Upload
lyliem
View
218
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
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
Barbara Austin
Wittenberg University
Springfield, OH
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 3
INSTRUCTION IN A SCIENCE LESSON SEQUENCE
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.
ELEMENTARY TEACHER BELIEFS ABOUT THE ROLE OF LANGUAGE LITERACY 4
INSTRUCTION IN A SCIENCE LESSON SEQUENCE
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
ELEMENTARY TEACHER BELIEFS ABOUT THE ROLE OF LANGUAGE LITERACY 5
INSTRUCTION IN A SCIENCE LESSON SEQUENCE
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.
ELEMENTARY TEACHER BELIEFS ABOUT THE ROLE OF LANGUAGE LITERACY 6
INSTRUCTION IN A SCIENCE LESSON SEQUENCE
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:
ELEMENTARY TEACHER BELIEFS ABOUT THE ROLE OF LANGUAGE LITERACY 7
INSTRUCTION IN A SCIENCE LESSON SEQUENCE
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
ELEMENTARY TEACHER BELIEFS ABOUT THE ROLE OF LANGUAGE LITERACY 8
INSTRUCTION IN A SCIENCE LESSON SEQUENCE
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
ELEMENTARY TEACHER BELIEFS ABOUT THE ROLE OF LANGUAGE LITERACY 9
INSTRUCTION IN A SCIENCE LESSON SEQUENCE
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
ELEMENTARY TEACHER BELIEFS ABOUT THE ROLE OF LANGUAGE LITERACY 10
INSTRUCTION IN A SCIENCE LESSON SEQUENCE
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).
ELEMENTARY TEACHER BELIEFS ABOUT THE ROLE OF LANGUAGE LITERACY 11
INSTRUCTION IN A SCIENCE LESSON SEQUENCE
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
ELEMENTARY TEACHER BELIEFS ABOUT THE ROLE OF LANGUAGE LITERACY 12
INSTRUCTION IN A SCIENCE LESSON SEQUENCE
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.
ELEMENTARY TEACHER BELIEFS ABOUT THE ROLE OF LANGUAGE LITERACY 13
INSTRUCTION IN A SCIENCE LESSON SEQUENCE
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,
ELEMENTARY TEACHER BELIEFS ABOUT THE ROLE OF LANGUAGE LITERACY 14
INSTRUCTION IN A SCIENCE LESSON SEQUENCE
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
ELEMENTARY TEACHER BELIEFS ABOUT THE ROLE OF LANGUAGE LITERACY 15
INSTRUCTION IN A SCIENCE LESSON SEQUENCE
(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?
ELEMENTARY TEACHER BELIEFS ABOUT THE ROLE OF LANGUAGE LITERACY 16
INSTRUCTION IN A SCIENCE LESSON SEQUENCE
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
ELEMENTARY TEACHER BELIEFS ABOUT THE ROLE OF LANGUAGE LITERACY 17
INSTRUCTION IN A SCIENCE LESSON SEQUENCE
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
ELEMENTARY TEACHER BELIEFS ABOUT THE ROLE OF LANGUAGE LITERACY 18
INSTRUCTION IN A SCIENCE LESSON SEQUENCE
(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.
ELEMENTARY TEACHER BELIEFS ABOUT THE ROLE OF LANGUAGE LITERACY 19
INSTRUCTION IN A SCIENCE LESSON SEQUENCE
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.
ELEMENTARY TEACHER BELIEFS ABOUT THE ROLE OF LANGUAGE LITERACY 20
INSTRUCTION IN A SCIENCE LESSON SEQUENCE
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.
ELEMENTARY TEACHER BELIEFS ABOUT THE ROLE OF LANGUAGE LITERACY 21
INSTRUCTION IN A SCIENCE LESSON SEQUENCE
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
ELEMENTARY TEACHER BELIEFS ABOUT THE ROLE OF LANGUAGE LITERACY 22
INSTRUCTION IN A SCIENCE LESSON SEQUENCE
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.
ELEMENTARY TEACHER BELIEFS ABOUT THE ROLE OF LANGUAGE LITERACY 23
INSTRUCTION IN A SCIENCE LESSON SEQUENCE
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
ELEMENTARY TEACHER BELIEFS ABOUT THE ROLE OF LANGUAGE LITERACY 24
INSTRUCTION IN A SCIENCE LESSON SEQUENCE
“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).
ELEMENTARY TEACHER BELIEFS ABOUT THE ROLE OF LANGUAGE LITERACY 25
INSTRUCTION IN A SCIENCE LESSON SEQUENCE
“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).
