elementary preservice teachers’ science vocabulary: knowledge and application

Elementary Preservice Teachers’ Science Vocabulary:Knowledge and Application

Sarah J. Carrier

Published online: 11 March 2012

� The Association for Science Teacher Education, USA 2012

Abstract Science vocabulary knowledge plays a role in understanding science

concepts, and science knowledge is measured in part by correct use of science

vocabulary (Lee et al. in J Res Sci Teach 32(8):797–816, 1995). Elementary school

students have growing vocabularies and many are learning English as a secondary

language or depend on schools to learn academic English. Teachers must have a

clear understanding of science vocabulary in order to communicate and evaluate

these understandings with students. The present study measured preservice teachers’

vocabulary knowledge during a science methods course and documented their use

of science vocabulary during peer teaching. The data indicate that the course pos-

itively impacted the preservice teachers’ knowledge of select elementary science

vocabulary; however, use of science terms was inconsistent in microteaching

lessons. Recommendations include providing multiple vocabulary instruction

strategies in teacher preparation.

Keywords Vocabulary � Elementary � Science � Preservice teachers

Introduction

Science vocabulary knowledge contributes to understanding science concepts, and

students’ science knowledge is measured in part by their comprehension and use of

science vocabulary (Glen and Dotger 2009; Goldschmidt and Jung 2011; Lee et al.

1995). While background knowledge and conceptual understanding are key

components of vocabulary use, elementary students’ school science vocabulary

growth depends in part on their teachers’ knowledge and use of science vocabulary.

Unfortunately many preservice teachers’ memories of science vocabulary

S. J. Carrier (&)

North Carolina State University, 2310 Stinson Dr., Raleigh, NC, USA

e-mail: [email protected]

123

J Sci Teacher Educ (2013) 24:405–425

DOI 10.1007/s10972-012-9270-7

instruction have consisted of copying vocabulary words and definitions. In spite of

the powerful impact of vocabulary in the science classroom, there is evidence that

effective vocabulary instruction is not well integrated in the elementary classroom.

In a study of how often and how effectively vocabulary instruction occurred in

elementary classrooms in Canada (Scott et al. 2003), researchers found only 1.4% of

school time was devoted to vocabulary development within academic subjects of

mathematics, science, art, and social studies, and most of this time was devoted to

mentioning and assigning rather than teaching. Effective use and instruction of

science vocabulary can impact students’ success in many school subjects.

Beck et al. (2002) identify a relationship between school achievement and

vocabulary knowledge, and vocabulary in content areas such as science and social

studies pose unique problems for learners (Wellington and Osborne 2001). One

main goal of national science reform efforts is making science relevant for all

students, including students from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds

(AAAS 1989; TESOL 2006). This is of particular concern for students who depend

on schools to become more proficient in academic English (Scott et al. 2003;

Spycher 2009). Many strategies that support English language learning, such as

providing students with experiences using science vocabulary words and phrases

and relating them to other concepts, apply to science learning for all. On the other

hand, learning for all students is hindered when teachers introduce a word and its

definition at the beginning of a lesson as the sole vocabulary instruction strategy.

Further, while science content and process knowledge is a goal for science

instruction, language use is interwoven with learning science. Wellington and

Osborne (2001) emphasize that learning language is a major part of science

education and a major barrier for most students, yet a focus on learning language is

not always a priority in elementary science classrooms (Spycher 2009).

The present study examined elementary preservice teachers’ knowledge and

application of science vocabulary during novice instruction episodes. The purpose

of this study was to: (1) examine preservice teachers’ knowledge of elementary

science vocabulary at the beginning and end of a science methods course, and (2)

document preservice teachers’ use of elementary science vocabulary commonly

used in elementary science instruction during initial science teaching experiences.

Literature Review

As teacher educators it is important that we not only help preservice teachers learn

science vocabulary but we help them develop communication skills through

speaking, writing, and reasoning using scientific language. The job of science

educators according to Lemke (1990) is to help students learn how to use the

‘‘language of science’’ for their own purposes (p. 100). Lemke identifies the

language of science as not limited to vocabulary and grammar but with thematic

patterns to develop a system for communicating meanings. Science vocabulary is

deeply tied to the larger discourse in the science classroom. This classroom

discourse includes interactions between students and teachers as well as students

with peers using a variety of semiotic modes: visual, action, along with

406 S. J. Carrier

123

representations using words, graphs, equations, tables and charts (Lemke 2003;

Tippett 2009), and preservice teacher preparation in science includes developing

communication skills in multiple modes.

Elementary preservice teachers’ well-documented avoidance of science (Schoon

and Boone 1998; Tilgner 1990) indicates that they need multiple opportunities to

discuss and develop science content knowledge and communication skills (Harlen

1997). An examination of traditional patterns of teachers’ discursive practices (Glen

and Dotger 2009; Wilson 1999) encourages an exploration of preservice teachers’

science vocabulary knowledge as they learn to apply the language of science.

Science Vocabulary

Science vocabulary can be categorized in various ways and these intricacies pose

challenges in science instruction. Conceptual words (e.g. work, energy) often have

different meanings in science than in everyday language (Harmon et al. 2005;

Wellington and Osborne 2001). Some terms are visible and more concrete, while

others rely on abstract imagery (e.g. electron). In the seminal report Taking Scienceto School (NRC 2007), Vygotsky’s work is cited to support the idea that ‘‘science

learning is a process of moving from the linguistically abstract to the concrete, not

vice versa’’ (p. 59). Science language possesses various features that include content

specific meanings (e.g. isotope, atom) and functional terms (e.g. interpreting data,

drawing conclusions). Wellington and Osborne (2001) present an increasingly

complex taxonomy of words of science that includes naming words, process words,

concept words, and mathematical words and symbols: All contribute to science

understanding. Understanding science vocabulary requires developing relationships

between the terms and meanings (Lee et al. 1995), yet science terms and definitions

have a long history of isolated instruction.

Developing science vocabulary knowledge provides additional obstacles because

there are many terms to both read and understand. Yager’s (1983) review of research

concluded that more vocabulary terms are introduced in science classrooms than foreign

language classrooms. Science textbooks have a lengthy history of high readability levels

(Chavkin 2002; Chiang-Soong and Yager 1993; Mallinson et al. 1950; O’Toole and

Bedford 1969), and the difficulty and numbers of specific science vocabulary terms have

been identified as reasons for poor comprehension of science text. Yet, instructional time

for vocabulary development is often limited, and many teachers neglect to include

strategy instruction to help students make sense of content area text (Glen and Dotger

2009; Kragler et al. 2005; Scott et al. 2003).

Strategies for effective vocabulary instruction include selecting words that build on

students’ prior knowledge and allow students to explore words and their meanings. Some

strategies include types of graphic organizers, predicting meanings of words and

interacting with word parts such as prefixes, suffixes, roots, and origins of words.

