checked out over the course of the study.) Triangulation of the book checkout data with my teaching journal, which

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Aga

Kha

n U

nive

rsity

] at

07:

32 3

1 O

ctob

er 2

014

USING SCIENCE TO TEACH READING AND WRITING

209

recorded a discussion with the school librarian requesting a display of relevant books, revealed that the high of 12 non-fiction books checked out at the end of February was prompted by that visual display. Previous to attending that library session students also received verbal encouragement from me to consider those books. Thus students did not check out more non-fiction books during the time of the study.

Number of non-fiction books checked out Week Number

1 8 2 6 3 9 4 12 5 10 6 11 7 11

Table III. Number of non-fiction books checked out over the course of the study.

Writing Skills

The interdisciplinary instruction of writing with science became problematic during the Preparation stage of this research. There were disadvantages that often outweighed the advantages of using science as a context to teach writing structures. It seemed that the kinds of writing structures to be taught did not always match the science content being taught, and there were conflicting objectives between science and writing. For instance, the note-taking guidelines that were set up to meet writing expectations reduced the amount and insightful aspects of the science thinking. The magnitude of the writing errors overshadowed the science objectives. The number of revisions necessary to meet writing objectives had the effect of reducing student interest and involvement in science. Imposing a defined structure for writing resulted in nearly identical paragraphs and limited science information processing. See Table IV for a chart of advantages and disadvantages associated with interdisciplinary science and writing instruction found in this study.

In accordance with the PAR (Preparation-Assistance-Reflection) plan the students were given a science journal to record their hands-on activities during this initial stage. The note taking guidelines (Appendix 1) were introduced as a guide to help students get started taking notes, but were not a requirement; they should feel free to write whatever they considered significant. After they had been writing in their notebooks for eight days, I stipulated that they were now required to use the guidelines, and it had the negative effect of reducing the amount and the insightful aspects of their writing. Following is an example of a science journal entry (complete with grammatical and spelling errors made by the student) without the guidelines:

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Aga

Kha

n U

nive

rsity

] at

07:

32 3

1 O

ctob

er 2

014

Delna Nixon & Valarie L. Akerson

210

Hand Lense Investigations In the terrarum I see lots of roots sprouting in the mustard spot, and the Alfalfa. In the Alfalfa I think I buried it to deep. I wounder why the grass is not sprouting, maybe I didn’t plant them well. It’s weird because not all of the mustard seeds are growing, and most of the Alfalfa seeds are (Watered it 11 times) In the aquarium they’res buble everywere for some reason. From the Algae the water looks more dirty. Looking through the lense the water looks like it has little pieces of hair in it. I think the Algae is making the water smell like its from the river. I have been woundering why they call duckweed duckweed but it’s because ducks eat it and other animals.

After I began requiring the students to use the note taking guidelines, the same student made this entry in her journal:

1. Today we aereated our aquarium. When we put air in it the fish swam close to wear we were aereated also the duckweed started geting closer. 2. I think we may have babie snails their 3. I have observed poop on some leaves. Relly small so I’m not sure. 4. I’m not sure if anytthing is going to happen 5. Nothing really happened. 6. Same 7. I think we are going to add duckweed again in a few weeks. 8. there is a drawing at the top ^ 9. I’m still wondering if we have babie snails.

This example of the reduction in the quality of the processing of their science thinking was replicated in student after student. Instead of using the guidelines as prompts to write more, they simplified their answers to basically yes or no responses, with less detail and evidence of thought. The impact on science, as well as the volume and quality of the writing, was negative. Thus, using guidelines to focus their science writing was not beneficial. This writing structure did not work well in the context of science content.

Successes Challenges Helped students explore their own science understandings through open-ended journals

The selected writing structures often decreased the amount of reflective science writing in journals and other venues

Helped students record and communicate science knowledge gained by end of unit

Some writing structures were not taught due to limitations set by science objectives

Allows students to summarise and demonstrate science learning throughout unit (in open ended journals)

Writing structures deterred science content exploration and enthusiasm for science

Table IV. Successes and challenges of interdisciplinary writing and science instruction.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Aga

Kha

n U

nive

rsity

] at

07:

