running head: elementary teacher beliefs about the role of language 1 literacy ... ·...

Running Head: ELEMENTARY TEACHER BELIEFS ABOUT THE ROLE OF LANGUAGE 1

LITERACY INSTRUCTION IN A SCIENCE LESSON SEQUENCE

Elementary Teacher Beliefs about the Role of Language Literacy Instruction in a Science Lesson

Sequence

Sandie Grinnell

Mount Elden Middle School

Flagstaff, AZ

[email protected]

Barbara Austin

Wittenberg University

Springfield, OH

[email protected]

ELEMENTARY TEACHER BELIEFS ABOUT THE ROLE OF LANGUAGE LITERACY 2

INSTRUCTION IN A SCIENCE LESSON SEQUENCE

Abstract

Although not explicitly stated in many definitions, effective inquiry requires and supports the

development of multiple literacy skills including gaining information through the reading of

informational texts and sharing findings through written communication. Situating inquiry-based

learning within a learning cycle provides natural connections between hands-on work and the use

and advancement of literacy skills in the Explore, Explain, Elaborate, and Evaluation portions of

the learning cycle. Unfortunately, many teachers use literacy strategies that are ineffective in

science or replace a learning cycle with less effective sequences. This paper provides analysis of

qualitative data collected from 110 elementary teachers participating in four Math and Science

Partnership programs about their beliefs about the incorporation of the literacy elements of

vocabulary instruction and reading and summarizing when sequencing a science lesson. The

analysis indicates that many elementary teachers believe that vocabulary must be taught prior to

the lesson in order for students to learn the science concepts and that reading an informational

text is not an effective method of building knowledge of science concepts.



Elementary Teacher Beliefs about the Role of Language Literacy Instruction in a Science

Lesson Sequence

Today‟s teachers are recommended to move students beyond the rote memorization of

basic facts and toward the meaningful learning of content and development of critical thinking

skills. In order to bring about meaningful learning, it is important for teachers to understand that

concrete experiences and pre-existing schema allow individuals to construct new knowledge.

Despite recommendations made decades ago, many of our nation‟s science classrooms do not

provide students with activities reflective of strategies associated with meaningful learning.

Teachers can rectify this situation by recognizing the way knowledge is constructed by the

learner and by providing concrete experiences through which students can gain a conceptual

understanding of the abstract science concepts. In this paper we examine the research pertaining

to the goals of developing scientific literacy in all students, including English-language learners.

Secondly, we discuss research relating to the role prior knowledge plays in the construction of

new knowledge. We also look at the research discussing instructional strategies that use prior

knowledge to allow for the development of meaningful learning in the disciplines of science and

reading. Finally, we address the idea that science provides a meaningful context in which

students can develop language literacy skills, such as reading comprehension.

Background

This paper focuses on the essential idea that a goal of our educational system is to

develop both scientific and reading literacy in our elementary school students. In order for the

development of both scientific and reading literacy to occur, both disciplines recommend the

opportunity to learn the necessary prior knowledge before formal instruction. Like many others,

we suggest that reading literacy skills can and should be taught within the context of science.



The Role of Prior Knowledge in Learning

The constructivist theory of learning asserts that knowledge is constructed through

experiences, such as exploration of concepts, rather than being acquired through passive means

such as lecture or simply reading a textbook and answering questions at the end of the chapter.

The constructivist theory maintains that the development of knowledge in an individual is an

active process during which observations of objects and events lead to the addition of new

concepts that are constructed upon a pre-existing knowledge base (Novak & Gowin, 1984).

Researchers have described the construction of knowledge in disciplines such as science (Marek,

Gerber, & Cavallo, 1999) and reading (Smith, 2004), both of which are discussed in this paper.

Teachers who subscribe to the constructivist theory recognize that in order for learning to occur,

students must use their prior knowledge as a base on which to attach new knowledge, and to

learn in a meaningful context.

Regardless of the content being taught, researchers are in general agreement that teachers

must access students‟ prior knowledge in order to enable their students to make meaningful

connections between new and old ideas (Gilbert, Osborne, & Fensham, 1982; Freyberg &

Osborne, 1985; Schollum & Osborne, 1985; Smith, 2004). For students who do not possess

adequate prior knowledge to use for learning a new concept, experiences must be provided for

them in the classroom so they will be able to develop the necessary mental schema required to

learn the target concept. Students use their prior experiences as a determining factor of how they

will store any new knowledge that they construct. Because new knowledge is assimilated with

the mental structures a student previously constructed (Resnick, 1983; Glaser, 1983; Osborne &

Freyberg, 1985), a student‟s prior knowledge is continually undergoing a transformation with the



addition of new knowledge, and thus there is a continuous impact or feedback loop on any future

learning that occurs (Nuthall, 1999).

Students who are classified as English-language learners (ELLs) have an especially

pressing need to build the appropriate prior knowledge required for learning in a classroom that

may be very culturally different from what they are accustomed. Not only do ELL students need

to learn classroom norms, which may be culturally different from the norms they experienced at

home, but they are also linguistically at a disadvantage because they are not familiar with the

language of instruction (Lee, 2004). One component of success in the academic setting is the

ability to use academic language. Sheltered Instruction (SI) techniques are explained by

Echevarria, Short, & Powers (2008) as methods used by teachers to modify the core curriculum

in such a way that content is comprehensible to ELL students while at the same time assisting

them in the development of English-language proficiency. Learning models such as the Sheltered

Instruction Observation Protocol (SIOP) Model (Echevarria, Vogt, & Short, 2008) place major

focus upon the use of SI techniques, one of which is the development of prior knowledge at the

beginning of a lesson. This suite of techniques often takes the form of pre-teaching of

vocabulary, in order to prepare students for learning new content.

The use of the SIOP Model is widespread and is used in districts throughout all 50 states

to meet the language-learning needs of ELL students (Echevarria, Vogt, & Short, 2008).

Additionally, the SIOP Model is a model with which the teachers discussed in this paper should

be familiar: all certified teachers in the state in which the study was conducted are required to

have a minimum of 15 hours1 of SI training to meet the needs of ELL students. A component of

this training is instruction in the use of the SIOP Model.

1Teachers certified before August 31, 2006, are required to have fifteen hours of Sheltered English

Immersion (SEI) training. Teachers certified after August 31, 2006, are required to earn forty-five hours of SEI

training.



Developing Scientifically Literate Students

Scientific literacy is more than memorizing canonical scientific knowledge. Sixteen years

ago, the National Research Council (NRC) set the goal of ensuring that the focus of science

education should shift away from having teachers simply give information about science topics

to the students. Instead, educators should inspire students to develop an understanding of

scientific knowledge. The NRC asserted that conflict existed between teaching practices which

focus on merely covering the ideas in the textbook and the development of scientific

understanding in students (NRC, 1996). Instead, it was recommended that teachers use teaching

methods that allow their students to simultaneously structure their knowledge in a manner which

would facilitate understanding of content and develop an appreciation for how the scientific

knowledge was generated. In 2011, the NCR stated that improvements are needed in K-12

science education because:

..a compelling case can…be made that understanding science and engineering, now more

than ever, is essential for every American citizen. Science, engineering, and the

technologies they influence permeate every aspect of modern life. Indeed, some

knowledge of science and engineering is required to engage with the major public policy

issues of today as well as to make informed everyday decisions, such as selecting among

alternative medical treatments or determining how to invest public funds for water supply

options. (p. 1).

Have the goals for reformed science education set into place by the National Research Council

been achieved? Evidently not. In A Framework for K-12 Science Education (2011), the NCR

states:



Currently, K-12 science education in the United States fails to achieve these outcomes, in

part because it …emphasizes discrete facts with a focus on breadth over depth, and does

not provide students with engaging opportunities to experience how science is actually

done. (NCR, 2011, p. ES-1).