Classifying words can include grouping by word categories to develop deep

understandings through word relationships. Building a word rich environment provides

opportunities for students to become immersed in words and supports implicit and

explicit instruction for content vocabulary (Harlen 1997; Phillips et al. 2008; Lee et al.

1995).

Elementary Preservice Teachers’ Science Vocabulary 407

123

While most students come to school adept at learning and using language,

students’ cultural differences and histories can impact teachers’ perceptions of

students’ communication abilities. These forms of communication include produc-

tive discussions, reasoning, analysis, and descriptions of observations. As Michaels

et al. (2008) point out, ‘‘There are no native speakers of science’’ (p. 97), and

therefore teachers must learn how to provide equitable access to discourse in the

science classroom for all students.

Factors Affecting Students’ Vocabulary Knowledge

Socio Economic Status (SES)

Research indicates that SES has a strong impact on vocabulary knowledge. Children

from low socioeconomic status (SES) families may have smaller vocabularies than

students from high SES families. Rowe, and Goldin-Meadow (2009) examined

families of 14-month old children and found distinct differences in gestures and

complexity of vocabulary and syntax used by parents in low and high SES families.

They determined that children who come from low SES families generally come to

school with less developed language skills, and Williams (1999) found language

differences in how working- and middle-class parents read to their children. While

both groups were highly interactive in reading to prepare children for school, middle

class families in this study employed strategies such as elaboration that are also

encouraged in classrooms. Research on students from various SES levels

emphasizes the variances in language abilities within an elementary classroom.

Students’ different levels of exposure to academic language challenges teachers to

have broad knowledge of elementary science vocabulary and supports using various

vocabulary instructional strategies.

English Language Learners

While new vocabulary words are foreign to all students, the complexity of these

terms is highlighted with English language learners who are trying to learn science

in a language they have not yet mastered (Hart and Lee 2003; Stodart et al. 2002).

The increase of English language learners in schools has spawned research about

elementary students and science vocabulary that focuses on ELL students and

curriculum (e.g. Charmot 1983; Lee and Fradd 1998; Lee et al. 2009b; Scruggs and

Mastropieri 1994; Spycher 2009). Teachers can help ELL students develop science

vocabulary knowledge when they acknowledge their unique background experi-

ences and cultures. One study (Lee et al. 1995) compared culturally and

linguistically diverse students: monolingual English Caucasian, African American,

bilingual Hispanic, and bilingual Hatian Creole. Researchers measured students’

accuracy of science knowledge displayed during tasks and by their use of science

vocabulary. They found distinct differences between the groups based on prior

knowledge, varied language backgrounds, different discourse patterns of verbal and

nonverbal communication, and teacher input. Some students lacked the prior

knowledge to connect to science tasks, while others possessed the knowledge but

408 S. J. Carrier

123

lacked the vocabulary to express their understandings. Researchers emphasized the

role of vocabulary in measuring students’ science knowledge. Many schools have

increasing numbers of ELL students and these populations are projected to increase

even more rapidly in coming years. It follows then that preservice teachers would

benefit from having clear understandings of elementary science vocabulary as well

as possessing a host of strategies for vocabulary instruction.

Many elementary teachers mistakenly believe that ELL students must first learn

English before learning science and fail to understand cultural influences on

learning (Lee et al. 2009a). Through hands-on inquiry instruction, students benefit

from science activities as they develop context-based content knowledge along with

language development. Lee et al. (2006) identify inquiry-based science instruction

as beneficial for ELL students in the following ways: (a) activities put less emphasis

on language because students can participate in activities as they learn English,

(b) students work collaboratively and interact with others about science content, and

(c) well-designed activities offer students written, oral, graphic, and kinesthetic

forms of expression. Coupled with science activities, intentional and explicit

vocabulary instruction can benefit both English proficient and ELL children’s

vocabulary and literacy development as they learn science content (Beck and

McKewon 2007; Graves 2006; Lee et al. 2009b; Stahl and Nagy 2006).

Instructional Strategies

Instructional strategies have an impact on vocabulary knowledge. Both English

language learners and monolingual English speakers can benefit from hands-on

learning to build their own understanding of science concepts and vocabulary. In a

study that examined middle school students’ science and language learning using

Quality English and Science Teaching (QuEST), researchers examined an

intervention that incorporated hands-on activities and teacher scaffolding including

the use of visuals, previews of activities to assure students’ understanding of goals

and procedures, explicit vocabulary instruction, and paring of ELL with English

proficient students (August et al. 2010). Researchers documented significant gains in

both science content and vocabulary. Another study (Gonzalez et al. 2010) found

that integrating science and social studies vocabulary instruction increased low-

income preschool children’s vocabulary, regardless of their entry-level vocabulary.

Learning Disabilities

Students with learning disabilities (LD) can struggle with abilities to read, write,

reason, and organize. Students who grapple with understanding the language of

science often have trouble with science content. Cooperative learning strategies

have been found to positively impact science vocabulary with all students, including

students with learning disabilities (Shook et al. 2011), thus contributing to the

development of students’ science literacy.


123

Science Literacy

Elementary school teachers are responsible for helping students become scientif-

ically literate citizens. Communication skills are needed to connect science content

with students’ applications of science habits of mind as ultimate goals for scienceliteracy. The following description of scientific literacy is identified in the National

Science Education Standards (NRC 1996):

Scientific literacy means that a person can ask, find, or determine answers to

questions derived from curiosity about everyday experiences. It means that a

person has the ability to describe, explain, and predict natural phenom-

ena…Scientific literacy also implies the capacity to pose and evaluate

arguments based on evidence and to apply conclusions from such arguments

appropriately (p. 22).

Knowledge of vocabulary impacts the development of science literacy (Nelson

and Stage 2007). According to Wellington and Osborne (2001), ‘‘science teachers

are (among other things) language teachers’’ (p. 5). As we prepare elementary

preservice teachers to help elementary school students communicate in science, they

must acknowledge the role of unique science language considerations. Science

vocabulary spans many areas of science, often with special and precise meanings

and nuances, and it is important to consider the various language experiences of

diverse learners in an elementary classroom.

Method

Research Framework

The present study was designed to establish preservice teachers’ elementary sciencevocabulary knowledge during a science methods course and document their use of

science vocabulary as they taught science lessons to their peers. Science vocabulary

words include content and process terms that combine with semantics and thematic

patterns to assist in communication of science concepts. These data provide a base

for future research by identifying gaps in elementary preservice teachers’ science

communication skills and establish strategies to encourage effective science

dialogue in elementary school settings.