ELEMENTARY TEACHER BELIEFS ABOUT THE ROLE OF LANGUAGE LITERACY 26
INSTRUCTION IN A SCIENCE LESSON SEQUENCE
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
ELEMENTARY TEACHER BELIEFS ABOUT THE ROLE OF LANGUAGE LITERACY 27
INSTRUCTION IN A SCIENCE LESSON SEQUENCE
“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).
ELEMENTARY TEACHER BELIEFS ABOUT THE ROLE OF LANGUAGE LITERACY 28
INSTRUCTION IN A SCIENCE LESSON SEQUENCE
“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
ELEMENTARY TEACHER BELIEFS ABOUT THE ROLE OF LANGUAGE LITERACY 29
INSTRUCTION IN A SCIENCE LESSON SEQUENCE
“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:
ELEMENTARY TEACHER BELIEFS ABOUT THE ROLE OF LANGUAGE LITERACY 30
INSTRUCTION IN A SCIENCE LESSON SEQUENCE
“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).
ELEMENTARY TEACHER BELIEFS ABOUT THE ROLE OF LANGUAGE LITERACY 31
INSTRUCTION IN A SCIENCE LESSON SEQUENCE
“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).
ELEMENTARY TEACHER BELIEFS ABOUT THE ROLE OF LANGUAGE LITERACY 32
INSTRUCTION IN A SCIENCE LESSON SEQUENCE
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).
ELEMENTARY TEACHER BELIEFS ABOUT THE ROLE OF LANGUAGE LITERACY 33
INSTRUCTION IN A SCIENCE LESSON SEQUENCE
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
ELEMENTARY TEACHER BELIEFS ABOUT THE ROLE OF LANGUAGE LITERACY 34
INSTRUCTION IN A SCIENCE LESSON SEQUENCE
“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).
ELEMENTARY TEACHER BELIEFS ABOUT THE ROLE OF LANGUAGE LITERACY 35
INSTRUCTION IN A SCIENCE LESSON SEQUENCE
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.
Participant 40135 selected reading and summarizing as 1/5 and vocabulary instruction
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.
ELEMENTARY TEACHER BELIEFS ABOUT THE ROLE OF LANGUAGE LITERACY 36
INSTRUCTION IN A SCIENCE LESSON SEQUENCE
Participant 20115 selected reading and summarizing as 3/5 and vocabulary instruction
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.
Participant 30113 selected vocabulary instruction as 2/3 and reading and summarizing
as 3/3 following the Slinky® exploration.
Participant 40115 selected vocabulary instruction as 2/5 and reading and summarizing
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.
ELEMENTARY TEACHER BELIEFS ABOUT THE ROLE OF LANGUAGE LITERACY 37
INSTRUCTION IN A SCIENCE LESSON SEQUENCE
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
ELEMENTARY TEACHER BELIEFS ABOUT THE ROLE OF LANGUAGE LITERACY 38
INSTRUCTION IN A SCIENCE LESSON SEQUENCE
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
ELEMENTARY TEACHER BELIEFS ABOUT THE ROLE OF LANGUAGE LITERACY 39
INSTRUCTION IN A SCIENCE LESSON SEQUENCE
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
ELEMENTARY TEACHER BELIEFS ABOUT THE ROLE OF LANGUAGE LITERACY 40
INSTRUCTION IN A SCIENCE LESSON SEQUENCE
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
ELEMENTARY TEACHER BELIEFS ABOUT THE ROLE OF LANGUAGE LITERACY 41
INSTRUCTION IN A SCIENCE LESSON SEQUENCE
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
ELEMENTARY TEACHER BELIEFS ABOUT THE ROLE OF LANGUAGE LITERACY 42
INSTRUCTION IN A SCIENCE LESSON SEQUENCE
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.
ELEMENTARY TEACHER BELIEFS ABOUT THE ROLE OF LANGUAGE LITERACY 43
INSTRUCTION IN A SCIENCE LESSON SEQUENCE
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.
ELEMENTARY TEACHER BELIEFS ABOUT THE ROLE OF LANGUAGE LITERACY 44
INSTRUCTION IN A SCIENCE LESSON SEQUENCE
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.
ELEMENTARY TEACHER BELIEFS ABOUT THE ROLE OF LANGUAGE LITERACY 45
INSTRUCTION IN A SCIENCE LESSON SEQUENCE
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.
ELEMENTARY TEACHER BELIEFS ABOUT THE ROLE OF LANGUAGE LITERACY 46
INSTRUCTION IN A SCIENCE LESSON SEQUENCE
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.
ELEMENTARY TEACHER BELIEFS ABOUT THE ROLE OF LANGUAGE LITERACY 47
INSTRUCTION IN A SCIENCE LESSON SEQUENCE
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.
ELEMENTARY TEACHER BELIEFS ABOUT THE ROLE OF LANGUAGE LITERACY 48
INSTRUCTION IN A SCIENCE LESSON SEQUENCE
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.