Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Implications of a Cognitive Science Model Integrating Literacy in Science on Achievement in Science and Reading: Direct Effects in Grades 3–5 with Transfer to Grades 6–7

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

Abstract

Reported are the results of a multiyear study in which reading comprehension and writing were integrated within an in-depth science instructional model (Science IDEAS) in daily 1.5 to 2 h daily lessons on a schoolwide basis in grades 3–4–5. Multilevel (HLM7) achievement findings showed the experimental intervention resulted in significant and consistent direct effects in grades 3–4–5 and complementary transfer effects in grades 6–7 on both ITBS Science (+1.08 Grade Equivalent Units [GE]) and ITBS Reading (+.57 GE). Discussed are implications of the findings and related research for changing grade K-5 curriculum policy to allocate increased instructional time for integrated science instruction.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

References

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

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

  • Asoko, H. (2002). Developing conceptual understanding in primary science. Cambridge Journal of Education, 32(2), 153–164.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beane, J. A. (1995). Curriculum integration and the disciplines of knowledge. Phi Delta Kappan, 76, 646–622.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Braun, H., Coley, R., Jia, Y. & Trapani, C. (2009). Exploring what works in science instruction: A look at the eighth-grade science classroom. Princeton, NJ: Policy Evaluation and Research Center, Educational Testing Service.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carnine, D. (1991). Curricular interventions for teaching higher order thinking to all students: Introduction to a special series. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 24(5), 261–269.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chall, J. S. & Jacobs, V. A. (2003). The classic study on poor children’s fourth grade slump. American Educator, 27(1), 14–16.

    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 

  • Dillon, S. (2006). Schools push back subjects to push reading and math. The New York Times. Retrieved from http://nytimes.com/2006/03/26/education/26child.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1.

  • Donahue, P. L., Voekl, K. E., Campbell, J. R. & Mazzeo, J. (1999). NAEP 1998 reading report card for the states (National Center for Educational Statistics, Office of Educational Research and Improvement, U.S). Washington, DC: Department of Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Donovan, M. S., Bransford, J. D. & Pellegrino (Eds.). (2003). How people learn: Bridging research and practice. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Duke, N. K. (2000b). For the rich it’s richer: Print experiences and environments offered to children in very low- and very high-socioeconomic status first grade classrooms. American Educational Research Journal, 37, 441–478.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Ellis, A. K. (2001). Research on educational innovations. Larchmont, New York, NY: Eye on Education.

  • 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 

  • Gamse, B. C., Bloom, H. S., Kemple, J. J. & Jacob, R. T. (2008). Reading first impact study: Interim report (NCEE 2008–4016). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U. S. Department of Education.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ginsburg, H. P. & Golbeck, S. L. (2004). Thoughts on the future of research on mathematics and science learning and education. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 19, 190–200.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Glaser, R. (1984). Education and thinking: The role of knowledge. American Psychologist, 39, 93–104.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grigg, W. S., Lauko, M. A. & Brockway, D. M. (2006). The nation’s report card: Science 2005(NCES 2006–466). U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

    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, NY: The Guilford Press.

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Heller, R. & Greenleaf, C. L. (2007). Literacy instruction in the content areas: Getting to the core of middle and high school improvement. Washington, DC: Alliance for Excellent Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hirsch, E. D. (1996). Schools we need. And why we don’t have them. New York, NY: Doubleday.

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

    Google Scholar 

  • James-Burdumy, S., Mansfield, W., Deke, J., Carey, N., Lugo-Gil, J., Hershey, A., ... Faddis, B. (2009). Effectiveness of selected supplemental reading comprehension interventions: Impacts on a first cohort of fifth grade students. (NCEE 2008–4015). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance.

  • 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 

  • Kemple, J. J., Corrin, W., Nelson, E., Salinger, T., Herrmann, S. & Drummon, K. (2008). The enhanced reading opportunities study: Early impacts and implementation findings. (NCEE 2008–4015). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kintsch, W. (1998). Comprehension: A paradigm for cognition. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

  • Klentschy, M. P. (2003). The science literacy connection. California Curriculum News Report, 28, 1–2.

    Google Scholar 

  • Klentschy, M. P. (2006). Connecting science and literacy through student science notebooks. California Journal of Science Education, 6, 51–79.