The idea for this study originated in my discussions with preservice teachers

about evolution during undergraduate and graduate level science methods courses

spanning a decade. As a science educator and researcher I recognized many

instances where preservice teachers’ weak vocabulary knowledge contributed to

poor understandings of science concepts. As with their students, teachers and

preservice teachers can hold alternative conceptions (Abd-El-Khalick et al. 1998;

Isabelle and de Groot 2008; Khalid 2001) that need to first be identified and then

addressed. Preservice teachers frequently confused a scientific theory with the

common use of the word ‘‘theory’’ as a hunch, belief, or suspicion. The well-

established theory of evolution was often grossly misunderstood and therefore

410 S. J. Carrier

123

undervalued because it was ‘‘just a theory’’ (Ben-Ari 2005). In other words, this

means that preservice teachers’ lack of vocabulary knowledge may contribute to

their misunderstandings of science concepts. (For discussions on science terminol-

ogy see Gibbs and Lawson 1992; Lawson 2010.)

Further inquiries revealed a host of unknown or misunderstood elementary

school science vocabulary among preservice teachers. These informal observations

combined with reform efforts (AAAS 1989, 1990; NRC 1996) guided the following

research goals of this study: (a) establish preservice teachers’ knowledge of

common elementary school science vocabulary, (b) measure the change in

preservice teachers’ knowledge of elementary vocabulary terms throughout a

science methods course and (c) examine preservice teachers’ use of science

vocabulary in peer-taught lessons. My recognition of preservice teachers’ miscon-

ceptions about elementary science vocabulary provided the goal to design an initial

study to evaluate the extent of their vocabulary knowledge.

Research Questions

The research questions asked:

1. What is preservice teachers’ elementary science vocabulary definition knowl-

edge when they begin their teacher education coursework?

2. Is there a change in preservice teachers’ science vocabulary definition

knowledge during an elementary science methods course with implicit and

explicit instruction of science vocabulary?

3. How do preservice teachers apply science process and content vocabulary

during peer teaching?

Context

The study was conducted in two sections of a science methods course within the

Elementary Teacher Education program housed in a College of Education at a research-

intensive state university. The highly selective and STEM focused elementary education

program requires more science and mathematics core coursework than is typical for an

elementary education program. The preservice teachers in this course had completed

core coursework in sciences and mathematics that included physics and calculus. In

addition, there are two science and two mathematics methods course requirements in the

elementary teacher education program along with courses on engineering and design.

This study took place at the start of preservice teachers’ junior year, all between 20 and

25 years old, in their first semester as teacher candidates. The 55 preservice teachers

consisted of 53 females and two males. The author was the professor for this initial

science methods course in their program.

Course Content

Throughout the semester, the preservice teachers were actively involved in lessons

that modeled science inquiry activities which included terms on the pre-/posttest and


123

other science content and process words. The class met twice weekly for 16 weeks

with at least one of the classes each week devoted to preservice teachers

participating in science activities that included implicit and explicit science

vocabulary instruction (National Institute for Literacy 2001). For example, during a

class that introduced the topic of matter, in addition to physical models of molecules

in solids, liquids, and gases, the preservice teachers used their bodies to dramatize

the molecular motions of solids, liquids, and gases to reinforce the particulate

nature of matter. As a class we discussed the common use of the word ‘‘matter’’

(i.e. situation or something that evokes feeling) and contrasted it with the physical

science meaning of ‘‘matter’’ (i.e. having mass and taking up space such as solids,

liquids, gases, plasmas, and Bose–Einstein condensates). We also discussed non-

examples of matter in science such as light and energy. Each of the terms was

identified and the meanings emphasized during the lessons and discussed with

multiple applications. Another activity allowed the preservice teachers to explore

the changing phases of matter. Preservice teachers made predictions about whether

there would be changes in mass or volume as they compared ice to melted liquid

water. Both procedural and content terms were used in context and the meanings

were clarified and reinforced through discussions, graphic organizers, and word

classification activities.

Instructional approaches for science content vocabulary included implicit

exposure through word repetition in context throughout the semester during inquiry

activities. Explicit instruction of science vocabulary included continuous reinforce-

ment of meanings during science instruction or modeling structural analysis by

giving examples of word parts and their meanings such as meta/morph/osis. These

strategies supported Harlen’s (1997) assertion that teachers themselves need

multiple opportunities to discuss and develop science communication skills and the

strategies reinforced Lee et al. (1995) recognition that understanding science

vocabulary requires developing relationships between the terms and meanings.

Additional strategies included preservice teachers’ use of graphic organizers (Clarke

1991; Dunston 1992), identifying multiple meaning words and synonyms or

antonyms, (Moates 1999). Preservice teachers were asked to predict meanings of

words prior to content instruction (Phillips et al. 2008), and they identified words

parts such as roots, prefixes, and suffixes (Baumann et al. 2002; Stahl and Nagy

2006),

The preservice teachers worked with a partner and designed a lesson plan to

teach to their peers during the second half of the semester. The teaching assignment

required preservice teachers to include an inquiry activity that supported the lesson

concepts, providing opportunities to use science content and process terms. The

written lesson plan format included a section for vocabulary words, but there were

no specific directions for presenting vocabulary during peer teaching. In an effort to

expand preservice teachers’ exposure to science content, I did not limit their lesson

topics to those vocabulary words on the pre- and posttests, but rather their topic

choices were based on state elementary science standards. The review of their

lessons was not intended to correlate to target vocabulary words, but rather to

describe the preservice teachers’ efforts to include effective science vocabulary use

412 S. J. Carrier

123

and instruction during their peer teaching. The lessons were video recorded for

preservice teachers’ self reflection of their novice teaching experience.

Research Design

This mixed methods study included two phases. Qualitative data were captured by

reviewing video recordings of preservice teachers’ lessons taught to peers and

through follow-up interviews. A random sample of 20 video recordings of lessons

was reviewed to examine science vocabulary instruction strategies. The number of

science vocabulary words and the frequency of word use were recorded along with

the strategies of providing word definitions or other meaning development

strategies. Quantitative pre-/posttest data offered a picture of preservice teachers’

knowledge of elementary science vocabulary words at the beginning and end of the

semester.

Data Sources

Quantitative Data: Vocabulary Definitions

The quantitative data for this study consisted of students’ pretest and posttest scores

on the vocabulary test. Two researchers scored the pretests independently and

arrived at interrater reliability of 82% agreement. They discussed acceptable

definitions and the related scores, reconciled any disagreements, and arrived at

100% agreement. The twenty vocabulary terms were categorized as either content

or process terms and were subsequently analyzed separately. Table 2 shows this

distinction.