32 3

1 O

ctob

er 2

014

USING SCIENCE TO TEACH READING AND WRITING

211

During the Assistance phase I modeled how to write a two-paragraph business letter to the principal using a topic sentence, supporting details and a concluding sentence for each paragraph. I also directed the students to use the vocabulary lists and science charts that we had created as a class to get information for their individual letters to the principal. The first draft that was turned in astounded me in the lack of ability in writing. I expected much more from fifth grade students. Perhaps it is because of my inexperience in working with fifth graders, but I seriously believed their writing skills would be stronger. While the students seemed to enjoy the hands-on investigations, it is evident that they did not enjoy written communication about their investigations, nor could they effectively use the writing structure. Of the 22 letters that I received, there were only two that followed the guidelines, which required that both paragraphs had a topic sentence, supporting details and a concluding sentence. All of the letters contained misspelled words that were part of the environmental print (i.e. correct spellings could easily have been found in the classroom environment). The subsequent corrections and requirement to re-write was met with great dismay on the part of the students. There were 10 students who had to write more than two drafts.

The next assignment, to write a descriptive paragraph with the writing prompt ‘Imagine that you are an animal in your ecocolumn and describe a day in your life’, was meant to simplify the task of writing one basic paragraph. The first draft of this assignment was even more alarming in the lack of structure. Again, I expected that fifth grade students would have much stronger writing skills, and would be able to follow directions given to them for writing a single paragraph. It became apparent to me that these students would need basic instruction on how to formulate a paragraph. The following is an example turned in from a high achieving student of the rough draft of her descriptive paragraph:

Hi! My name is Manpie but there are these two girls that are big, huge hue-hue-humans. They call me small and my partner big. We hate it. When we’re all sound asleep they always tap our container and wake us up. By the way did I tell you we are in this small container that bugs us. It really hurts when they knock it over. Well I go the yans and It’s getting dark. So see you later. Bye.

The example does not show development of a main idea in the paragraph or evidence of any science content understanding. Again, the number of times that many of the students had to rewrite their paragraphs was discouraging to them. They quickly lost interest and enthusiasm for the topic of science. There was clearly a gap in the objectives that needed to be achieved in writing and the objectives that had previously been progressing well in science. I made the decision at this point that it had become necessary to separate the two subjects to maintain student growth in both content areas.

Within my writing instruction I began to implement a highly structured sequence of instructions for writing called Power Writing. I was

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Aga

Kha

n U

nive

rsity

] at

07:

32 3

1 O

ctob

er 2

014

Delna Nixon & Valarie L. Akerson

212

hoping that giving students some structure would help them improve their writing more quickly. This teaching structure, introduced by Sparks (1982) in his book Write for Power, assigns a number value to words, phrases and sentences. It helps keep the writer on the topic and teaches a way to organise thinking into cohesive, logical paragraphs. There are five stages that a student proceeds through before they are ready to write a paper. Because of the necessity for repetition to obtain mastery I decided to allow the students to pick a topic that interested them while they were progressing through the first four of the five stages. In spite of high interest and involvement in the class science inquiry activities, no student chose to write about science. This lack of science selection could indicate they saw no role for writing in science or perhaps they were simply more interested in writing about other non-science topics that related more to their personal lives. After 3 weeks of intensive instruction in writing I returned to the topic of science, and assigned a paragraph that would compare and contrast the aquarium and terrarium environments of their ecocolumns. It was encouraging to see the average grade for the final draft increased to 92.1%. However, the impact of imposing this very defined written structure on the science topic resulted in paragraphs that were nearly identical and limited the science information processing. It was not clear what their science understandings were, but it was clear that they could successfully use this writing strategy.

The final four-paragraph essay assignment was meant to be an instrument to help determine whether the merging of the science topic with writing requirements was successful at the final stage of instruction. The following is two of the four paragraphs by one student of an essay titled ‘What We Did In Science’:

In science we made an ecocolumn. We built a terrarium and an aquarium. We did this so we could see how our world works. We also polluted our classroom ecosystems. The reason we did this science experiment was so we could see how our world works. For example, we have a lamp for the sun, which evaporates the water from the aquarium into the terrarium. It then forms clouds and since it’s in a bottle and it’s covered, just like our world, it then rains. This means that we don’t need to water it.

The results of this essay were much more satisfactory in their adherence to basic grammatical structure and the actual learning that had occurred in science became more evident.