    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, NJ: International Reading Association.

  • Lehrer, R., Catley, K. & Reiser, B. (2004). Tracing a perspective learning progression for developing understanding of evolution. Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lutkus, A. D., Lauko, M. A. & Brockway, D. M. (2006). The nation’s report card: Science 2005 trial urban district assessment. National Assessment of Educational Progress. Washington, DC: U. S. Department of Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mazany, T., Pimentel, S., Orr, C. & Crovo, M. (2014). Science framework for the 2015 National Assessment of Educational Progress. Washington, DC: National Assessment Governing Board.

    Google Scholar 

  • McMurrer, J. (2008). Instructional time in elementary schools: A closer look at changes for specific subjects. Washington, DC: Center on Education Policy.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Center for Education Statistics (2009). The nation's report card: Trial urban district assessment- Reading 2009. (NCES 2010–459). Washington, DC: Institute of Education Sciences, U.S Department of Education.

  • National Center for Education Statistics (2011). The nation’s report card: Science 2009. (NCES 2011–451). Washington, DC: Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.

  • National Governors Association Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief State School Officers (2010). Common Core State Standards for English language arts and literacy in history/social studies, science, and technical subjects. Washington, DC:Author.

  • Newton, L. D. (2001). Teaching for understanding in primary science. Evaluation and Research in Education, 15(3), 143–153.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Next Generation Science Standards. (2013). Next generation science standards: For states, by states. Washington, DC: NAP.

  • Norris, S. P. & Phillips, L. M. (2003). How literacy in its fundamental sense is central to scientific literacy. Science Education, 87, 224–240.

    Article  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. M. Carver & D. Klahr (Eds.), Cognition and instruction: Twenty-five years of progress (pp. 151–195). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

    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 

  • Pellegrino, J. W., Chudowsky, N. & Glaser, R. (Eds.). (2001). Knowing what students know. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Petrilli, M. J., Julian, L. & Finn, C. E., Jr. (2006). The state of standards. Washington, DC: Thomas B. Fordham Institute.

    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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Raudenbush, S. W., Byrk, A. S. & Congdon, R. (2011). HLM7 for Windows [Computer Software]. Skokie, IL: Scientific Software Publications.

  • Revelle, G., Druin, A., Platner, M., Bederson, B., Hourcade, J. P. & Sherman, L. (2002). A visual search tool for early elementary science students. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 11(1), 49–57.

    Article  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 4. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29, 545–554.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Romance, N. R. & Vitale, M. R. (2001). Implementing an in-depth expanded science model in elementary schools: Multi-year findings, research issues, and policy implications. International Journal of Science Education, 23, 373–404.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Romance, N. R. & Vitale, M. R. (2006). Making the case for elementary science as a key element in school reform: Implications for changing curricular policy. In R. Douglas, M. Klentschy & K. Worth (Eds.), Linking science and literacy in the K-8 classroom (pp. 391–405). Washington, DC: National Science Teachers Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Romance, N. R., & Vitale, M. R. (2008, March). Science IDEAS: A knowledge-based model for accelerating reading/literacy through in-depth science learning. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New York, NY.

  • Romance, N. R., & Vitale, M. R. (2009, April). Transfer effects of a reading comprehension strategy on achievement and teacher judgments across grades 3–7. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Diego, CA.

  • Romance, N. R., & Vitale, M. R. (2010, April). 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.

  • Romance, N. R., & Vitale, M. R. (2011a, September). An interdisciplinary model for accelerating student achievement in science and reading comprehension across grades 3–8: Implications for research and practice. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Society for Research in Educational Effectiveness, Washington, DC.

  • Romance, N. R. & Vitale, M. R. (2011b, April). Interdisciplinary perspectives for linking science and literacy: Implications from multi-year studies across grades K-5. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.