The initial selection of vocabulary words for the word definition portion of this

study involved choosing words representative of typical science vocabulary used in

grades K-5. Two science educators reviewed districts’ adopted ‘‘Essential Science

Vocabulary’’ lists from three states in the southeastern United States. These states

were chosen to provide a regional sample of commonly used standards-based

vocabulary in states where the preservice teachers in this study would most likely

have the potential to work. Two of the states’ lists were based on the district’s

adopted science textbooks. The third state used a kit-based approach to science

teaching, so the kit supplier (FOSS) was the source of the word list. We compiled

lists to include content (e.g. nutrient) and procedural (e.g. observe) words. We also

included words that would be used in context during activities throughout the

methods course on the topics: nature of science, matter, water cycle, light, sound,

and science process skills to ensure preservice teachers’ exposure to words.

Each of the preservice teachers (N = 55) completed pretests at the start of the

semester asking them to provide definitions of common elementary science

vocabulary using their own words. The definitions were classified into one of the

following mutually exclusive categories: (a) accurate definition (2 points),

(b) partially acceptable definition (1 point), (c) inaccurate use (0 points), and

(d) no definition (0 points). Table 1 shows sample scoring.


123

At the end of the semester the preservice teachers wrote definitions of the same

words on the posttests.

Qualitative Data: Vocabulary Application and Interviews

Qualitative data are collected to support theoretical understandings of phenomena

(Creswell and Plano Clark 2007), in this case preservice teachers’ developing

understanding and application of elementary science vocabulary in novice lesson

presentations. I collected qualitative data by reviewing 20 randomly selected video

recordings of peer taught lessons and through semi-structured interviews. Quali-

tative data were triangulated through the collection of observations, artifacts, and

interviews. Teams of two preservice teacher instructors presented elementary

science lessons to their peers during the final weeks of the semester. The preservice

teachers who participated in this study were in the early stages of their teacher

education at the beginning of their junior year and had minimal experience in lesson

design and presentation. The teaching teams selected their lesson topics based on

elementary science standards for the state. Video recordings of the preservice

teachers’ lessons allowed the preservice teachers to self reflect on their initial

experience teaching a science lesson. Twenty randomly selected video recordings

were reviewed to document the teaching teams’ accuracy of word meanings and

presentation of vocabulary. The goal was to examine preservice teacher instructors’

use of science vocabulary during their first teaching experience. I documented the

different science vocabulary words used and identified accurate, inaccurate, or

incomplete word use. I also identified the methods for vocabulary instruction as

traditional writing of definitions or inclusion of strategies to develop word meanings

and monitoring peers’ comprehension of terms. Five of the 20 preservice teachers

whose video recordings were analyzed participated in semi-structured interviews to

further explore their impressions of science vocabulary knowledge and teaching

strategies.

During the course the preservice teachers taught elementary science lessons with

their peers as their ‘‘students.’’ Because all are preservice teachers, in our

descriptions of their lessons with peers we will describe the teaching pair as

‘‘preservice instructors’’ or ‘‘instructors.’’ We will refer to the preservice teachers

whose roles were students as ‘‘peers.’’ Twenty of the lessons were randomly

selected and were reviewed for science vocabulary use and accuracy. In addition,

Table 1 Sample scoring

Vocabulary word Process terms Score

Nutrient Left blank 0

Nutrient ‘‘Something beneficial’’ 0—Inaccurate

Nutrient ‘‘A type of vitamin or nourishing item that provides

nourishment’’

1—Partial response

Nutrient ‘‘Substance that provides nourishment necessary for

life: growth and maintenance’’

2—Accurate

414 S. J. Carrier

123

semi-structured interviews were conducted with a random sample of preservice

teachers to identify impressions of science vocabulary knowledge and instruction

strategies.

Data Analyses

Following a Triangulation design ‘‘convergence model’’ (Creswell and Plano Clark

2007) qualitative and quantitative data were collected and analyzed and converged

during interpretation to draw conclusions about the research questions (Fig. 1).

Qualitative data documented preservice teachers’ use of standards-based

elementary science vocabulary as they taught elementary school science lessons

to their peers. Video recordings of the lessons were reviewed to identify the use of

elementary science vocabulary and the methods for application of words: the

frequency and accuracy of vocabulary words, whether words were presented by

simply listing vocabulary terms and their definitions, or evidence of efforts to

develop word meanings during the lessons. The quantitative data (pretest–posttest

scores on the vocabulary test) were analyzed using paired t tests to ascertain whether

there was a change in preservice teachers’ science vocabulary definition knowledge

during an elementary science methods course with implicit and explicit instruction

of science vocabulary. The assumptions of equally sized dependent samples with

sample differences that follow a normal distribution required for this test of

significance were met.

Results

This section presents preservice teachers’ pretest data of their definitions of

elementary science vocabulary as they enter the teacher education program,

documents the changes in their knowledge of elementary science vocabulary at the

end of the course by comparing pretest and posttest data, and explores preservice

instructors’ applications of science vocabulary during peer instruction. Descriptions

of the vocabulary applications are intended to illustrate the convergence of

definition knowledge with practice during novice teaching experiences. Building on

these descriptions, overall findings follow in the ‘‘Discussion’’ section.

Fig. 1 Research design


123

Pretest Science Vocabulary Knowledge

The first research question examined the preservice teachers’ knowledge of science

vocabulary as they entered the science education program. Looking at the pretest

data one can see that students entered the study with somewhat limited science

content vocabulary. One can refer back to Table 2 and see the pretest and posttest

means and standard deviations for each of the vocabulary terms of interest in this

study.

The second research question asked whether preservice teachers’ knowledge of

science vocabulary words changed during a science methods course. The preservice

teachers participated in science activities throughout the semester. Some activities

were designed to build preservice teachers’ science content and habits of mind

knowledge base. Other activities served as models of effective elementary science

lessons. Both types of activities included implicit and explicit vocabulary

instruction. The paired t tests showed significant pretest–posttest differences in

preservice teachers’ vocabulary knowledge for both content and process terms.

Table 2 Vocabulary termsPretest

M(SD)

n = 54

Posttest

M(SD)

n = 54

Content terms

Atom 0.93 (0.78) 1.30 (0.82)

Balance 1.39 (0.68) 1.37 (0.68)

Condensation 1.07 (0.75) 1.19 (0.83)

Density 0.72 (0.76) 1.17 (0.88)

Evaporation 1.23 (0.81) 1.61 (0.66)

Living 0.94 (0.63) 1.37 (0.62)

Mass 1.09 (0.93) 0.92 (0.78)

Matter 0.92 (0.47) 1.41 (0.57)

Nutrient 0.87 (0.68) 1.34 (0.73)

Reflection 0.79 (0.69) 1.23 (0.72)

Refraction 0.77 (0.78) 0.70 (0.80)

Volume 0.96 (0.70) 1.22 (0.75)

Weight 1.06 (0.76) 1.36 (0.57)

Process terms

Experiment 0.93 (0.47) 1.33 (0.61)

Hypothesis 0.37 (0.65) 0.54 (0.66)

Infer 0.50 (0.57) 1.04 (0.64)

Investigation 1.40 (0.56) 1.33 (0.61)

Observe 1.19 (0.75) 1.43 (0.54)

Predict 0.96 (0.70) 1.48 (0.72)

Scientist 1.53 (0.61) 1.64 (0.56)

Theory 0.53 (0.70) 0.83 (0.75)

Variable 0.85 (0.69) 1.02 (0.57)

416 S. J. Carrier

123

The paired-samples t test for the content terms indicated that scores were

significantly higher on the posttest (M = 1.25, SD = 0.34) than they were on the

pretest (M = 0.99, SD = 0.37), t(53) = -6.05, p \ .001, a = .05. Similar results

were found for the process terms, with posttest scores (M = 1.19, SD = 0.35) being

significantly higher than pretest scores (M = 0.92, SD = 0.34), t(53) = -5.60,

p \ .001, a = .05.