A factor that precludes the development of science literacy in our students is the lack of

focus placed upon science instruction in our schools. Because reading, writing, and mathematics

are subject areas which are annually tested to determine whether or not schools meet the

requirements defined by No Child Left Behind (NCLB) legislation of 2001 (H.R. 1-107th

Congress, 2001), these subject areas are more heavily represented in classroom instruction. Lee

(2004) asserts that this is especially true for ELL students as it is deemed an urgent issue for

them to develop English language skills, even though the trade-off might be decreased attention

paid to developing the knowledge and skills related to science literacy. This omission of science

instruction for certain students is in direct conflict with goals stated in the NSES:

Science is for all students. This principle is one of equity and excellence. Science in our

schools must be for all students: All students, regardless of age, sex, cultural or ethnic

backgrounds, disabilities, aspirations, or interest and motivation in science, should have

the opportunity to attain high levels of scientific literacy (NRC, 1996, p. 20).

In order to meet the NSES goal of giving all students the opportunity to learn science, it is

important that all students, including those who are classified as ELL, are permitted to engage in

actively learning science concepts through inquiry-based learning. Echevarria (2005) calls an

inquiry approach “a great equalizer for scientific learning” because it allows ELL students to

learn alongside their peers (p. 61). Settlage, Madsen, and Rustad (2005) state that inquiry allows

students of all abilities to become successful in science learning which is not dependent upon

“sophisticated language skills” at the onset of instruction. Students whose success is not

dependent on language proficiency in order to actively participate in science learning will not

only be more likely to participate, but will also demonstrate more success. According to the



NSES, ELL students deserve to learn science, regardless of their level of English language

proficiency.

One way teachers can structure science lessons to support the need for students to engage

in scientific inquiry is through the use of a learning cycle. A three-phase learning cycle was first

developed by Karplus in the 1960s in an attempt to reform science education in the United

States. A learning cycle is a sequence used to teach science in a way that is representative of

science itself (Marek & Cavallo, 1997). Among the benefits of using a learning cycle in science

teaching is that it allows students to learn in a manner that corresponds to the nature of scientific

inquiry, and it is a direct application of the NSES (Marek, Gerber, & Cavallo, 1999). Since its

inception, several versions of the learning cycle have been articulated in science education

literature and have been used by teachers (Karplus, 1977; Lawson, 1988; Settlage, Odom, &

Harkins, 2008). Regardless of which version of the learning cycle is being implemented, the two

most relevant phases for discussion in this paper are the phase during which students directly

explore concepts and the phase in which explanations are given for the concepts observed during

the exploration.

A characteristic feature of any version of a learning cycle is that before students receive

instruction about key terms and concepts, they are engaged in self-directed exploration activities.

Exploration gives students the opportunity to manipulate objects and materials, make

observations, and collect data in an attempt to discover patterns of a targeted concept. During

this phase, teachers facilitate student investigations and observe as students reveal their

preconceptions. When the lesson is skillfully designed, students will encounter phenomena that

challenge their prior understandings, thus exploration is necessary both to activate a student‟s



prior knowledge and to facilitate new connections about the concept under investigation

(Kratochvil & Crawford, 1971; Lawson, 1988; Marek & Cavallo, 1997; Settlage, et. al, 2008).

Another feature of a learning cycle is that the key concepts of an exploration are revealed

only after students have had the opportunity to observe patterns and attempt to make sense of any

observations and data which they collected. Sometimes called the “term introduction” or

“explain” phase, the teacher guides the students in the interpretation of observations and data

made during the previous exploration and provides the students with the correct scientific

terminology with which to describe the observed phenomena (Lawson, 1988; Settlage, et. al,

2008). Alternately, students may receive explanatory information from a textbook, video, or

other source of information (Lawson, 1988). During the second phase, connections are made

between student observations of phenomena and the often abstract concepts associated with

them, providing an important link between old and new knowledge (Kratochvil & Crawford,

1971). By allowing students to experience science concepts in a concrete manner prior to formal

instruction, teachers who use a learning cycle in their classrooms are creating a learning

environment in which the construction of prior knowledge is valued as a prerequisite for both

meaningful learning and conceptual understanding of science content.

SIOP strategies may be used by science teachers who are considering the needs of ELL

students. On the surface there appears to be some degree of conflict between the

recommendations made by the SIOP Model (Echevarria, Vogt, & Short, 2008) and

recommendations made by proponents of inquiry-based teaching. In order to prepare students for

the content they will receive in a lesson, SIOP advocates beginning a lesson with the introduction

of the content objectives which will be met, as well as the direct instruction of key vocabulary.

While the practice pre-teaching of vocabulary may enable students to more effectively



comprehend as they read a text, it does not adequately prepare students to learn science content.

Pre-teaching vocabulary does not promote learning by inductive instruction (Settlage, Madsen, &

Rustad, 2005) and is not consistent with the use of a learning cycle in teaching science concepts.

This apparent conflict can be remedied easily by allowing students to participate in concept

exploration activities prior to the direct instruction of key vocabulary and the content objectives

(Echevrria,2005; Settlage, Madsen, & Rustad,2005), thus preserving the learning cycle sequence

of instruction.

A National Focus on Reading Skills

In order to master the content in any discipline and to make sense of the incredible

amount of information which is available, students must be able to read. Success in an English

literature class requires students to navigate the structures of the various genres of literary text. In

a science class, students must be able to utilize the common structures of expository text to aid in

the comprehension of content.

Reading literacy is of utmost importance in education, a fact made abundantly clear in

the NCLB legislation of 2001. A considerable amount of effort has been placed on determining

which instructional methods will best meet the goals set forth by NCLB. Just prior to the

implementation of NCLB, the National Reading Panel Report of the Subgroups (National

Reading Panel, 2000) reviewed hundreds of studies on reading instruction and focused its

recommendations on the areas of alphabetic (phonemic awareness and phonics), fluency, and

comprehension. Reading with comprehension is especially important at the upper-elementary

level, when students should begin to transition from learning to read to reading materials with the

purpose of gaining knowledge (Robeck & Wallace, 1990).



As with meaningful learning in other disciplines, reading requires that students possess

and use their prior knowledge to meaningfully comprehend a text. Reading skills such as

drawing conclusions, making inferences, following arguments and solving problems are

important, but without some degree of prior knowledge about the subject of a text,

comprehension will be very difficult (Smith, 2004). An often-recommended strategy is the

activation of prior knowledge in order to set the stage for the specific text to be read. Prior

knowledge may be accessed in an informal class discussion and organized through the use of a

simple graphic organizer, such as a K-W-L chart. Another way to help students retrieve their

prior knowledge is to have the students make and record personal connections to the text during

reading. By connecting information from the text directly to students‟ mental schema, these

strategies are consistent with the concept of developing meaningful learning mentioned by

Ausubel (1963), because they require students to interact with their content through placing

focus on building relationships between old and new knowledge.

Another recommendation for strengthening students‟ reading comprehension skills is to

focus on vocabulary instruction. Strong correlations have been found between vocabulary

instruction and reading comprehension, thus, direct vocabulary instruction is often recommended

(Beck, McKeown, & Omanson, 1987; Bruer, 1993; Harmon, Hedrick, & Wood, 2005). By

introducing key vocabulary from a text, teachers can assist students in building some aspects of

prior knowledge needed for text comprehension. Although researchers do not regard it as an

effective practice for vocabulary acquisition, teachers most often teach vocabulary using

methods that require rote memorization (Just & Carpenter, 1987). A general familiarity with the

topic of instruction has more of an impact on reading comprehension than does the learning of

vocabulary to be encountered in the text. However, regardless of the findings that vocabulary



knowledge correlates with reading comprehension, the teaching of vocabulary in isolation will

not improve reading comprehension unless it takes into consideration the “big picture” (Bruer,

1993).

