Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

USING IN-DEPTH SCIENCE INSTRUCTION TO ACCELERATE STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT IN SCIENCE AND READING COMPREHENSION IN GRADES 1 – 2

  • Published:
International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

ABSTRACT

This study focused on accelerating development of science knowledge and understanding at the primary level (grades 1 – 2) as a means for enhancing reading comprehension (i.e. early literacy). An adaptation of a grade 3 – 5 cognitive-science-based, instructional model (Science IDEAS) that integrated science with reading and writing, this year-long study implemented daily 45-min instructional periods emphasizing in-depth, cumulative learning of science core-concept “clusters” while integrating science and literacy in a manner that provided teachers with a thematic focus for all aspects of instruction. Results (a) confirmed the feasibility of implementing the integrated, in-depth science model at the primary level and (b) showed that experimental students obtained significantly higher achievement on Iowa Tests of Basic Skills Science and Reading tests than comparable controls. Discussed are curricular policy implications for increasing the instructional time for content-area instruction at the primary level.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) (1994). Benchmarks for science literacy. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • American Federation of Teachers (AFT) (1997). Making standards matter 1997. An annual fifty state report on efforts to raise academic standards. Washington, DC: AFT.

    Google Scholar 

  • Armbruster, B. B. & Osborn, J. H. (2001). Reading instruction and assessment: Understanding IRA standards. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Armga, C., Dillon, S., Jamsek, M., Morgan, E. L., Peyton, D. & Speranza, H. (2002). Tips for helping children do science. Texas Child Care, 26(3), 2–7.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beane, J. A. (1995). Curriculum integration and the disciplines of knowledge. Phi Delta Kappan, 76, 616–622.

    Google Scholar 

  • Block, C. C. & Pressley, M. (Eds.). (2002). Comprehension instruction: Research-based best practices. New York: Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L. & Cocking, R. R. (Eds.). (2000). How people learn. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cervetti, G. N., Pearson, P. D., Bravo, M. A. & Barber, J. (2006). Reading and writing in the service of inquiry-based science. In R. Douglas, M. P. Klentschy & K. Worth (Eds.), Linking science and literacy in the K–8 classroom (pp. 221–244). Arlington, VA: NSTA Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Colker, L. J. (2002). Teaching and learning about science. Young Children, 57(5), 10–11. 47.

    Google Scholar 

  • Conezio, K. & French, L. (2002). Science in the preschool classroom: Capitalizing on children’s fascination with the everyday world to foster language and literacy development. Young Children, 57(5), 12–18.

    Google Scholar 

  • Donahue, P. L., Voekl, K. E., Campbell, J. R. & Mazzeo, J. (1999). NAEP 1998 Reading Report Card for the States. Washington, DC: National Center for Educational Statistics, Office of Educational Research and Improvement, US Department of Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Duke, N. K. (2000). 3.6 minutes per day: The scarcity of informational texts in first grade. Reading Research Quarterly, 35(2), 202–224.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Duke, N. K. (2010). The real world reading and writing U.S. children need. Phi Delta Kappan, 91(5), 68–71.

    Google Scholar 

  • Duke, N. K., Bennett-Armistead, V. S. & Roberts, E. M. (2003). Filling the nonfiction void. American Educator, 27(1), 30–35.

    Google Scholar 

  • Duke, N. & Pearson, P. D. (2002). Effective practices for developing reading comprehension. In A. E. Farstrup & S. J. Samuels (Eds.), What research has to say about reading instruction (pp. 205–242). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Duschl, R. A., Schweingruber, H. A. & Shouse, A. W. (2007). Taking science to school: Learning and teaching science in grades K–8. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Feldman, S. (2000). Standards are working: But states and districts need to make some mid-course corrections. American Educator, 24(3), 5–7.

    Google Scholar 

  • French, L. (2004). Science as the center of a coherent, integrated early childhood curriculum. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 19, 138–149.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gelman, R. & Brenneman, K. (2004). Science learning pathways for young children. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 19, 150–158.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gould, C. J., Weeks, V. & Evans, S. (2003). Science starts early. Gifted Child Today Magazine, 26, 38–43.