Thus, although it is apparent that there was a struggle to attain this level of writing in science, it is evident that, by the end of the study, students could use writing to describe science. Some writing strategies were compatible with science instruction. Certain structures are more amenable to science writing. Writing structures that were open-ended and did not require revision were compatible. Science concepts seemed to lose impact and importance to the students when they were required to re-write, re-

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Aga

Kha

n U

nive

rsity

] at

07:

32 3

1 O

ctob

er 2

014

USING SCIENCE TO TEACH READING AND WRITING

213

word and edit their papers; thus structures that required this focus were not as effective in supporting science learning and science did not always serve as a vehicle for this writing. Students may not self-select to write about science topics and it may be better for students to learn to use a specific writing structure if they can select a topic that is meaningful to them. Writing was an effective medium for my students to demonstrate and summarise their science learning, but the instruction phase of writing needed a variety of topics to keep the students engaged and motivated. If they were forced to use a specific writing structure they were much less able to show their science knowledge.

There was a distinct disadvantage to science learning that resulted from the total interdisciplinary instruction of science and writing, because certain structures inhibited the sharing and development of science knowledge. Thus, I learned that while interdisciplinary science and writing instruction can be beneficial, there are cautions to using it and times to simply use separate disciplinary specific science and writing instruction. I ended up returning to the free-writing format for science journals, and continued selecting writing structures, such as essay and free paragraph writing, for descriptions of what students were learning. I discontinued using formal structures, such as business letters and Power Writing structures that required students to create multiple drafts, and perfect grammar and sentence structure. Instead, when I wanted to teach those formal structures I allowed students to select their own writing topics. By allowing students to select their own writing topics I enabled them to write about what they wanted within the confines of learning a new writing structure. Thus, they were able to focus on learning only one new objective – that of the writing structure – and did not have to focus on meeting a science objective as well.

Implications

The results of this research will influence whether and to what degree I will use interdisciplinary teaching for reading, writing and science in my own classroom. It seems logical to combine reading and science because it appears to be a very effective way to teach students the strategies for reading to obtain information. However, reading to obtain information is only one of the objectives of reading, and there are many reading skills and strategies, such as interpreting a poem that might be difficult to combine with science. Thus, I recommend that science be a bridge for reading when it helps meet reading objectives, but for teachers not to feel constrained to always use science in reading instruction.

Evidence from my research suggests that the interdisciplinary instruction of writing instruction and science should be done in the final stages of the writing instruction after students have mastered new writing structures. Writing in science should be used for the purpose of exploring ideas and reporting knowledge gained. Trying to teach writing forms within the context of science constrained science development in my study.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Aga

Kha

n U

nive

rsity

] at

07:

32 3

1 O

ctob

er 2

014

Delna Nixon & Valarie L. Akerson

214

Students were capable of using new writing structures, but they could have written about other topics, rather than being forced to use them in the context of their science content. If they were allowed to select their own writing topic they could better focus on learning the new writing structure, rather than learning both the new writing structure and science content simultaneously. The complex goals and objectives of writing can have the effect of suppressing the cognitive processing of science concepts because students are forced to conform to conventions instead of freely interpret and report their science understandings.

The successful implementation of reading and science that is demonstrated in this research could influence other teachers by clarifying the degree to which the interdisciplinary instruction of the two subject areas should be cultivated. Although the existing research base demonstrates that there is a clear benefit to science when writing and reading are combined with it (e.g. Baker & Saul, 1994; Gaskins & Guthrie, 1994; Glynn & Muth, 1994; Liu & Akerson, 2002), my study indicates that the development of reading and writing should cover a wide range of subjects in addition to science to be effective and help students meet all reading and writing objectives. For instance, though Glynn & Muth (1994) claim that ‘learning to write prepares students for writing to learn’ (p. 1064), my research indicates that learning to write can interfere with writing to learn when the objectives of both disciplines do not mesh, as when learning a business letter format did not mesh with learning or at least exhibiting learning science content. The cognitive parallels that exist between science, and reading and writing do not outweigh the conflicting objectives between the disciplines that sometimes arise. This research supports the Dickinson et al’s (1997) finding that students can be engaged in language arts activities that do not support learning of science content. From my research, it seems important to research the kinds of writing that support learning of science content. My research indicated that interdisciplinary instruction should be approached with a clear idea of the objectives in all disciplines and a willingness to separate the subjects when it is beneficial to their development. It is evident from my study that while instruction in reading and writing are bridges to science, they should not be confined to science alone. Additionally, science can be used as a bridge to reading and writing learning, but only when appropriate. Appropriate times to use science as a bridge for reading and writing development include:

• when the writing structure is familiar to the students and is being used to explore new science content;

• when the writing structure is open-ended so the students are not confined to a specific pattern;

• when reading for information is connected to students’ own questions.