Within the context of reading for science content, vocabulary is an important component

of conceptual knowledge. Groves (1995) states that science is a language and contends that part

of understanding the language of science is understanding the vocabulary. He cautions, however,

that placing too much emphasis on vocabulary can impede the acquisition of scientific

understanding, and could lead students to develop an incorrect understanding of the nature of

science. Similarly, the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS, 1990)

states, “For teachers to concentrate on vocabulary, however, is to detract from science as a

process, to put learning for understanding in jeopardy, and to risk being misled about what

students have learned” (p. 203). Instead, teachers need to realize that effective vocabulary

learning often occurs simultaneously with the development of content knowledge (Just &

Carpenter, 1987).

Interconnected Nature of Reading and Science

If our goal in teaching science is to produce scientifically literate citizens, then educators

cannot dismiss the role language literacy plays in the scientific endeavor. Language can be

viewed as the technology used by scientists in the construction of scientific understanding, to

communicate procedures and claims and to make arguments based on evidence (Yore, Hand,

Goldman, Hildebrand, Osborne, & Treagust, 2004). Without language, scientists would be

unable to express their findings to others, describe the processes used in order that others can

replicate them, argue their claims and base those claims on evidence, or even read about the

findings of others.



Because language literacy skills are necessary to the practice of science, science provides

the perfect context in which to teach students to use language both correctly and effectively. The

inclusion of reading within science instruction allows students to simultaneously develop literacy

skills such as reading comprehension and demonstrates that writing can be used as a tool for

communication. Researchers are also in agreement that science can be used as a vehicle with

which to develop reading and writing skills for a purpose (Morrow, Pressley, Smith & Smith,

1997; Dyasi & Dyasi, 2004). Dyasi and Dyasi (2004) make this point in stating that “students

have opportunities for direct participation in scientific acts of reading and writing the word that

make scientific meaning, for experience in the use of language to enhance the making and

communication of reading…” (p. 427). Furthermore, the inclusion of reading can enhance

science teaching when reading an informational text is actuated by inquiry (Pearson, Moje, &

Greenleaf, 2010).

Another benefit of using science as a conduit for reading instruction is that both scientific

inquiry and reading involve similar processes (Goodman, 1969; Musheno & Lawson, 1999). In

both reading and inquiry, prior knowledge plays a key role in making meaning from newly

encountered information. Additionally, both disciplines require an individual to make and

confirm predictions. In reading, predictions are confirmed through the details in a text. In

science, predictions are measured against the evidence gained from experimentation.

Unfortunately, the benefits of using science to provide a context for the development of

language skills are not always recognized by educators. As noted earlier, Lee (2004) describes

how science instruction for ELLs is often ignored due to the priority placed upon developing

English language skills in these students. What is most unfortunate about this practice is that

these students are being denied the opportunity to practice language skills such as speaking,



reading, writing, spelling, and grammar within the meaningful context of a science lesson instead

of in isolation. Students who struggle with reading, regardless of whether their difficulties lie in

their lack of familiarity with the language of instruction or is due to other factors, such as

learning disabilities, should be provided with opportunities to connect literacy skills with

science, as their strengths may lie within other processes used in the science classroom and could

potentially lead to academic success (Pearson, Moje, & Greenleaf, 2010).

Science provides the opportunity for teachers to inject explicit instruction about how to

gain information from an informational text. According to Bruce Alberts, editor-in-chief of

Science, “It is this factual informational text that dominates today‟s knowledge-everywhere

world” (Alberts, 2010, p. 405). With this idea in mind, one might expect informational text to

dominate instruction within the classroom. Instead, Venezky (2000) contends that there is an

inconsistency between the focus on literary instruction in the classroom and the actual literary

needs faced by the time students reach adulthood. While literacy instruction is dominated almost

exclusively by literary text, what adults require is the ability to gain knowledge from

informational text. It is considered to be this lack of focus on informational text within the

classroom that results in low student achievement on the informational text portion of

standardized tests (Duke, 2000).

Research into Practice

While researchers spend tremendous efforts in determining effective instructional

methods, an increasing gap exists between researchers and practitioners (Duit & Treagust, 2003).

Teachers who continue to rely upon algorithmic and rote instruction perpetuate the myth that

science is a static body of knowledge. Evidence that this practice is still occurring can be found

in the mathematics and science lessons studied by Weiss, Pasley, Smith, Banilower, and Heck



(2003): eighty-two percent of the lessons studied did not provide experiences for students that

were investigative in nature. What causes teachers to continue teaching with methods that have

been shown to be less than effective at bringing about meaningful learning? Can it be that they

simply don‟t know any better?

Summary

A primary goal of our educational system is to produce citizens who possess both

scientific and language literacy skills. A scientifically literate citizen understands the processes

by which scientific knowledge is generated and realizes that science is more than a body of

knowledge which can be learned simply through memorization. Adults who possess language

literacy skills are able to read and comprehend information presented to them in numerous ways,

including informational texts. In both disciplines, ensuring that students have sufficient prior

knowledge to which new ideas can be connected increases the occurrences of meaningful

learning. Because science provides a meaningful context for learning language literacy skills, it

makes sense to teach students how to access information in an informational text within the

explanatory phase of a science lesson sequenced using a learning cycle.

In this study, we address three questions concerning the way elementary school teachers

sequence introductory lessons on the concept of sound:

1. What beliefs do teachers hold about the pre-teaching of vocabulary in a science lesson

about sound?

2. How do teachers reason about the use of informational texts in a science lesson?

3. What similarities exist between recommendations about teaching reading and methods

teachers espouse for teaching sound?



Context of Analysis and Methods

Context of Analysis

Data analysis was completed primarily by the first author of this article, an elementary

school teacher whose current employment emphasis focuses on both science and language arts

teaching. A majority of her career was spent teaching in a school which devalued the teaching of

science at the elementary school level. Very few teachers were dedicated to teaching science

well, if at all. Very little attention was paid to developing science literacy in the students. In

addition to the narrow focus on a limited number of content areas, increased attention was placed

on meeting the language development needs of ELLs and consequently, the primary author has

been required to undergo additional training in the use of sheltered instruction techniques to

provide ELL students with support as they develop English language proficiency. The primary

author has also participated in professional development and graduate work focusing on science

teaching, both of which placed heavy emphasis on the use of the learning cycle to allow students

to construct an understanding of science concepts.

The second author is a former middle school math and high school physics currently

employed as a science education professor. In addition to teaching cognition, assessment, science

methods and qualitative research courses, she has also developed and implemented more than a

dozen professional development programs for practicing elementary, middle level, and high

school teachers.

Setting

The study population consisted of participants from four Math and Science Partnership

(MSP) programs located in the southwestern United States. Two of the projects focused on life

science, one focused on earth and space science, and the fourth focused on physical science. The



instrument used for this analysis was completed as an assignment by all participants in all four

projects at the beginning of each project, however, participation in this study was voluntary.

Permission to use the responses for research purpose was solicited from all MSP participants

using the human subjects research procedure approved for this project by the Institutional

Review Board (IRB). A total of 110 of the 125 MSP participants agreed to take part in this study.

The grade span taught by the participants ranged from kindergarten to seventh grade and

participants had between one and twenty-six years of experience. The school characteristics of

the research participants can be seen in Table 1.

School Locale School Type

Socio-

Economic

Status

Rural

Small

Urban Urban Charter Private Public Title 1

69% 19% 12% 22% 1% 77% 90%

Table 1: School characteristics. Description of participant schools.

Assessment Instrument

The instrument used in this study (Austin, 2009) was modeled after an assessment

developed by Hanuscin and Lee (2008) to assess pre-service teachers‟ understanding of the

learning cycle. Initially, the instrument designed for this project was created with the goal of

gathering information about teachers‟ conceptions about teaching and learning prior to and after

receiving professional development in the four state-funded MSP programs. These programs

were taught with a heavy emphasis on the learning cycle, and the professional development

instructors were interested in developing an instrument capable of elucidating teacher thinking

regarding the sequencing of science lesson. For the pre-assessment, participants were given a set

of cards which contained eight learning events focused on the content of sound waves. Both

passive and active learning events were represented in the card set, as were activities which

could be described as learner- or teacher-centered. The events included a Slinky® exploration



(See Figure 1), direct vocabulary instruction, reading and summarizing of an informational text,

a multimedia CD exploration, and a student-guided experiment.