  • Romance, N. R. & Vitale, M. R. (2012a). Expanding the role of K-5 science instruction in educational reform: Implications of an interdisciplinary model for integrating reading within science. School Science and Mathematics, 112, 506–515.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Romance, N. R. & Vitale, M. R. (2012b). Interdisciplinary perspectives linking science and literacy in grades K-5: Implications for policy and practice. In B. J. Fraser, K. G. Tobin & C. J. McRobbie (Eds.), Second international handbook of science education (Part two) (pp. 1351–1374). NY: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Romance, N. R. & Vitale, M. R. (2012c). Science IDEAS: A research-based K-5 interdisciplinary instructional model linking science and literacy. Science Educator, 21, 1–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sandall, B. R. (2003). Elementary science: Where are we now? Journal of Elementary Science Education, 15(2), 13–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

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

  • Schug, M. C. & Cross, B. (1998). The dark side of curriculum integration. Social Studies, 89, 54–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, C., Wiser, M., Anderson, C. A., Krajcik, J. & Coppola, B. (2004). Implications of research on children’s learning for assessment: Matter and atomic molecular theory. Committee on Test Design for K-12 Science Achievement. Washington, DC: National Research Council.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, C., Wiser, M., Anderson, C. A. & Krajcik, J. (2006). Implications of research on children’s learning for standards and assessment: A proposed learning progression for matter and atomic molecular theory. Measurement: Interdisciplinary Research and Perspectives, 4, 45–67.

    Google Scholar 

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

  • Stephens, M. & Coleman, M. (2007). Comparing PIRLS and PISA with NAEP in reading, mathematics and science (Working Paper). U.S. Department of Education. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/Surveys/PISA/pdf/comppaper12082004.pdf.

  • U.S. Department of Education (2001). The Nation’s Report Card: Science Highlights 2000. Office of Educational Research and Improvement, National Center for Education Statistics NCES 2002–452. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.

    Google Scholar 

  • U.S. Department of Education (2005). Trial urban district science assessment: 2005. Washington, DC: Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, NAEP.

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

  • Vitale, M. R. & Romance, N. R. (2000). Portfolios in science assessment: A knowledge-based model for classroom practice. In J. J. Mintzes, J. H. Wandersee & J. D. Novak (Eds.), Assessing science understanding: A human constructivist view (pp. 168–197). San Diego, CA: Academic.

  • Vitale, M. R. & Romance, N. R. (2006). Concept mapping as a means for binding knowledge to effective content-area instruction. An interdisciplinary Perspective. Paper presented at the Second International Conference on Concept Mapping, San Jose, Costa Rica.

  • Vitale, M. R. & Romance, N. R. (2007a). A knowledge-based framework for unifying content-area reading comprehension and reading comprehension strategies. In D. S. McNamara (Ed.), Reading comprehension strategies: Theories, interventions, and technologies (pp. 73–104). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

  • 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). Effects of an integrated instructional model for accelerating student achievement in science and reading comprehension in grades 1–2. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Denver, CO.

  • Vitale, M. R. & Romance, N. R. (2012). Using in-depth science instruction to accelerate student achievement in science and reading comprehension in grades 1–2. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 33, 1–13.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vitale, M. R., Romance, N. R. & Dolan, F. (2006). A knowledge-based framework for the classroom assessment of student science understanding. In M. McMahon, P. Simmons, R. Sommers, D. DeBaets & F. Crawley (Eds.), Assessment in science: Practical experiences and education research (pp. 1–14). Arlington, TX: NSTA Press.

  • Walsh, K. (2003). Basal readers: Lost opportunity to build the background knowledge that propels comprehension. American Educator, 27(1), 24–27.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, M. R. & Bertenthal, M. W. (Eds.). (2006). Systems for state science assessment: National Research Council’s Committee on Test Design for K-12 Science Assessment. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

  • Yore, L. (2000). Enhancing science literacy for all students with embedded reading instruction and writing-to-learn activities. Journal of Deaf Students and Deaf Education, 5, 105–122.

    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

Acknowledgments

This research was supported by an NSF/IERI-funded Scale-Up Project (REC 220853) to Florida Atlantic University.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton, FL, USA

    Nancy Romance

  2. East Carolina University, Greenville, NC, USA

    Michael Vitale

Authors
  1. Nancy Romance
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Michael Vitale
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Nancy Romance.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Romance, N., Vitale, M. Implications of a Cognitive Science Model Integrating Literacy in Science on Achievement in Science and Reading: Direct Effects in Grades 3–5 with Transfer to Grades 6–7. Int J of Sci and Math Educ 15, 979–995 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-016-9721-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-016-9721-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation