[PDF] [PDF] Linking Science and Language Arts: A Review of the Literature

View - Download [PDF] Linking Science and Language Arts: A Review of the Literature

Previous PDF

Next PDF

ELEMENTARY SCIENCETEACHER EDUCATION

Linking Science and Language Arts: A Review

of the Literature Which Compares Integrated Versus

Non-integrated Approaches

Leslie U. Bradbury

Published online: 31 October 2013

?The Association for Science Teacher Education, USA 2013 AbstractThe purpose of this paper is to review the literature published during the last 20 years that investigates the impact of approaches that describe themselves as integrating science and language arts on student learning and/or attitude at the elementary level. The majority of papers report that integrated approaches led to greater student achievement in science and language arts across elementary grade levels. Additionally, integrated approaches facilitate improved attitudes toward both science and reading. The second section of the findings provides an overview of the types of pedagogical approaches used in the classrooms described in the studies. At all grade levels, teachers linked a variety of strategies including read-alouds, independent reading, at home reading, and writing in various genres that connected hands-on science activities to language arts skills. KeywordsIntegration?Elementary science?Language arts

Introduction

Pedagogical approaches that integrate science and language arts at the elementary level have been gaining in popularity in recent years. There are many reasons for this change such as a desire to increase the instructional time devoted to science (Fleener & Bucher,2003; Saul & Dieckman,2005) and to reduce the heavy reliance on textbooks for teaching science (Rice,2002). Additionally, the two disciplines share similar cognitive processes such as making predictions, assessing evidence, and drawing conclusions (Baker,1991; Padilla, Muth, & Padilla,1991). Language arts skills such as reading to access information and writing to share results are central to the work of scientists and can be practiced by students beginning in

L. U. Bradbury (&)

Appalachian State University, Boone, NC, USA

e-mail: upsonlk@appstate.edu 123

J Sci Teacher Educ (2014) 25:465-488

DOI 10.1007/s10972-013-9368-6

elementary school (Norris & Phillips,2003; Osborne,2002; Yore, Bisanz, & Hand,

2003). TheFramework for K-12 Science Educationprovides support for this

position including ''obtaining, evaluating, and communicating information'' (National Research Council [NRC],2012, p. 42) as one of the eight practices which should be incorporated in all K-12 classrooms. The most compelling reason however, may be the potential for integrated teaching to improve students' science knowledge and reading achievement (i.e. Romance & Vitale,2001). Educators are increasingly aware of the ''synergistic'' effect of combining instruction in language arts and science ''where each domain complements and reinforces the other, resulting in enhanced learning in both domains'' (Stoddart, Pinal, Latzke, & Canady,2002, p. 667). For the purposes of this paper, language arts include: reading, writing, listening, speaking, viewing, and visually representing, categories which are outlined in the definition of language arts provided by the International Reading Association and the National Council of Teachers of English (International Reading Association and National Council of Teachers of English,

1996). Each of these skills is potentially useful in a science classroom. For example,

reading, writing, and speaking are tools that help students construct their understanding of science concepts (Baker,2004; Glynn & Muth,1994), and science provides a meaningful context so that those skills are not practiced in isolation (Beck & McKeown,1989cited in Romance & Vitale,2001). As the use of integration in classrooms grows, so does the body of research that examines the outcomes of implementing these strategies. While there is a developing emphasis on integration, there is wide variation in methodological approaches that literature published during the last 20 years that investigates the impact of approaches that describe themselves as integrating science and language arts on student learning and/or attitude at the elementary level. Studies included in the review use a quasi- experimental design where an integrated teaching approach is compared to other pedagogical strategies. Specifically, the paper will address the following questions: What are the impacts of various integrated approaches on student learning and/or affective factors? What pedagogical approaches for teaching science and language arts are included in classrooms labeled as ''integrated?'' Rationale for the Integration of Science and Language Arts There are three primary rationales for an integrated approach to teaching science and language arts. Both disciplines: (a) use the idea of constructivism to guide reform-based teaching practices (b) share cognitive processes, and (c) play an essential role in the work of scientists.