Working in groups, students explore the motion of slinkies and describe how the slinky

moves with various types of hand motions. Groups share their description of motion with

each other and try to find relationships between hand motions and motion of the slinky.

Figure 1: Slinky® activity. Example of card from lesson sequencing assessment

At the beginning of each of the four MSPs, participants were given an envelope containing all

eight activity cards and a card with the activity instructions (Figure 2).

In the envelope you will find 8 cards that could be used to

teach a lesson on sound. Please look through the cards

and choose 3-5 that you think could be used to form a

high quality science lesson: remember—no less than 3

and no more than 5. Tape your choices, in order, down

one side of a blank piece of paper. Next to each choice,

write 2-5 sentences on why you chose the card and why

you put it where you did in the lesson sequence. Tape the

remaining cards to the other side of the paper. Next to

each card, write why you didn’t choose it.

Figure 2: Assessment instructions. Instructions for lesson sequencing assessment

Figure 3 provides a sample of one participant‟s response.



Figure 3. Sample of Participant Data

Data Analysis

A grounded theory approach (Miles and Huberman, 1994) was used to analyze the

written statements provided by the participants in justifying their lesson sequence. Initially, the

data were analyzed by both authors and six other graduate students as a part of a qualitative

research seminar. Analysis was completed by using the EZ-Text software available for download

from the Centers for Disease Control. One advantage to using EZ-Text is that it allows users to

develop and use a common codebook on a single web-based database. During the course of the

semester, the codebook was developed iteratively and was based upon the agreement of the

researchers. Themes emerged that were identified as potential codes, discussed as a group, and

added to the codebook if there was a general consensus among the researchers. Reliability

measures available in EZ-Text software were used. Coding differences were noted and

discussed, leading to additions, modifications, and deletions of codes in the codebook. After this

process was repeated several times, a reliability of greater than seventy percent using Cohen‟s

kappa for twenty-two of the codes was obtained.



One of the codes that emerged from the data was related to literacy. Within the context of

language arts instruction, the term “literacy” includes reading, writing, speaking and listening, all

of which are typically taught within an elementary school classroom. Early in the coding process,

we noticed that several participants made reference to ideas that could be related to literacy,

including the direct instruction of vocabulary terms, the use of scientifically accurate terms for

communication about the concept of sound, and the reading of informational text. We realized

that responses coded “literacy” would later need to be analyzed further and separated into

additional codes. The literacy theme is an area in which the authors have particular interest and is

the focus of this analysis. Using the same 110 participant responses we used a grounded

approach to analyze the data with a focus on teacher reasoning or selection of learning events

which indicated either an interest in promoting literacy skills or the failure to select events which

promoted literacy skills. Again EZ-Text software was used to develop a new codebook focusing

on literacy that captured the sub-categories of teacher thinking about the function and placement

of literacy instruction in a science lesson. In order to characterize the reliability of these new

codes, a subset of the responses were given to the second author who then coded the responses

using the new codebook. There was one hundred percent agreement on the coding of the

responses, so we assumed that the codes were reliable.

Findings

The focus of the analysis described in this paper was a disaggregation of the “literacy”

code to determine teacher reasoning about the inclusion of reading literacy skills within science

lessons. In the original data set, participants referenced literacy 160 times. Of the 110

participants, seventy-nine either chose or liked2 the direct vocabulary instruction activity, while

2 Although the directions for the assessment stated that participants were to sequence their activity

selections, some did not, instead indicating whether they liked or disliked an activity.



only twenty-four chose or liked the reading and summarizing activity. Nineteen participants

chose both the vocabulary and reading activities while twenty-nine chose neither. Another ten

participants demonstrated that they were considering the importance of developing literacy-

related skills but did not seem to think that the implementation of the vocabulary or reading

activities were the best way to do so.

Activities in the “literacy” category included vocabulary instruction, reading and

summarizing, or any other activity that a participant chose in conjunction with explicitly stated

reasoning about the activity‟s potential for developing literacy skills. It quickly became apparent

that a significant number of teachers were not choosing either the vocabulary or reading literacy

activities for various reasons. As a result, we created a new code to indicate that teachers were

not selecting either of the activities we had identified as literacy activities. The specific activities

under consideration for this new code, “not literacy,” are exclusively the vocabulary instruction

(Activity 2) and reading/summarizing (Activity 8) activities.

Activity 2 was vocabulary instruction. From participant responses to this activity, several

themes emerged, including the pre-teaching of vocabulary, a connection between vocabulary and

prior learning, and a connection between vocabulary and communication about target concepts.

Among the participants who did not select vocabulary instruction, additional themes emerged

which indicated that many teachers in this study believe vocabulary instruction is an ineffective

way to promote meaningful learning, is boring or difficult, or lacks hands-on, sensory

experiences.

Our analysis of the responses to the reading and summarizing activity revealed additional

themes. Teachers who selected reading and summarizing typically did so in order to either pre-

teach concepts about sound prior to student exploration of concepts, or they selected it to explain



phenomena observed during explorations. Some teachers placed reading and summarizing after

vocabulary instruction and an exploration or before another exploration. Among the teachers

who did not select reading and summarizing the same themes emerged as were seen in those who

did not choose vocabulary instruction. They argued that reading and summarizing does not

provide students with hands-on, sensory experiences, or is ineffective, boring, or too difficult.

Some teachers recognized that vocabulary and content knowledge about the concept of

sound are necessary but did not choose vocabulary instruction or reading and summarizing.

Instead, these teachers expressed that they would teach vocabulary and content knowledge

through an activity rather than direct instruction. This category contained 116 responses, with

thirty-one participants either not choosing or not liking the vocabulary activity and eighty-six

participants who specified that they either would not choose or did not like the activity in which

students read and summarized information about waves. As with the “literacy” code, our analysis

of the “not literacy” code focused upon locating emergent themes as to why teachers were not

selecting these activities as part of their instructional sequences.

Vocabulary

The vocabulary activity description reads as follows: “The teacher introduces vocabulary

terms to students such as energy, wavelength, volume, pitch, amplitude, and frequency.”

Vocabulary instruction was a frequently chosen activity, with seventy-nine participants selecting

it at some point in their instructional sequence. The vocabulary activity was selected twenty-five

times as the first activity in the sequence, thirty-three times as the second activity, eleven times

as the third activity, seven times as the fourth activity, and once as the last activity.



Of the seventy-nine participants who selected the vocabulary activity, fifty-nine placed it

early in the sequence. Among the responses of teachers who placed vocabulary early in the

sequence, three themes emerged (See Figure 4).

Figure 4. Vocabulary theme. Percentage of participants from LS study (N=110) and LV

(literacy vocabulary) subset (n=79). Note: Percentages were calculated independently

and will not add up to 100.

Pre-teaching vocabulary: Thirty teachers sequenced the vocabulary either first or second

and indicated that by pre-teaching vocabulary, students would be able to understand the concepts

which would be taught later in a lesson. They stated:

“I have always been taught and textbook series support this format, that the

introduction of vocabulary terms prior to the actually [sic] teaching of the content

helps prepare the students for a better understanding of the concept being taught”

(10111/2A 2/5).3

3 Participant Quotation: 10111 represents the participant identification number. 2A represents the activity

chosen, in this case the vocabulary instruction activity. 2/5 indicates that the participant chose the activity as the

second in a sequence of five activities. On occasion, a participant chose activities that he/she liked or disliked rather

than choosing and sequencing activities. In this situation, PL will serve to indicate that the activity was not

sequenced, but the participant liked it. S0 indicates that the participant did not like the activity.