Science Vocabulary Applications

The third research question asked how preservice instructors applied science content

and process vocabulary during peer teaching. Twenty randomly selected video

recordings were reviewed for science content or procedural word use along with any

clear strategies for vocabulary development. The latter were classified either as

presenting vocabulary words and definitions or meaning development strategies,

either implicit or explicit.

Table 3 identifies the lesson topic in the first column. Column 2 lists the number

of different science terms each teaching pair used and Column 3 lists the frequency

science content or procedural terms were used. Columns 4 and 5 classified clear

application strategies, (e.g. the teaching pair listed words and definitions or clearly

provided teaching strategies for meaning development of words). The depth and

accuracy of vocabulary terms varied widely. The following descriptions begin with

instructors’ traditional isolated definition application, followed with instructors’

Table 3 Vocabulary

applications

a Science methods course topic

Lesson topic Words

used

Frequency Writing

definitions

Meaning

development

Seed germination 9 25 x

Clouds 5 7 x x

Solids/liquidsa 5 23 x

Rain forest 4 6 x

Life cycle 6 15 x

Food chain 6 17

Seasons 5 14 x

Ocean pollution 8 10 x

Marine food

chain

12 17

Temperature 3 8

Liquidsa 8 20 x

Lake ecosystems 5 5 x

Tornado 2 2

Ear 5 13

Seasons 5 10

Forest ecosystem 12 25 x

Texture 1 1

Sound 9 17 x


123

contextual applications with increasing attention to word accuracy and use. Five of

the 20 randomly selected videos showed instructors who started their lessons by

reading vocabulary terms and their definitions aloud to the class, and in one case the

terms were not used again in the lesson. After an initial introduction of words and

definitions, only one instructor team formatively checked for understanding by

reading definitions of parts of the ear then asking their peers to identify the terms.

The remaining three pairs who began their lessons with definitions included no

formative or summative assessments of terms. The other 15 instructor pairs’

vocabulary applications ranged from brief word use to repeated contextual use and

review of words and their meanings incorporating strategies for emphasizing word

meanings such as concept maps. The following examples of instructors’ contextual

applications describe complete, incomplete, or incorrect word use along with a

range of strategies to develop word meanings and checks for comprehension of

terms.

There were instances of incomplete or inaccurate word use with 32% of the

words. One pair of preservice instructors defined ‘‘texture’’ as ‘‘something on the

outside of an object,’’ rather than the tactile appearance or feel of the object.

Another instructor team’s misuse of the term ‘‘observation’’ used the term as a

recollection rather than using senses to collect data. These instructors began their

lesson by asking their peers what they knew about rain forests. The peers offered

‘‘rainy, hot, lots of animals.’’ The preservice instructors responded by saying,

‘‘Good observations!’’ An example of an incomplete word use was an instructor

who defined the term ‘‘matter’’ saying ‘‘anything around you that has atoms or

molecules or anything like that, which sounds like a big deal, but it’s not.’’ Teaching

to peers can influence preservice teachers’ behaviors and this was especially evident

in this first teaching experience. The instructors’ informal definition of matter

seemed to be designed for preservice peers’ understandings rather than elementary

school students’.

An example of a lesson where instructors neglected to monitor comprehension of

terms was a lesson on the topic of lake ecosystems. They used terms ‘‘ecosystems,

nitrates, phosphates’’ without any checks for understanding or efforts to reinforce

meanings of the words. They elicited peers’ examples of human pollution of lakes

and the class discussed oil spills, trash in lakes, and landfill runoff. Their activity

was a simulation of negative human impact on the environment. Students walked

under a rope as instructors decreased the height to simulate negative human impact,

making it more difficult to walk under the rope without touching it to model

decreasing rates of survival. The lesson concluded without any reference to the

terms or their meanings. This is perhaps another example of an effect of teaching to

peers and an assumption that terms are understood, even though the lessons were

intended to model lessons for teaching elementary school students.

Additional observations from the lessons documented that one of the questioning

techniques relied on the commonly used but ineffective ‘‘guess what’s in my head’’

type of questioning (Wellington and Osborne 2001, p. 25), or initiation, response,

evaluation (IRE) that Lemke (1990) calls a Triadic Dialogue. One pair of

instructors’ lesson on sound began with the statement:

418 S. J. Carrier

123

Waves that are sound energy are compressional waves. There are lots of types

of waves but sound is this type. Vibrations means to move rapidly back and

forth. What is something else that sound needs?

This question was met with confusion and silence and the instructors responded

to the silence by saying sound needs a medium through which to travel. Not only did

the instructors fail to check peers’ understanding of the multiple meaning word

‘‘medium,’’ but the term ‘‘compressional waves’’ was not referred to again during

their lesson. The omissions may imply that perhaps the instructors had a weak

understanding of the terms, providing minimal exposure of vocabulary for peers.

Words introduced to students need continuous reinforcement to enrich word

understanding (McKeown and Beck 2004).

Another pair of instructors was able to resolve their initial surface introduction of

vocabulary by including contextual experience with terms. The instructors taught a

lesson on solids and liquids, overlapping course activities on the concept of matter.

They began their lesson by asking their peers to record vocabulary terms in their

notebooks as they read the words and definitions aloud. They read definitions for the

vocabulary terms: viscosity, mass, matter, liquid, opaque. However, following

the fragmented reading of definitions and terms to peers at the start of this lesson,

the preservice instructors began to use the terms during a peer student-centered

activity. They asked their peers to compare the behaviors of two liquids: water and

glue. After visually observing, pouring, and stirring both liquids, one peer student

described the glue as ‘‘more thick or sticky.’’ The instructor encouraged her to ‘‘use

the vocabulary,’’ guiding the peer to say that the glue was ‘‘more viscous,’’

indicating attention to vocabulary use. During the activity, the instructors revisited

the descriptions of liquids as taking the shape of containers, reinforcing concept

development throughout the lesson.

