elementary preservice teachers’ science vocabulary: knowledge and application
TRANSCRIPT
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.
Elementary Preservice Teachers’ Science Vocabulary 409
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
Elementary Preservice Teachers’ Science Vocabulary 411
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.
Elementary Preservice Teachers’ Science Vocabulary 413
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
Elementary Preservice Teachers’ Science Vocabulary 415
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
Elementary Preservice Teachers’ Science Vocabulary 417
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
Elementary Preservice Teachers’ Science Vocabulary 419
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
Elementary Preservice Teachers’ Science Vocabulary 421
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.
Elementary Preservice Teachers’ Science Vocabulary 423
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
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.
Elementary Preservice Teachers’ Science Vocabulary 425
123