38%

32%

16%

27%

23%

12%

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40%

Pre-teaching vocabulary

Vocabulary connected to prior learning

Vocabulary allows for communication

% of LS Participants % of LV



“It‟s important to start a lesson with vocabulary so that students can understand more

of what is being taught throughout the rest of the lesson” (10115/2A 1/4).

“It is important that students understand the vocabulary prior to beginning the lesson.

Teachers should preteach [sic] this information” (40102/2A 1/5).

“I feel pre-teaching vocabulary should be the first step. Students will not be able to

assimilate the information without understanding the terms used” (40117/2A 1/4).

Some teachers who chose to pre-teach vocabulary indicated that this method would build

student prior/background knowledge about the concept:

“Children need background & vocabulary to stick new information to. Introducing

terms helps prepare them to describe what they‟re about to learn” (10124/2A 1/4).

“Students need some prior knowledge before they are thrown into an assignment”

(20113/2A 1/5).

“This will help build background…” (30116/2A 1/5).

Vocabulary connected to prior learning: Twenty-five teachers taught vocabulary after the

students had already explored the concept of sound so that they would have some concrete

experiences that would be described by the vocabulary terms. They said:

“Vocabulary because they can relate previous experiment + make the connection”

(10117/2A 2/5, following Slinky® exploration).

“These terms relate to the exploration of sound undertaken so far” (10126/2A 3/4,

following identifying objects that vibrate to make sound and Slinky® activity).

“Next, I would go into the vocab [sic] and explain what some of their findings were

called” (20107/2A 2/5, following identification of objects that vibrate to make

sound).



“The vocabulary is a fundamental part in a lesson. By explaining + vocabulary the

students will understand better what they did in the first two activities” (30115/2A

3/5, following identification of objects that vibrate to make sound and designing

experiments to test factors that affect sound).

“Once the students have experimented and made their own discoveries, the teacher

can listen to students‟ explanations. As they are discussed, the teacher can help

provide „official‟ vocabulary and solid knowledge of what they have discovered”

(40111/2A 2/3, following design of experiment to test factors that affect sound).

Vocabulary allows for communication: This category indicates that thirteen teachers

believe vocabulary should be taught because it enables students to communicate about the

concept. Teachers stated:

“A student must know the proper terms when explaining how things work”

(20114/2A 1/5).

“After they had experienced the slinky „making waves‟, vocabulary would be

beneficial to getting student to start to speak with the proper terms” (20118/2A 2/3).

“Vocabulary enables students to speak a common language. At this point, they can

relate these words to the knowledge they‟ve learned thus far” (40120/2A 4/5).

“Vocabulary is important in order to communicate with each other on the topic”

(40126/2A 1/4).

“After the student has built a basic foundation knowledge about waves, he will apply

the new vocabulary to the new concepts. This lesson is about sound, so vocabulary is

important to communicate in the new language” (40135/2A 2/5).



Reading and Summarizing

The second literacy activity from the lesson sequencing assessment reads as follows:

“Students read about what waves are, how they are formed, and how they travel. They record

notes summarizing what they read.” Twenty-four of the 110 participants chose this activity, and

two major themes emerged from the participant responses (See Figure 5).

Figure 5. Reading selected themes. Percentage of participants from LS (Lesson

Sequencing) study (N=110) and LR (Literacy Reading) subset (n=24). Note: Percentages

were calculated independently and will not add up to 100%.

Pre-teaching content: Nine participants placed the reading and summarizing activity prior

to an exploration activity, five of which placed it after the vocabulary instruction. They reasoned:

“Students need to read about the concept after they understand the vocabulary”

(30120/8A 2/5).

“After learning the vocabulary it will be easier for students to understand and

summarize a reading based on a lesson on waves” (30105/8A 2/4).

Three of the participants placed the reading and summarizing activity before either

vocabulary instruction or an exploration. They justified this by stating:

“Student now know pre Knowledge [sic] of subject” (30101/8A 1/4).

38%

54%

8%

12%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%

Pre-teaching Content

Explanation for Exploration

% of LS Participants % of LR



“You introduce the topic. An overview of what the student will learn” (40129/8A

1/3).

“The sw [student will] become familiar with the basics of waves. This will become

foundation knowledge. From this point the sw build knowledge” (40135/8A 1/5).

The remaining participant placed the reading and summarizing activity first, followed by

two exploration activities and an activity which can be deemed an assessment, however,

vocabulary was never taught. The participant said, “Some students can gain an understanding by

reading first [sic] the information to be investigated” (30102/8A 1/4).

Reading explains exploration: Thirteen teachers chose the reading activity and placed it

after an exploratory activity (eight of whom also placed it after vocabulary instruction). They

remarked:

“They will relate to the prior knowledge they‟ve learned from doing the experiments”

(20108/8A 3/5).

“Students are now starting to have even more questions that they have not explored.

Books are a great way to gain knowledge and use it in further experiments”

(20113/8A 4/5).

“Next we will read about content. The students now have a visual and understanding

of the vocabulary to help with the understanding of the content” (40115/8/A 3/5).

Four participants placed the reading and summarizing activity after an exploration and

vocabulary instruction and before another exploration activity. They said:

“I realize this is a very boring choice, but the students need some basic information

about sound waves…” (40136/8A 3/5, preceding activity in which students identify

objects that vibrate and instrument building activity).



“We would take turns reading and talking about the important points. This will give

them a knowledge base to set-up the next activity” (10113/8A 3/5, preceding in which

students test factors that affect sound).

The remaining participant used the reading and summarizing activity after explorations

and before vocabulary instruction. He or she stated, “They record notes summarizing what they

read. Instruction begins with this” (20115/8A 3/5).

Eighty-six teachers did not choose the reading and summarizing activity. Upon further

analysis, four themes emerged from the responses explaining why the reading and summarizing

activity was not chosen. Below is a description of each theme along with examples of quotes

from participant responses (Figure 6).

Figure 6. Themes identified when reading was not selected. Percentage of participants

from LS study (N=110) and NLR (not literacy reading) subset (n=86) whose reasoning

was consistent with each theme. Note: Percentages were calculated independently by

theme and will not add up to 100%.

Reading not hands-on: Twenty-four teachers explained that they did not select the

reading and summarizing activity because it lacked a hands-on component or because it did not

provide direct, sensory experiences. Teachers stated:

28%

26%

17%

12%

22%

20%

14%

9%

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30%

Reading not hands-on

Reading ineffective

Reading boring

Reading difficult

% of LS Participants % of NLR



“There isn‟t any student engagement, no direct experience of any kind for them to

design, test, or reflect on their learning” (10106/8A 0/5).

“Sound needs to be heard, felt, experienced and hands-on due to the nature of sound

itself” (10112/8A 0/4).

“I also believe the students would learn more from hands on [sic] materials and be

able to take the information into the real world experiences” (10128/8A 0/4).

“Students won‟t observe examples and won‟t be able to use senses” (30116/8A 0/5).

“This step does not give children a chance to really explore what sound is. No hands-

on experience” (40121/8A 0/4).

In contrast, three activities provided direct, hands-on experiences: 1) “Working in

groups, students explore the motion of slinkies and describe how the slinky moves with various

types of hand motions. Groups share their description of motion with each other and try to find

relationships between hand motions and motion of the slinky,” 5) “Working in small groups,

students design experiments to test factors that affect sound including rate of vibration, the size

of the vibrating object, the material from which the object is made, and the energy used to

initiate vibration,” and 6)“Given a set of materials (box, strings, ruler) students work in groups to

build an instrument on which they can play Mary Had a Little Lamb.” Seventy-seven teachers

chose the Slinky® activity, eighty-five teachers chose the experiment design activity, and sixty-

eight teachers chose the instrument building activity.

Reading ineffective: Twenty-two teachers expressed the point of view that reading and

summarizing are not an effective way to build meaningful learning about concepts of sound.

They explained:



“If all the students do is read from a book and record what they read the information

will not „stick‟ with them—[sic]” (20119/8 0/4).

“Just reading does not always give students an understanding” (20120/8A 0/4).