Imposing a writing structure and forced integration of science and writing instruction may not improve writing or science content knowledge, and would not serve as a bridge between the disciplines. As a result of this action research study, I will continue using reading and writing as tools for

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Aga

Kha

n U

nive

rsity

] at

07:

32 3

1 O

ctob

er 2

014

USING SCIENCE TO TEACH READING AND WRITING

215

science, and science as a context for reading and writing, but will not force an interdisciplinary focus at the exclusion of other disciplinary objectives.

I believe that, through the act of researching these questions through my study, I am a better teacher of interdisciplinary instruction. The action research project gave me a way to systematically investigate the relationships between reading, writing and science instruction. I recommend similar projects to other teachers. It is easy to find many articles that suggest ways for teachers to provide interdisciplinary literacy and science instruction. Yet, as a teacher, I wanted to base my instructional decisions on evidence that these strategies were effective for helping my students meet both literacy and science objectives. I am fortunate that in my school system I am free to make the connections between subjects as I see fit. This action research study provided me with the evidence I needed for effective interdisciplinary science and language arts instruction, coupled with a balance of disciplinary instruction. For those in a school in which science and language arts are forced to be taught, in an integrated fashion, the results of this study may be shared with policy makers to help them see when disciplinary instruction may be more important.

Correspondence

Associate Professor Valarie Akerson, W.W. Wright School of Education, Room 3072, Indiana State University, 201 North Rose Avenue, Bloomington, IN 47405-1006, USA (vakerson@indiana.edu).

References

Akerson, V.L. (2001) How to Teach Science When the Principal Says ‘Teach Language Arts’, Science and Children, 38(7), pp. 42-48.

Akerson, V.L. & Flanigan, J. (2000) Preparing Preservice Teachers to Use an Interdisciplinary Approach to Science and Language Arts Instruction, Journal of Science Teacher Education, 11, pp. 287-313.

Akins, A. & Akerson, V. L. (2002) Connecting Science, Social Studies, and Language Arts: an interdisciplinary approach, Educational Action Research, 10, pp. 479-497.

Baker, L. (1991) Metacognition, Reading, and Science Education, in C.M. Santa & D.E. Alvermann (Eds) Science Learning – Processes and Applications. Newark, DE: International Reading Association.

Baker, L. & Saul, W. (1994) Considering Science and Language Arts Connections: a study of teacher cognition, Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31, pp. 1023-1038.

Casteel, C.P. & Isom, B.A. (1994) Reciprocal Processes in Science and Literacy, Reading Teacher, 47, pp. 538-545.

Dickinson, V.L. & Young, T.A. (1998) Elementary Science and Language Arts: should we blur the boundaries? School Science and Mathematics, 98, pp. 334-339.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Aga

Kha

n U

nive

rsity

] at

07:

32 3

1 O

ctob

er 2

014

Delna Nixon & Valarie L. Akerson

216

Dickinson, V.L., Burns, J., Hagen, E.R. & Locker, K.M. (1997) Becoming Better Primary Science Teachers: a description of our journey, Journal of Science Teacher Education, 8, pp. 295-311.

Gaskins, I.W. & Guthrie, J.T. (1994) Integrating Instruction of Science, Reading, and Writing: goals, teacher development, and assessment, Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31, pp. 1039-1056.

Glynn, S.M. & Muth, K.D. (1994) Reading and Writing to Learn Science: achieving scientific literacy, Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31, pp. 1057-1073.

Hubbard, R.S. & Power, B.M. (1993) The Art of Classroom Inquiry: a handbook for teacher researchers. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Keys, C.W. (1994) The Development of Scientific Reasoning Skills in Conjunction with Collaborative Writing Assignments: an interpretive study of six ninth-grade students, Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31, pp. 1003-1022.

Liu, Z. & Akerson, V.L. (2002) Science and Language Links: a fourth grade intern’s attempt to increase language skills through science, Electronic Journal of Literacy Through Science, 1, Article 4. Available at: http: //sweeneyhall.sjsu.edu/ejlts/ vol1-2.htm

National Science Resource Center (1996) Ecosystems Student Activity Book. Burlington: Carolina Biological Company.