    Google Scholar 

  • Guthrie, J. T. & Ozgungor, S. (2002). Instructional contexts for reading engagement. In C. C. Block & M. Pressley (Eds.), Comprehension instruction: Research-based best practices (pp. 275–288). New York: The Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Guthrie, J. T., Wigfield, A. & Perencevich, K. C. (2004). Motivating reading comprehension: Concept-oriented reading instruction. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hirsch, E. D. (2001). Seeking breadth and depth in the curriculum. Educational Leadership, 59(2), 21–25.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hirsch, E. D. (2003). Reading comprehension requires knowledge—of words and the world: Scientific insights into the fourth-grade slump and stagnant reading comprehension. American Educator, 27(1), 10–29.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hirsch, E. D. (2006). The knowledge deficit. New York: Houghton Miffin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Holliday, W. G. (2004). Choosing science textbooks: Connecting science research to common sense. In W. Saul (Ed.), Crossing borders in literacy and science instruction (pp. 383–394). Newark, DE: International Reading Association and NSTA Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jones, J. & Courtney, R. (2002). Documenting early science learning. Young Children, 57(5), 34–38. 40.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jones, M. G., Jones, B. D., Hardin, B., Chapman, L., Yarbrough, T. & Davis, M. (1999). The impact of high-stakes testing on teachers and students in North Carolina. Phi Delta Kappan, 81, 199–203.

    Google Scholar 

  • Klentschy, M. P. & Molina-De La Torre, E. (2004). Students’ science notebooks and the inquiry process. In E. W. Saul (Ed.), Crossing borders in literacy and science instruction: Perspectives on theory and practice (pp. 340–354). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Koch, J. & Appleton, K. (2007). The effect of a mentoring model for elementary science professional development. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 18, 209–231.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krajcik, J. S. & Sutherland, L. M. (2010). Supporting students in developing literacy in science. Science, 328, 456–459.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, M., Lostoski, M. & Williams, K. (2000). Diving into a schoolwide science theme. Science and Children, 38(1), 31–35.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mullis, I., Martin, M. O., Gonzalez, E. J. & Kennedy, A. M. (2003). PIRLS 2001 international report: IEA’s study of reading literacy achievement in primary school in 35 countries. Chestnut Hill, MA: International Study Center, Boston College.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mullis, I., Martin, M. O. & Kennedy, A. M. (2007). PIRLS 2006 international report: IEA’s progress in international reading literacy study in primary school in 40 countries. Chestnut Hill, MA: International Study Center, Boston College.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) (2002). The nation’s report card: Science highlights 2000 (NCES 2002-452). Washington, DC: US Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) (2010). The nation’s report card: Trial urban district assessment reading 2009 (NCES 2010-459). Washington, DC: Institute of Education Sciences, US Department of Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Reading Panel (2000). Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction. Jessup, MD: National Institute for Literacy.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council (NRC) (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ogle, D. & Blachowicz, C. L. Z. (2002). Beyond literature circles: Helping students comprehend informational texts. In C. C. Block & M. Pressley (Eds.), Comprehension instruction (pp. 247–258). NY: Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Palincsar, A. S. & Magnusson, S. J. (2001). The interplay of first-hand and second-hand investigations to model and support the development of scientific knowledge and reasoning. In S. Carver & D. Klahr (Eds.), Cognition and instruction: 25 years of progress (pp. 151–194). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Palmer, R. G. & Stewart, R. (2003). Nonfiction trade book use in primary grades. The Reading Teacher, 57, 38–48.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pearson, P. D. & Duke, N. (2002). Comprehension instruction in the primary grades. In C. C. Block & M. Pressley (Eds.), Comprehension instruction (pp. 247–258). New York: Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pearson, P. D., Moje, E. & Greenleaf, C. (2010). Literacy and science: Each in the service of the other. Science, 328, 459–463.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pressley, M., Rankin, J. & Yokoi, L. (1996). A survey of instructional practices of primary teachers nominated as effective in promoting literacy. Elementary School Journal, 96, 363–384.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pretti-Frontczak, K. L., Barr, D. M., Macy, M. & Carter, A. (2003). Research and resources related to activity-based intervention, embedded learning opportunities, and routines-based instruction: An annotated bibliography. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 23(1), 29–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rakow, S. J. & Bell, M. J. (1998). Science and young children: The message from the National Science Education Standards. Childhood Education, 74(3), 164–167.