Follow Up Interviews

Follow up interviews were conducted with five of the preservice teachers whose

videos were analyzed for vocabulary use. These five were randomly selected from

students and who were available for interviews with a graduate student. Many of the

teachers displayed metacognitive knowledge (Cao and Nietfeld 2007) that their lack

of understanding of science vocabulary was related to their weak content

knowledge, and they expressed a desire to learn vocabulary instruction strategies.

Sample statements from the interviews provided in Table 4 illustrate their

developing understanding of the complexity of science vocabulary instruction.

Discussion

Despite the successful completion of high school and college science coursework,

preservice teachers’ initial knowledge of elementary science vocabulary was

lacking. The pretests taken at the beginning of their first science methods course

provided evidence of their incomplete background knowledge of elementary science


123

content and process words. The preservice teachers’ posttest scores after the science

methods course in this study were significant when compared to the pretests.

Preservice instructors’ application of science vocabulary as they taught lessons to

peers revealed an essential need for more explicit vocabulary instruction strategies

in science methods courses. Science vocabulary and vocabulary instruction

strategies should weave throughout the fabric of their teacher preparation. Rowe

and Goldin-Meadow (2009) identify vocabulary knowledge as key to predicting

school success, and weak vocabulary hinders learning in any subject area (Harmon

et al. 2005), including science. Furthermore, the ability to interpret science concepts

and distinguish between science and pseudoscience impacts personal and political

decision-making.

While preservice teachers in this study demonstrated significant change in their

knowledge of target science vocabulary during the semester, a sampling of their

peer-taught lessons revealed sporadic evidence of in-depth understanding of words

and a clear lack of vocabulary instruction strategies. Pearson, Hiebert, and Kamil

(2007) report that ‘‘After a nearly fifteen-year absence from center stage, vocabulary

has returned to a prominent place in discussions of reading, and it is alive and well

in reading instruction and reading research’’ (p. 282). Decades ago, Yager (1983)

described a history of emphasizing words separate from their meanings in reading

instruction, and his analysis of NSF reports urged science teachers to emphasize

word meanings in science instruction. Teaching to peers does not replace teaching

children in a classroom setting. The peer teaching described in this study was not

intended to replace the field experience but rather to provide the preservice teachers

with an opportunity to practice and reflect on their lessons prior to teaching to

children in the field (Zeichner 2002).

Teachers who possess weak vocabulary knowledge and a limited bank of

vocabulary instruction strategies pose a concern for science instruction for all

students. These concerns are elevated with the increasingly diverse student

populations in schools. Many of today’s classrooms include children who are

ELL, bilingual, from various socioeconomic backgrounds, and speak monolingual

English. Gestures, dialects, intonations, semiotics, and norms specific to children’s

Table 4 Interview sample statements

Preservice

teacher

(pseudonyms)

Common themes Interview comments

Justin Relationship between science

content knowledge and

vocabulary

Well, I thought I knew what words meant but when

I really had to think about it I could not explain or

describe the meaning

Brittney Disconnect between science and

literacy

It’s really hard to think about teaching words and

science content because there is just not enough

time. It’s science or language but not both

Kristen Following traditional

instructional practices

I never remember learning about words other than

copying the words off the board and looking them

up in the glossary. I guess I just figured some out

myself. You just were expected to know

420 S. J. Carrier

123

cultural experiences, especially English language learners, can impact student

learning take this statement one step further and tell how this impacts pedagogy

(Lee and Fradd 1998; Rowe and Goldin-Meadow 2009). The present study indicates

the need to provide preservice teachers with multiple strategies for content area

vocabulary instruction in science methods courses. A structured approach to

vocabulary instruction is critical for both English proficient and English language

learners, and should encourage teachers to rethink traditional instructional strategies

of simply copying definitions or using context clues (Phillips et al. 2008; Spycher

2009; Stahl and Nagy 2006).

School systems often measure knowledge through testing but fail to probe the

depth of student understanding. During this science methods course, the preservice

teachers described memories of science vocabulary instruction that consisted of

writing new vocabulary words and looking up their meanings in a glossary, and we

discussed their limited retention of meanings with such traditional instruction.

Despite the class discussions, some preservice teachers in this study chose to

introduce lessons by reading vocabulary words and their definitions, falling back on

traditional vocabulary instructional methods of copying definitions (Phillips et al.

2008). These findings address the need to challenge the long documented tendencies

of teachers teaching how they were taught (Ball 1988) by providing preservice

teachers with multiple models and strategies for effective vocabulary instruction.

Many educators encourage rich language engagement experiences for children

(Bromley 2007; Kragler et al. 2005) and findings in the present study support the

need to include content vocabulary instruction strategies in methods courses. The

significant changes in preservice teachers’ vocabulary knowledge on the posttests

contrasted with their application of science vocabulary during peer teaching.

Content area methods coursework should provide preservice teachers with strategies

for effective vocabulary instruction that can serve to solidify their own knowledge

of science vocabulary as they learn methods for teaching science content and

processes that include rich science vocabulary in their future classrooms.

Multiple research-supported strategies help build depth of vocabulary knowledge

(Irvin 1990). Students can benefit from direct instruction that includes multiple

methods to foster word consciousness (Graves and Watts-Taffe 2002; Harmon et al.

2005; McKeown and Beck 2004)). Methods include using words lists or word banks

(Wellington and Osborne 2001), graphic organizers (Clarke 1991; Dunston 1992),

deconstructing words parts into roots, prefixes, and suffixes (Baumann et al. 2002;

Stahl and Nagy 2006), and identifying synonyms or antonyms (Moates 1999).

Asking students to predict meanings of words and comparing their predictions with

other students and the teacher can help strengthen learning (Phillips et al. 2008). It is

important to expose elementary students to various forms of reading and listening to

text (Baumann et al. 2003; Graves 2006) and to provide students opportunities to

use words through speaking and writing (NCEE 2003). Vocabulary instruction is

effective when it includes visual, verbal, and physical support; therefore, physical

scaffolding is critical in content-area teaching. Physical scaffolding can include

demonstrations, dramatizations, and reenactments. Teachers’ use of nonverbal

gestures and graphic representations convey understandings of science concepts and


123

are beneficial for all students, including culturally and linguistically diverse students

(Best et al. 2006; Lee et al. 2005; O’Toole 1999).

It is important for young students to recognize the importance of science

vocabulary used in discourse. Sutton (1998) describes the path of initial

communication among scientists in history such as Faraday or Darwin that began

with very personal statements such as, ‘‘I am starting to think about,’’ or ‘‘I seem to

wonder…’’ in personal letters with colleagues. Sutton (1998) laments the skewed

view of science when it is presented to children as cold and static facts rather than a

dynamic discussion of wonder. School children can benefit from extended exposure

to both verbal and written communication in science that include personal

wonderings and views contributing to understanding the nature of science.