“Early elementary students would not retain a lot of what they learned from this

teaching method. It would not be meaningful for them” (40118/8A 0/4).

“Summarizing is a great skill but does not guarantee understanding. Also there [sic]

chances for misconceptions that are not cleared with this type of lesson” (40125/8A

S0).

“Students are going to remember very little about what they read. This is a fairly

abstract concept and students will have a hard time making connections when the

material is only presented in print” (40128/8A 0/5).

One teacher seemed to see absolutely no merit in using the reading and summarizing

activity to teach the concept of sound: “Useless” (20101/8A S0) is the only indication he or she

gave to indicate why the activity was not chosen.

Reading boring: Fifteen teachers explained that they did not choose the reading and

summarizing activity simply because it was boring. At times it was difficult to know whether the

teacher considered the activity to be too boring for the students or for the teacher. The

participants stated:

“I don‟t think this would grab they‟re [sic] attention, and they would check out before

we started” (10109/8A 0/4).

“Hands-on is more fun than reading. Students might not be so interested in reading.

But they are more interested in doing the experiment” (10117/8A 0/5).

“ZZZZZZZZZ” (10126/8A 0/4).



“I didn‟t choose this activity because it seems rather boring and not interactive”

(40110/8A 0/5).

“This is a real boring way to teach. If youre [sic] going to use this method you might

as well not come to class [sic] just write the assignment on the board and leave”

(40131/8A 0/3).

Reading difficult: Ten teachers did not seem to like the reading and summarizing activity

because it was too difficult for their students. Teachers indicated that students may struggle with

the reading and summarizing activity because their students are struggling readers, because they

are English-language learners (ELLs), or because they are in a younger grade level:

“Most of my students would need help understanding” [participant indicates a focus

on 2nd

and 3rd

grades] (10120/8A 0/5).

“Students just reading cannot provide effective learning especially when you have

some who will not understand without intervention” (30104/8A 0/5).

“Since a certain proportion of each class has students with reading difficulties, this

can also be a daunting task with increasing frustration at lack of understanding”

(40111/8A 0/3).

“This lesson does not reach students who are ELL or have difficulty reading…”

(40123/8A S0).

However, not all teachers explained why they felt students would not demonstrate

success with this activity: “Students might not fully understand what they have read and form

misconceptions” (20117/8A 0/3).



Literacy and the Learning Cycle

The initial focus on this study was to determine teacher beliefs with regard to the learning

cycle. However, concluding whether or not teachers are strictly adhering to the use of a learning

cycle in their activity choices is beyond the scope of this paper. Because the focus of this paper is

on the role of vocabulary and reading within a science lesson, in this section we will discuss only

whether the vocabulary and reading activities were placed before or after an exploration activity

(See Figure 7). For this analysis, the following activities were considered to be exploratory in

nature: Activity 1, the Slinky® exploration; Activity 5, the design of experiments to test factors

that affect sound; and Activity 6, the building of an instrument which can be used to play “Mary

Had a Little Lamb.”

Vocabulary before exploration: Thirty-seven teachers placed vocabulary instruction prior

to an exploration activity. They elaborated:

“It‟s important to start a lesson with vocabulary so that students can understand more

of what is being taught throughout the rest of the lesson” (10115/2A 1/4).

“Children need background & vocabulary to stick new information to. Introducing

terms helps prepare them to describe what they‟re about to learn” (10124/2A 1/4).

“Students first need to have an understanding of the terms that will be used. Students

need some prior knowledge before they are thrown into an assignment” (20113/2A

1/5).

“Students need to have an understanding of the vocab. they will hear during the

lesson” (30116/2A 1/5).

“It is important that students understand the vocabulary prior to beginning the lesson.

Teachers should preteach this information” (40102/2A 1/5).



Figure 7: Placement of literacy. Percentages of participants who placed literacy

activities before or after exploration. Vocabulary and Reading and Summarizing subset

(n=17); reading and summarizing subset (n=22); vocabulary subset (n=76). Note: some

participants did not sequence their activities and are not included in these data.

Vocabulary after exploration: Thirty-nine teachers placed vocabulary instruction after

one or more activities which can be construed as exploratory in nature. They noted:

“Vocabulary because they can relate to previous experiment + make the connection”

(10117/2A 2/5, following Slinky® exploration4).

“After the explorations and activities that relate to sound, the students shld. [sic] learn

the terminology to enhance their knowledge” (20108/2A 5/5, following testing factors

of sound, Slinky® exploration).

“Once the students have experimented and made their own discoveries, the teacher

can listen to students‟ explanations. As they are discussed, the teacher can help

provide „official‟ vocabulary…” (40111/2A 2/3, following testing factors of sound).

4 Only exploratory activities are listed.

49%

50%

53%

51%

50%

47%

44% 46% 48% 50% 52% 54%

Vocabulary

Reading and Summarizing

Both Vocabulary and Reading and

Summarizing

After Exploration Before Exploration



“Vocabulary enables students to speak a common language. At this point, they can

relate these words to the knowledge they‟ve learned thus far” (40102/2A 4/5,

following testing factors of sound and Slinky® exploration).

Reading before exploration: Eleven teachers placed the reading and summarizing activity

before exploration. They reported:

“Teacher introduces subject and has students read. Student now know pre Knowledge

[sic] of the subject” (30101/8A 1/4).

“Some students can gain an understanding by reading the first information to be

investigated” (30102/8A 1/4).

“The sw [students will] become familiar with the basics of waves. This will become

foundation knowledge. From this point the sw build knowledge” (40129/8A 1/5).

Reading after exploration: Eleven teachers sequenced their reading activities after

exploration activities. They said:

“This will relate to the prior knowledge they‟ve learned from doing the experiments”

(20108/8A 3/5, after testing factors of sound).

“Students are now starting to have even more questions that they have not explored.

Books are a great way to gain knowledge and use it in further experiments”

(20113/8A 4/5, after Slinky® exploration).

“Next we will read the content. The students now have a visual and understanding of

the vocabulary to help with the understanding of new content” (40115/8A 3/5,

following Slinky® exploration).



Both vocabulary instruction and reading and summarizing before exploration: Nine

participants sequenced both the vocabulary instruction and reading and summarizing activities

prior to any exploration activities.

Participant 10113 selected the vocabulary instruction as 2/5 and the reading and

summarizing as 3/5, with the first activity consisting of the Slinky® activity selected

for its value as a “hook” and preceding the testing factors of sound activity.

Participant 10119 selected the vocabulary as 2/5 and the reading and summarizing as

3/5, following the multimedia CD activity and preceding the testing factors of sound

activity.

Participant 30101 selected reading and summarizing as 1/5 and vocabulary instruction

as 2/5, preceding the Slinky® exploration.

Participant 30105 selected vocabulary instruction as 1/4 and reading and summarizing

as 2/4, preceding the testing factors of sound activity.


as 2/5, preceding identifying objects that vibrate to make sound and building an

instrument.

Both vocabulary instruction and reading and summarizing after exploration: Eight

participants sequenced both the reading and summarizing and vocabulary instruction after

exploration activities.

Participant 20108 placed the reading and summarizing activity as 3/5 and the

vocabulary introduction as 5/5, following the testing factors of sound activity and

with the Slinky® exploration placed between the two literacy activities.




as 4/5, following the instrument building activity.

Participant 30108 placed vocabulary instruction as 2/5 and reading and summarizing

as 4/5, following Slinky® exploration and with identification of objects which vibrate

to make sound placed between the two literacy activities.


as 3/3 following the Slinky® exploration.


as 3/5 following the Slinky® exploration.

Both vocabulary instruction and reading and summarizing with no exploration:

Participant 40129 selected reading and summarizing as 1/3 and vocabulary instruction as 2/3,

preceding the quiz board activity. No exploration was involved in this sequence.