Constructivism as a Guiding Principle

While those in the science education community are aware that constructivism provides a theoretical underpinning for inquiry-based science teaching, they may

466L. U. Bradbury

123
not be familiar with its importance to language arts educators. A central principle in the teaching of both content areas is the importance of students incorporating their prior knowledge with new information and experiences to construct meaning (Bransford and National Research Council(U.S.),2000; Driver, Asoko, Leach, Mortimer, & Scott,1994; Magnusson & Palincsar,2004). Knowledge is not just conveyed, rather learners are active participants in the process (i.e. Morrow, Pressley, Smith, & Smith,1997). Reform-based teaching in science and language arts is based on a cycle that involves activating prior knowledge, promoting interest, and setting a purpose; constructing understanding with teacher guidance; and applying understandings to new situations (Baker,2004). When students have direct experiences with science concepts which are supported through reading and writing about them, they can ''develop more complex understanding as new concepts are assimilated into the current knowledge structures'' (Casteel & Isom,1994, p. 54).

Shared Cognitive Processes

A number of educators have outlined cognitive processes, sometimes called reciprocal &Isom,1994). Scientific research relies on developing a question to be investigated, while language arts emphasize setting a purpose for reading (Akerson,2008). Both subject areas employ the strategies of making predictions and developing inferences (Baker,1991; Cervetti, Pearson, Bravo, & Barber,2006;Padilla,etal.,1991). The skill of collecting data in a science investigation has an analog in the language arts abilities of surveying reference materials and recording data in an organized manner (Carter & Simpson,1978). Inquiry-based encounters in science provide a texts to develop a logical explanation of results; explorations in language arts can provide a similar opportunity (Magnusson & Palincsar,2004; Padilla, et al.,1991). In both disciplines, practitioners must judge the quality of the assertions that are made based on the evidence presented (Baker,1991; Baker & Saul,1994). Though there is not an exact correlation between the activities of each discipline, there is a great deal of overlap in the processes through which new knowledge is constructed. Students can learn to apply similar skills in varying contexts. Importance of Language Arts Skills to the Work of Scientists Reform efforts in science education emphasize the value of direct, hands-on experiences that encourage children to engage with scientific ideas (Michaels, Shouse, &Schweingruber,2008). Though these encounters are crucial, the central role that language and literacy skills play in the work of scientists should not be ignored (Bintz & Moore,2007;Norris&Phillips,2003;Osborne,2002).AsstatedbyOsborne(2002): A core feature of science is that it is a cultural activity undertaken through the medium of language. Thus, if we wish students to gain insights and understanding of the manner and nature of scientific reasoning, we must offer them the opportunity to use and explore that language (p. 204).

Integrating Science and Language Arts 467

123
For example, as scientists conduct investigations and explore the world around them, their research is framed by the work of those who have come before (Norris & Phillips,2003). They access information from previous studies to inform their own questions and procedures (Pearson, Moje, & Greenleaf,2010) and interpret the validity of the results (Yore et al.,2003). Writing is another vitally important skill for scientists. As scientists collect data and interpret the findings of their investigations, they use written means such as journaling to record and revise their interpretations (Pearson et al.,2010). These records are essential ''to the ability to reflect on and connect ideas across time'' (Krajcik & Sutherland,2010, p. 457). As part of the research process, scientists must communicate their new understandings. They do this through oral presentations at conferences and through written means such as publication in scientific journals (Hand et al.,2003). The use of tools such as pictures, diagrams, graphs, and text to propose explanations and reasoned arguments for how their evidence supports their conclusions is central to their ability to communicate (Bransford and National Research Council(U.S.),2000; Casteel & Isom,1994; Krajcik & Sutherland,2010). Thus the ability to use literacy skills is fundamental to the work that they do. In summary, while there is a rationale for linking science and language arts for practical purposes such as to allow time for science teaching in a crowded curriculum (Fleener & Bucher,2003; Ross & Frey,2002; Saul & Dieckman,

2005), there are other conceptual reasons as well. Integrating science and

language arts allows students to practice important skills that cut across disciplines and are central to the ability to construct knowledge and commu- nicate it in meaningful ways.