Limitations

Preservice teachers’ application of science vocabulary and language with peer

students is a limitation of this study. The field placement schedule during this

semester prevented extending the preservice teachers opportunities to teach these

lessons to elementary students, however future research will continue to observe

preservice teachers in the field during the methods course and follow them into their

internships to observe how they use vocabulary with elementary students. I also

acknowledge the potential of internal validity threats that accompany the effect of

pretesting as well as potential of a teacher effect. The lack of a control group is

another limitation. Further research design will build on the present study and

compare science content vocabulary instruction strategies in a science methods class

and compare with a control group.

Implications

‘‘Learning to use the language of science is fundamental to learning science’’

(Wellington and Osborne (2001, p. 6). Results from this study suggest that an

essential component of elementary science teacher preparation should be devoted to

providing preservice teachers with strategies for teaching content vocabulary

infused in the context of a constructivist classroom. Preservice teachers’

understandings of science terms and their knowledge of instructional strategies

for helping children learn vocabulary will impact their future science instruction.

While an overemphasis on textbooks and highly specialized vocabulary instruction

can inhibit sharing the wonder of science, conceptual understandings require

learning specific science vocabulary. When students and teachers share science

vocabulary, it is one component of learning to communicate while doing science

(Lemke 1990). Future research is needed to document preservice teachers’ exposure

to multiple vocabulary instructional strategies during teacher preparation and

includes the impact of teaching to peers on preservice teachers’ vocabulary use.

Further, studies are needed to explore the longitudinal impact of content vocabulary

instruction in mathematics, social studies and science as it translates into effective

classroom practices with elementary students.

422 S. J. Carrier

123

Acknowledgments I would like to acknowledge Dr. James Minogue for his generous assistance with

data analysis.

References

Abd-El-Khalick, F., Bell, R. L., & Lederman, N. G. (1998). The nature of science and instructional

practice: Making the unnatural natural. Science Education, 82, 417–436.

American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1989). Science for all Americans. Washington,

DC: Author.

American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1990). Science for all Americans. Washington,

DC: Author.

August, D., Branum-Martin, L., Cardenas-Hagan, E., & Francis, D. (2010). The impact of an instructionalintervention on the science and language learning of middle grade English language learners.

Society for Research on Educational Effectiveness. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No.

ED513407).

Ball, D. (1988). Unlearning to teach mathematics. For the Learning of Mathematics, 8(1), 40–48.

Baumann, J. F., Edwards, E. C., Font, G., Tereshinski, C. A., Kame’enui, E. J., & Olejnik, S. (2002).

Teaching morphemic and contextual analysis to fifth-grade students. Reading Research Quarterly,37, 150–176.

Baumann, J. F., Kame’enui, E. J., & Ash, G. (2003). Research on vocabulary instruction: Voltaire redux.

In J. Flood, D. Lapp, J. Squire, & J. Jensen (Eds.), Handbook of research on teaching the Englishlanguage arts (2nd ed., pp. 752–785). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Beck, I. L., McKeown, M. G., & Kucan, L. (2002). Bringing words to life: Robust vocabulary instruction.

New York: Guilford.

Beck, I. L., & McKewon, M. G. (2007). Increasing young low-income children’s oral vocabulary

repertoires through rich and focused instruction. Elementary School Journal, 107(3), 251–271.

Ben-Ari, M. (2005). Just a theory. Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books.

Best, R., Dockerell, J., & Braisby, N. (2006). Lexical acquisition in elementary science class. Journal ofEducational Psychology, 98(4), 824–838.

Bromley, K. (2007). Nine things every teacher should know about words and vocabulary instruction.

Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 50(7), 528–537.

Cao, L., & Nietfeld, J. (2007). College students’ metacognitive awareness of difficulties in learning the

class content does not automatically lead to adjustment of study strategies. Australian Journal ofEducational & Developmental Psychology, 7, 31–46.

Charmot, A. (1983). Toward a functional ESL curriculum in elementary school. TESOL Quarterly, 17(3),

459–471.

Chavkin, L. (2002). Readability and reading ease revisited: State-adopted science textbooks. TheClearing House, 70(3), 151–155.

Chiang-Soong, B., & Yager, R. E. (1993). Readability levels of science textbooks most used in secondary

schools. School Science and Mathematics, 93(1), 24–27.

Clarke, J. H. (1991). Using visual organizers to focus on thinking. Journal of Reading, 34(7), 526–534.

Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2007). Mixed methods research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Dunston, P. J. (1992). A critique of graphic organizer research. Reading Research and Instruction, 31,

57–65.

Gibbs, A., & Lawson, A. E. (1992). The nature of scientific thinking as reflected by the work of biologists

& by biology textbooks. American Biology Teacher, 54(3), 137–154.

Glen, N. J., & Dotger, S. (2009). Elementary teachers’ use of language to label and interpret science

concepts. Journal of Elementary Science Education, 21(4), 71–83.

Goldschmidt, P., & Jung, H. (2011). Evaluation of seeds/roots of reading: Effective tools for developmentof literacy through science in the early grades unit on planets and moons. CRESST Report 803.National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing (CRESST) (ERIC

Document Reproduction Service No. ED 522829).

Gonzalez, J. E., Pollard-Durodola, S., Simmons, D. C., Taylor, A. B., Davis, M. J., Kim, M. Y., et al.

(2010). Developing low-income preschoolers’ social studies and science vocabulary knowledge

through content-focused shared book reading. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness,4(1), 25–52.


123

Graves, M. F. (2006). The vocabulary book: Learning an instruction. New York: Teachers College Press.

Graves, M. F., & Watts-Taffe, S. M. (2002). The place of word-consciousness in a research-based

vocabulary program. In A. E. Farstrup & S. J. Samuels (Eds.), What research has to say aboutreading instruction (3rd ed., pp. 140–165). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.

Harlen, W. (1997). Primary teachers; understanding in science and its impact in the classroom. Researchin Science Education, 27(3), 323–337.

Harmon, J., Hedrick, W., & Wood, K. (2005). Reseach on vocabulary instruction in the content areas:

Implications for struggling readers. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 21, 261–280.

Hart, J. E., & Lee, O. (2003). Teacher professional development to improve the science and literacy

achievement of English language learners. Bilingual Research Journal, 27(3), 475–501.

Irvin, J. (1990). Vocabulary knowledge: Guidelines for instruction. Washington, DC: National Education

Association.

Isabelle, A., & de Groot, C. (2008). Alternate conceptions of elementary preservice teachers: The Itakura

method. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 19(5), 417–435.

Khalid, T. (2001). Preservice teachers’ misconceptions regarding three environmental issues. CanadianJournal of Environmental Education, 6, 102–120.