Summary

In the analysis of teacher placement of learning events in a lesson sequence about the

concept of sound, twenty-one themes emerged from the data concerning teacher reasoning about

literacy-type learning events. Some of the themes are consistent with the research on student

learning in the discipline of reading. For example, the “pre-teaching of vocabulary” theme is

consistent with the research on reading instruction and for meeting the needs of English-

language learners, because the practice of teaching vocabulary before reading allows for students

to develop prior knowledge they will need for navigating an informational text. “Vocabulary

connected to prior learning” is consistent with the research on meaningful learning, because it

allows students to organize new information with pre-existing schemata.



A number of themes are consistent with the research on science learning, as well.

“Vocabulary allows for communication” correlates with discussions regarding the necessity of

mastering the language of science to allow for communication about concepts. Both the

“vocabulary not hands-on” and “reading not hands-on” themes are consistent with the idea that

elementary students require direct experiences exploring phenomena. The “vocabulary allows for

communication,” “reading explains exploration,” “vocabulary after exploration,‟ and “reading

after exploration” themes are all consistent with a learning cycle sequence of teaching science.

Unfortunately, a number of themes are inconsistent with research and national recommendations

made for learning science. For example, both the “pre-teaching vocabulary” and “pre-teaching

content” themes are not consistent with research that states students learn science concepts more

effectively when they receive vocabulary instruction only after having experience phenomena

related to a concept.

Some of the themes that emerged indicate teacher thinking that is not consistent with

good teaching. Although not reported in this paper, these themes included, “reading ineffective,”

“reading boring,” and “reading difficult” and demonstrate that the act of reading informational

text within the context of a science class has a negative stigma among teachers.

In consideration of the learning cycle, the data show that there is no consensus among

teachers about when it is most effective to inject direct instruction of vocabulary terms or to

include content-related reading in their science lessons. Just under half of the teachers who chose

vocabulary instruction would sequence it in what could be considered the Term Introduction or

Explain phase of the learning cycle. Half of the teachers who chose the reading and summarizing

activity would do the same. What this amounts to is that only thirty-five percent of the teachers



would use vocabulary instruction in a manner consistent with the learning cycle, while only ten

percent of teachers would do so with reading and summarizing.

What is the cause for the apparent disparity between teacher beliefs and researcher

recommendations about the inclusion of literacy activities in science lessons? While many of the

strategies recommended for the teaching of vocabulary and reading at first appear to be in

conflict with strategies intended for the meaningful learning of science concepts, the reality is

that they are not. We offer an explanation for why teachers have not embraced the concept of

integrating reading and science literacy skills within the elementary school classroom.

Discussion

This study demonstrates that while elementary school teachers are under a great deal of

pressure to increase student performance in reading, they are often unwilling to integrate reading

literacy strategies into the science classroom. When they do incorporate reading literacy into

science instruction by using learning events such as vocabulary instruction or reading and

summarizing, the strategies are often used in ways that indicate confusion about effective

methods for teaching science and also demonstrate poor pedagogical content knowledge

(Shulman, 1986; van Driel, Verloop, & Vos, 1998). One indicator of confusion about science

teaching is the practice of omitting reading instruction from science class rather than following

the recommendations made by the National Reading Panel (2000), which say that teachers

should provide the students with opportunities to encounter informational text in contextually

appropriate situations. However, the data collected in this study indicate that a majority of

teachers may believe informational text reading to be an ineffective method for explaining

science concepts to students. This analysis also shows another indicator of teacher confusion: a

majority of teachers see the value in using the direct instruction of vocabulary terms to teach new



science content, however, they often teach the key terms at the beginning of a lesson instead of

after an exploration activity. Among the teachers in the lesson sequencing study who chose to

include vocabulary instruction in their lesson sequence, just over half pre-taught the vocabulary

terms. The practice of teaching vocabulary prior to allowing students to experience science

concepts is in conflict with inquiry-based teaching, the recommended use of which is stated in

the National Science Education Standards (NCR, 1996).

While teachers do not embrace the idea of including reading instruction in a science

lesson, our analysis of the lesson sequencing data has revealed a pattern indicating teacher bias

toward strategies recommended for building literacy skills rather than a learning cycle sequence.

A claim can be made that the impetus for pre-teaching vocabulary terms in science stems from

several sources. First, and foremost, it is likely that during their preservice education, many

teachers were taught to use strategies which advocate for the use of a “hook” to gain students‟

attention followed by the introduction of key vocabulary or concepts prior to any type of

physical exploration of the concepts (Gagne & Briggs, 1974; Hunter, 1994). Another factor

which may contribute to the pre-teaching of key vocabulary terms is the number of resources

available to teachers recommending that vocabulary instruction should occur at the beginning of

a lesson without any consideration of the structure of the discipline being taught. For example,

well-respected figures within the educational community such as Marzano, Echevarria, Short,

and Vogt (Marzano, 2004; Echevarria, Vogt, & Short, 2008; Short, Vogt, & Echevarria, 2010)

have created a number of resources for teachers which advocate the direct instruction of

vocabulary prior to exploration of concepts with the purpose of bridging the gap between

students who do and do not possess adequate academic prior, or background knowledge. The

endeavor of creating equality within the classroom is necessary for students who may be



academically challenged for myriad reasons including low socioeconomic status or limited

English language proficiency (Lee, 2004). However, teachers, and those who influence their

instructional practices, must consider that the effective construction of knowledge is domain

specific (Shulman, 1986).

Whatever the reason teachers are choosing to pre-teach vocabulary as a part of science

instruction, this method does not allow for students to construct knowledge or to attach new

ideas to pre-existing schemata. Instead, it promotes the misguided assumption that learning is a

passive act which consists of one individual giving conceptual understanding to another. That is

not to say that vocabulary should not be taught prior to reading within a science lesson; it can

and should. Students still need to be able to recognize key vocabulary before they read; however,

both the vocabulary and reading should be preceded by student-directed, hands-on exploration

(Lawson, 1995; Settlage, et. al, 2008). While teachers see vocabulary instruction as a viable

means of building prior knowledge for science concepts, they fail to see that the experiences

provided through teaching science through the use of a learning cycle provide the prior

knowledge needed to understand the vocabulary words, which, in turn, prepares students to more

successfully comprehend informational text.

Somewhat ironically, while the teachers in this study appear to believe that

recommendations for teaching reading, such as pre-teaching vocabulary, are effective in science

teaching, a majority of the teachers in this study failed to see any merit in teaching students how

to read within the context of a science lesson. There seems to be an unspoken consensus among

elementary school teachers that reading is boring and unengaging and, therefore, is not a

worthwhile pursuit during science instruction. It would appear that they seem to be operating

under the misconception that because reading is not a hands-on activity, informational text



reading should not have a role in the elementary school science classroom (Pearson, Moje, &

Greenleaf, 2010). Instead of throwing out reading altogether, reading to gain information about a

concept can be positioned within the Term Introduction or Explain phase of a learning cycle

following an exploration activity. The failure of many elementary school teachers to reason that

the inclusion of content-area reading within a science lesson is a worthy practice is surprising

considering the national focus on the development of reading skills, especially in the elementary

grades (NCLB, 2001). Ultimately, if the belief that reading should be omitted from science

instruction is put into practice many students will suffer because they will not be prepared to

navigate through informational textbooks during secondary school or at the college level.

Limitations

One limitation of this study is that it is based entirely upon teachers‟ written responses.

As a result, there was no opportunity to speak with participants if clarification or elaboration was

needed on a response. For example, several participants did not explain their reasoning with

regard to their placement or omission of a literacy activity, thus it was impossible to infer teacher

beliefs about that learning event. Another limitation to this study is that it provides only a

snapshot into teacher thinking at the time of the assessment. It does not necessarily give the

researcher an accurate measure of practices occurring in each participant‟s classroom. In order to

more thoroughly assess beliefs put into practice, it would be necessary to analyze classroom

observation data which was collected prior to the end of the project.