    Google Scholar 

  • Romance, N. R. & Vitale, M. R. (1992). A curriculum strategy that expands time for in-depth elementary science instruction by using science-based reading strategies: Effects of a year-long study in grade four. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29(6), 545–554.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Romance, N. R. & Vitale, M. R. (2001). Evolution of a model for teaching in-depth science in elementary schools: Longitudinal findings and research implications. International Journal of Science Education, 23, 373–404.

    Google Scholar 

  • Romance, N. R. & Vitale, M. R. (2011). A research-based instructional model for integrating meaningful learning in elementary science and reading comprehension: Implications for policy and practice. In N. L. Stein & S. W. Raudenbush (Eds.), Developmental cognitive science goes to school (pp. 127–142). New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Romance, N. R. & Vitale, M. R. (in press). Interdisciplinary perspectives linking science and literacy in grades K–5: Implications for policy and practice. In B. J. Fraser, K. Tobin & C. J. McRobbie (Eds.), Second international handbook of science education. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.

  • Schmidt, W. H., McKnight, C., Cogan, L. S., Jakwerth, P. M. & Houang, R. T. (1999). Facing the consequences: Using TIMSS for a closer look at U.S. mathematics and science education. Boston: Kluwer Academic.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmidt, W. H., McKnight, C. C., Houang, R. T., Wang, H. C., Wiley, D. E., Cogan, L. S., et al. (2001). Why schools matter: A cross-national comparison of curriculum and learning. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shanahan, T. (2010). The death of content area reading: Disciplinary literacy. Paper presented at the 12th Annual Education Literacy Symposium, University of Central Florida, Orlando, FL.

  • Shanahan, T. & Shanahan, C. (2008). Teaching disciplinary literacy to adolescents: Rethinking content-area literacy. Harvard Educational Review, 78, 40–59.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, A. (2001). Early childhood—a wonderful time for science learning. Investigating: Australian Primary & Junior Science Journal, 17(2), 18–21.

    Google Scholar 

  • Snow, C. E. (2002). Reading for understanding: Toward a research and development program in reading comprehension. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tytler, R. & Peterson, S. (2001). Deconstructing learning in science—young children’s responses to a classroom sequence on evaporation. Research in Science Education, 30(4), 339–355.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van den Broek, P. (2010). Using texts in science education: Cognitive processes and knowledge representation. Science, 328, 453–456.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vitale, M. R. & Romance, N. R. (2006). Research in science education: An interdisciplinary perspective. In J. Rhoton & P. Shane (Eds.), Teaching science in the 21 st century (pp. 329–351). Arlington, VA: NSTA Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vitale, M. R. & Romance, N. R. (2007a). A knowledge-based framework for unifying content-area reading comprehension and reading comprehension strategies. In D. McNamara (Ed.), Reading comprehension strategies: Theory, interventions, and technologies (pp. 75–103). New York: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vitale, M. R. & Romance, N. R. (2007b). Adaptation of a knowledge-based instructional intervention to accelerate student learning in science and early literacy in grades 1–2. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL.

  • Vitale, M. R. & Romance, N. R. (2010). Toward a curricular policy for advancing school reform by integrating reading comprehension within time-expanded science instruction in grades K-5. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Philadelphia, PA.

  • Vitale, M. R., Romance, N. R. & Klentschy, M. (2006). Improving school reform by changing curriculum policy toward content-area instruction in elementary schools: A research-based model. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA.

  • Walsh, K. (2003). Basal readers: The lost opportunity to build the knowledge that propels comprehension. American Educator, 27, 24–27.

    Google Scholar 

  • Webb, P. (2010). Science education and literacy: Imperatives for the developed and developing world. Science, 328, 448–450.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yore, L. D., Hand, B., Goldman, S. R., Hildebrand, G. M., Osborne, J., Treagust, D. F. & Wallace, C. (2004). New directions in language and science education research. Reading Research Quarterly, 39(3), 347–352.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Michael R. Vitale.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Vitale, M.R., Romance, N.R. USING IN-DEPTH SCIENCE INSTRUCTION TO ACCELERATE STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT IN SCIENCE AND READING COMPREHENSION IN GRADES 1 – 2. Int J of Sci and Math Educ 10, 457–472 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-011-9326-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-011-9326-8

KEY WORDS

Navigation