Kragler, S., Walker, C. A., & Martin, L. E. (2005). Strategy instruction in primary content textbooks. TheReading Teacher, 59(3), 254–261.

Lawson, A. (2010). How ‘‘scientific’’ is science education research? Journal of Research in ScienceTeaching, 47(3), 257–275.

Lee, O., Buxton, C., Lewis, S., & LeRoy, K. (2006). Science inquiry and student diversity: Enhanced

abilities and student difficulties after an instructional intervention. Journal of Research in ScienceTeaching, 43(7), 607–636.

Lee, O., Deaktor, R. A., Hart, J. E., Cuevas, P., & Enders, C. (2005). An instructional intervention’s

impact on the science and literacy achievement of culturally and linguistically diverse elementary

students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42(8), 857–887.

Lee, O., & Fradd, S. (1998). Science for all, including students from non-English-language backgrounds.

Educational Researcher, 27(4), 12–21.

Lee, O., Fradd, S., & Sutman, (1995). Science knowledge and cognitive strategy use among culturally and

linguistically diverse students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 32(8), 797–816.

Lee, O., Maerten-Rievea, J., Buxton, C., Penfield, R., & Secada, W. (2009a). Urban elementary teachers’

perspectives on teaching science to English language learners. Journal of Science TeacherEducation, 20(3), 263–286.

Lee, O., Penfield, R., & Marteen-Rivera, J. (2009b). Effects of fidelity of implementation on science

achievement gains among English language learners. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,46(7), 836–859.

Lemke, J. L. (1990). Talking science: Language, learning, and values. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing.

Lemke, J. L. (2003). Teaching all the languages of science: Words, symbols, images, and actions.

Retrieved from http://www-personal.umich.edu/*jaylemke/papers/barcelon.htm

Mallinson, G. G., Sturm, H., & Patton, R. E. (1950). The reading difficulty of textbooks in elementary

science. The Elementary School Journal, 50(8), 460–463.

McKeown, M. G., & Beck, I. L. (2004). Direct and rich vocabulary instruction. In J.F. Baumann &

E.J. Kame’enui (Eds.), Vocabulary Instruction. New York, NY: Guilford Press.

Michaels, S., Shouse, A., & Schweingruber, H. (2008). Ready, Set, Science! Putting Research to work inK-8 Classrooms. Board on Science Education, Center for Education, Division of Behavioral and

Social Sciences and Education. Washington, D.C: The National Academies Press.

Moates, L. (1999). Teaching reading is rocket science: What expert teachers of reading should know andbe able to do. Washington, DC: American Federation of Teachers.

National Center on Education and the Economy (NCEE). (2003). Reading Monograph Series—

Secondary-Vocabulary. NCEE: Washington, CC: National Center on Education and the Economy

National Institute for Literacy (2001). Reading: Know what works. A practical guide for educators.National Reading Panel update. Washington DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National

Academy Press.

National Research Council. (2007). Taking Science to School: Learning and Teaching Science in GradesK-8. Committee on Science Learning, Kindergarten through Eighth Grade. Richard A. Duschl, Heidi

Al Schweingruber, and Andrew W. Shouse, Editors. Board on Science Education, Center for

424 S. J. Carrier

123

http://www-personal.umich.edu/~jaylemke/papers/barcelon.htm

Education. Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, D.C/: The

National Academies Press.

Nelson, J. R., & Stage, S. A. (2007). Fostering the development of vocabulary knowledge and reading

comprehension though contextually-based multiple meaning vocabulary instruction. Education andTreatment of Children, 30(1), 1–22.

O’Toole, M. (1999). Language development through a practical approach to teaching science.

Investigating, 15, 19–22.

O’Toole, R. J., & Bedford, J. P. (1969). Science vocabulary and readability level. Journal of Research inScience Teaching, 6(2), 161–162.

Pearson, P. D., Hiebert, E. H., & Kamil, M. L. (2007). Vocabulary assessment: What we know and what

we need to know. Reading Research Quarterly, 42(2), 282–296.

Phillips, D. C., Foote, C. J., & Harper, L. J. (2008). Strategies for effective vocabulary instruction.

Reading Improvement, 45(2), 62–68.

Rowe, M. L., & Goldin-Meadow, S. (2009). Differences in early gesture explain SES disparities in child

vocabulary size at school entry. Science, 323(5916), 951–953.

Schoon, K. J., & Boone, W. J. (1998). Self-efficacy and alternative conceptions of science of preservice

elementary teachers. Science Education, 82(5), 553–568.

Scott, J., Jamieson-Noel, D., & Asselin, M. (2003). Vocabulary instruction throughout the day in twenty-

three Canadian upper-elementary classrooms. The Elementary School Journal, 103(3), 269–286.

Scruggs, T. E., & Mastropieri, M. A. (1994). Successful mainstreaming in elementary science classes:

A qualitative study of three reputation cases. American Educational Research Journal, 31(4),

785–811.

Shook, A. C., Hazelkorn, M., & Lozano, E. R. (2011). Science vocabulary for all. The Science Teacher,78(3), 45–49.

Spycher, P. (2009). Learning academic language through science in two linguistically diverse

kindergarten classes. The Elementary School Journal, 109(4), 359–379.

Stahl, S. A., & Nagy, W. E. (2006). Teaching word meanings. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Stodart, T., Pinal, A., Latzke, M., & Canaday, D. (2002). Integrating inquiry science and language

development for English language learners. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(8),

644–687.

Sutton, C. (1998). New perspectives on language in science. In B. J. Fraser & K.G. Tobin (Eds.),

International handbook of science education (Vol. 1, pp. 27–38). Dordrecht, The Netherlands:

Kluwer.

Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages. (2006). PreK-12 English language proficiencystandards. Alexandria, VA: Author.

Tilgner, P. J. (1990). Avoiding science in the elementary school. Science Education, 74(X), 421–431.

Tippett, C. (2009). Argumentation: The language of science. Journal of Elementary Science Education,21(1), 17–25.

Wellington, J., & Osborne, J. (2001). Language and literacy in science education. Buckingham: Open

University Press.

Williams, K. (1999). The pedagogical device and the production of pedagogical discourse: A case

example in early literacy education. In F. Christie (Ed.), Pedagogy and the shaping ofconsciousness: Linguistic and social processes (pp. 88–122). London: Continuum.

Wilson, J. M. (1999). Using words about thinking: Content analyses of chemistry teachers’classroom talk.

International Journal of Science Education, 21(10), 1067–1084.

Yager, R. E. (1983). The importance of terminology in teaching K-12 science. Journal of Research inScience Teaching, 20(6), 577–588.

Zeichner, K. (2002). Beyond traditional structures of student teaching. Teacher Education Quarterly,29(2), 59–64.


123

elementary preservice teachers’ science vocabulary: knowledge and application

Documents