Future Work

Additional themes emerged from the initial coding of the lesson sequencing data that bear

attention. For example, one area of particular interest is the analysis of teacher beliefs about prior

knowledge. Numerous teachers mentioned prior knowledge in their responses, but further



analysis is needed to determine their beliefs about the role prior knowledge plays in science

learning and how it can best be provided for students achieving at all academic ability levels,

including those who possess different degrees of English-language proficiency. Furthermore, it

should be determined whether teachers are able to differentiate between strategies used to build

prior knowledge for disciplines such as reading and strategies used to build prior knowledge in

science instruction.



References

Alberts, B. (2010, April 23). Prioritizing science education. Science , p. 405.

American Association for the Advancement of School Science. (1990). Science for all

Americans. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Ausubel, D. P. (1963). The psychology of meaningful verbal learning: An introduction to school

learning. New York, NY: Grune & Stratton.

Beck, I., McKeown, M. G., & Omanson, R. C. (1987). The effects and uses of diverse

vocabulary instructional techniques. In M. McKeown, & M. Curtis, The Nature of

Vocabulary Acquisition (pp. 147-163). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

colli, J. T. (1993). Schools for thought. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Duit, R., & Treagust, D. F. (2003). Conceptual change: A powerful framework for improving

science teaching and learning. International Journal of Science Education , 671-688.

Duke, N. K. (2000). 3.6 minutes per day: The scarcity of informational texts in first grade.

Reading Research Quarterly , 202-224.

Dyasi, H. M., & Dyasi, R. E. (2004). "Reading the world before reading the word": Implications

for professional development of teachers of science. In E. W. Saul (Ed.), Crossing

Boarders in Literacy and Science Instruction: Perspectives on Theory and Practice (pp.

420-446). Newark, NJ: International Reading Association.

Echevarria, J. A., Vogt, M. J., & Short, D. J. (2008). Making content comprehensible for English

learners: The SIOP mode (3rd

ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.

Echevarria, J. (2005). Using SIOP in science: response to Settlage, Madsen, and Rustad. Issues

in Teacher Education , 59.



Freyberg, P. S., & Osborne, R. (1985). Assumptions about teaching and learning. In R. Osborne,

& P. S. Freyberg, Learning in science: The implications of children's science (pp. 82-92).

Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann Educational Books, Inc.

Gagne, R. M., & Briggs, L. (1974). Principles of instructional design. New York, NY: Holt,

Rinehart & Winston.

Gilbert, J., Osborne, R., & Fensham, P. (1982). Children's science and its consequences for

teaching. Science Educator , 623-633.

Glaser, R. (1983). Education and thinking: The role of knowledge. Pittsburgh, PA: University of

Pittsburgh Learning Research and Development Center.

Goodman, K. S. (1969, September 8-12). Psycholinguistic universals in the reading process. The

psychology of second language learning: Papers from the second international congress

of applied linguistics . Cambridge, MA.

Groves, F. H. (1995). Science vocabulary load of selected secondary science textbooks. Science

and School Mathematics , 231-235.

H.R. 1-107th Congress. (2001). No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. Retrieved June 19, 2011, from

GovTrack.us: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h107-1

Hanuscin, D. L., & Lee, M. H. (2008). Using the learning cycle as a model for teaching the

learning cycle to preservice elementary teachers. Journal of Elementary Science

Education , 51-66.

Harmon, J. M., Hedrick, W. B., & Wood, K. D. (2005). Research on vocabulary instruction in

the content areas: Implications for struggling readers. Reading & Writing Quarterly ,

261-280.

Hunter, M. (1994). Enhancing teaching. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.



Just, M. A., & Carpenter, P. A. (1987). Psychology of reading and language comprehension

Newton, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

Karplus, R. (1977). Science teaching and the development of reasoning. Journal of Research in

Science Teaching , 169-175.

Kratochvil, D. W. & Crawford J. J. (1971). Science curriculum improvement study developed by

the Science Curriculum Improvement Study Project. Palo Alto, CA. Institutes for

Research in the Behavioral Sciences.

Lawson, A. (1988). A better way to teach biology. American Biology Teacher , 266-289.

Lawson, A. (1995). Science teaching and development of thinking. Belmont, CA: Wadworth

Publishing Company.

Lee, O. (2004). Teacher change in Beliefs ad practices in science and literacy instruction with

English language learners. Journal of Research in Science Teaching , 65-93.

Marek, E. A., & Cavallo, A. M. (1997). The learning cycle: Elementary school science and

beyond. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Marek, E. A., Gerber, B. L., & Cavallo, A. M. (1999). Literacy through the Learning Cycle.

Washington, D.C.: U.S Department of Education.

Marzano, R. J. (2004). Building background knowledge for academic achievement: Research on

what works in schools. Alexandria, VA : Association for Supervision and Curriculum

Development.

Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis (2nd

ed.), 2nd Ed. Thousand

Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.



Morrow, L. M., Pressley, M., Smith, J. K., & Smith, M. (1997). The effect of a literature-based

program integrated into literacy and science instruction with children from diverse

backgrounds. Reading Research Quarterly , 54-76.

Musheno, B. V., & Lawson, A. E. (1999). Effects of learning cycle and traditional text on

comprehension of science concepts by students at different reasoning levels. Journal of

research in science teaching , 23-37.

National Reading Panel. (2000). Report of the national reading panel teaching children to read:

An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its

implications for reading instruction reports of the subgroups (NIH Pub. No. 00-4754).

Washington, D.C.: National Institutes of Health.

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

National Acadamies Press.

National Research Council. (2011). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices,

crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Washington, D.C. National Academies Press.

Novak, J. D., & Gowin, D. B. (1984). Learing how to learn. New York, NY: Cambridge

University Press.

Nuthall, G. (1999). The way students learn: acquiring knowledge from an integrated science and

social studies unit. The Elementary School Journal , 303-341.

Osborne, R. and P. Freyberg (1985). Children‟s science. Learning in Science: The implications

of children’s science, pp. 5-14. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Pearson, P. D., Moje, E., and Greenleaf, C. (2010). Literacy and science: Each in the service of

the other. Science , 459-463.

Resnick, L. B. (1983). Mathematics and science learning: A new conception. Science , 477-478.



Robeck, M. C., & Wallace, R. R. (1990). The psychology of reading: An interdisciplinary

approach (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Settlage, J., Madsen, A., & Rustad, K. (2005). Inquiry science, sheltered instruction, and English

Language Learners: conflicting pedagogies in highly diverse classrooms. Issues in

Teacher Education , 39-57.

Settlage, J., Odom, A. L., & Harkins, H. K. (January 10-12, 2008). The learning cycle as

principled practice: Reincorporating theory into a favored teaching model. Paper

presentation at the annual meeting of the Association for Science Teacher Education. St.

Louis, MO.

Short, D. J., Vogt, M. J., & Echevarria, J. J. (2010). SIOP model for teaching science to English

language learners. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: knowledge growth in teaching. A paper presented

at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association. (pp. 4-14).

Chicago: Educational Researcher.

Smith, F. (2004). Understanding reading: A psycholinguistic analysis of reading and learning to

read, 6th edition. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

van Driel, J. H., Verloop, N., & Vos, W. d. (1998). Developing Science Teachers' Pedagogical

Content Knowledge. Journal of Research in Science Teaching , 673-69.

Venezky, R. L. (2000). The origins of the present-day chasm between adult literacy needs and

school literacy instruction. Scientific Studies of Reading , 19-39.

Weiss, I. R., Pasley, J. D., Smith, P. S., Banilower, E. R., & Heck, D. J. (2003). Looking inside

the classroom: A study of K-12 mathematics and science education in the United States.

Chapel Hill, NC: Horizon Research, Inc.



Yore, L. D., Hand, B., Goldman, S. R., Hildebrand, G. M., Osborne, J. F., Treaguest, D. F., et al.

(2004). New directions in language and science education research. Reading research

quarterly , 347-352.

running head: elementary teacher beliefs about the role of language 1 literacy ... ·...

Documents