Padilla, M.J., Muth, K.D. & Lund, R.K. (1991) Science and Reading: many process skills in common? in C.M. Santa & D.E. Alvermann (Eds) Science Learning – Processes and Applications. Newark: International Reading Association.

Richardson, J.S. & Morgan, R.F. (2000) Reading to Learn in the Content Areas. Florence, KY: Wadsworth Thomson Learning.

Rivard, L.P. (1994) A Review of Writing to Learn Science: implications for practice and research, Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31, pp. 969-984.

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 four, Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29, pp. 545-554.

Schmidt, P.R. (1999) KWLO: inquiry and literacy learning in science, Reading Teacher, 52, pp. 789-792.

Smith, J.L. & Johnson, H. (1994) Models for Implementing Literature in Content Studies, Reading Teacher, 48, pp. 198-209.

Sparks, J.E. (1982) Write for Power. Los Angeles: Communication Associates.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Aga

Kha

n U

nive

rsity

] at

07:

32 3

1 O

ctob

er 2

014

USING SCIENCE TO TEACH READING AND WRITING

217

APPENDIX 1 Note Taking Guidelines for Student Science Journals

1. What did you do? What things did you notice when you did it?

2. What changes were made?

3. What are some things that you have observed?

4. Describe what you thought would happen.

5. What actually did happen?

6. Why do you think that it happened like that?

7. What do you predict will happen next? What do you want to make sure

that you record accurately so that you can notice changes?

8. Is there a drawing or diagram that will help demonstrate what

happened?

9. Are there some things that you are still wondering about? Where can you

find more information about this?

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Aga

Kha

n U

nive

rsity

] at

07:

32 3

1 O

ctob

er 2

014

Delna Nixon & Valarie L. Akerson

218

Theory and Practice in Action Research some international perspectives

Edited by CHRISTOPHER DAY, JOHN ELLIOTT, BRIDGET SOMEKH & RICHARD WINTER

This book contains 16 articles from across the professions and from different countries which explore and examine the nature, purposes, processes and outcomes of action research, its importance to professional growth and the challenges of collaboration and change. Written by practitioners from schools and universities, health and social services, it provides a comprehensive yet focused critical appraisal which we believe is essential reading by all for whom lifelong learning is a key component of being and sustaining themselves as professionals.

Part 1. Conceptualisations of Action Research Introduction; Susan Noffke Action Research: towards the next generation; Richard Winter Managers, Spectators and Citizens: where does ‘theory’ come from in action research? Colin Biott Latency in Action Research: changing perspectives on occupational and researcher identities; Maggie MacLure Postmodernism: a postscript Part 2. Praxis and Partnership in Action Research Introduction; Christine O’Hanlon Reflection and Action in Research: is there a moral responsibility to act? Jean-Claude Couture Dracula as Action Researcher; Kath Green Defining the Field of Literature in Action Research: a personal approach; Bridget Somekh Inhabiting Each Other’s Castles: towards knowledge and mutual growth through collaboration Part 3. Action Research for Change Introduction; Melanie Walker Subaltern Professionals: acting in pursuit of social justice; Victor Valla Popular Education and Knowledge: popular surveillance of health and education services in Brasilian metropolitan areas; Peter Posch Changes in the Culture of Teaching and Learning and Implications for Action Research; Arphorn Chuaprapaisilip Thai Buddhist Philosophy and the Action Research Process Part 4. Action Research in Practice Settings Introduction; Belinda Watts & Shirley Jones Inter-professional Practice and Action Research: commonalties and parallels; Carol Munn-Giddings ‘A Different Way of Knowing’: social care values, practitioner research and action research; Pete Strauss No Easy Answers: the dilemmas and challenges of teacher research; Angie Titchen & Alison Binnie A Unified Action Research Strategy in Nursing

2002 paperback 244 pages $38.00 (£24.00) ISBN 1 873927 44 4

SYMPOSIUM BOOKS PO Box 204, Didcot, Oxford OX11 9ZQ, United Kingdom orders@symposium-books.co.uk www.symposium-books.co.uk

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Aga

Kha

n U

nive

rsity

] at

07:

32 3

1 O

ctob

er 2

014