Methods

As the number of people employing integrated approaches to teaching science and language arts has increased, so has the literature describing and investigating these various tactics. There are a multitude of articles and books providing example integrated lessons that teachers might employ in their classrooms. The on-going ''Teaching through Trade Books'' column inScience and Childrenis one such resource. Other research articles explain deliberate integrative strategies employed in classrooms and describe the outcomes of the implementation of these methodologies (i.e. Connor et al.,2010; Hapgood, Magnusson, & Palincsar,

2004). While the resources described above are informative, the articles included in

this literature review reflect a different approach. Each study specifically compared the use of an integrated teaching approach with other more traditional methods. Researchers compared the outcomes of different types of instruction on academic achievement, affective factors or both. Affective factors included attributes such as student attitude and self-confidence towards reading and/or science. The purpose in choosing comparative studies was to investigate whether integrated approaches had an impact on student learning and affective factors.

468L. U. Bradbury

123

Article Selection

To select the papers to include, searches were conducted using Academic Search Premier, Google Scholar, and Education Research Complete. Because ideas about science teaching have shifted during the last two decades, with growing support for a more inquiry-based approach, the search was limited to those articles published during the last 20 years. Search terms included: integration, interdisciplinary, language arts, and science. This approach yielded a list of over 100 works once duplications were omitted. Each publication was read to determine whether the authors described using an integrated science/language arts approach in an elementary classroom (Pre-Kindergarten-Sixth Grade) setting. It is important to note that there was not a definition of integration imposed at this stage. The criteria for inclusion was whether or not the author(s) self-identified as using integration, or described an approach that combined science and common features in language arts such as reading, writing, or speaking. The articles that featured integration of science and language arts were then sorted into two groups, those that described an experimental/comparative study to compare student achievement and/or affective factors and those that did not. A total of 13 publications described comparative studies. These works are listed in Table1. Where the comparison groups are listed in the table, the authors' own descriptors of the groups are used. Eleven of the papers were published in peer reviewed journals; two were presented at conferences. Most of the studies included described their approach as quasi-experimental because students were not randomly assigned to classrooms. Rather, for obvious practical reasons, researchers implemented their programs in already existing classrooms. However, they tried to compare classrooms that had similar charac- teristics such as the economic background or reading level of students.

Data Analysis

During the data analysis process, each of the selected studies was revisited. In the first stage, the focus of each investigation was determined. For example, some studies focused on only science achievement or language arts achievement, while others compared both. Eight studies included some reference to affective attributes. Tables1,2,3, and4summarize the variables addressed in each investigation and the instruments used to measure student outcomes. In the second stage of data analysis, achievement data for science and/or language arts measures and affective factors was addressed. Student outcome data reported for each of these measures was summarized. As defined by Simpson, Koballa, Oliver, & Crawley (1994), ''the affective domain (from the Latin affectus, meaning ''feelings'') includes a host of constructs, such as attitudes, values, beliefs, opinions, interests, and motivation'' (p. 211). In the studies included, the researchers primarily focused on student attitudes towards science and reading. This review does not provide a critique of the instruments used or the study design. The purpose is to share the outcomes generated from the widest number of studies.

Integrating Science and Language Arts 469

123
Table 1Research studies that compare integrated pedagogical approaches with other strategies Citation Program name Grade level Length of intervention Groups compared Outcomes investigated

Barber, Catz, &

Arya (2006)2nd-3rd 3 curriculum units (only 2

of which had comparison groups)

Each unit was 8 weeksCombined science/literacy

Science only

Literacy only

No treatmentScience achievement

Fang et al. (2008) Infusing Reading into

Science (IRIS)6th School year Reading infused into inquiry-based science

Inquiry-based scienceScience achievement

French (2004) ScienceStart! Pre-K School year ScienceStart! (full day, coherent, and integrated approach)

Regular Pre-K curriculumLanguage arts

achievement

Girod & Twyman

(2009)Seeds of Science: Roots of Reading2nd 10 weeks Inquiry-oriented blended science and literacy (Seeds of Science)

Inquiry-oriented science without the

literacy components (GEMS)Science achievement

Science-related

affective factors

Guthrie et al. (2004) Concept-Oriented

Reading Instruction

(CORI)3rd 12 weeks Study 1:

Reading instruction combined with

hands-on science activities (CORI)

Strategy instruction in reading

comprehension (SI)

Study 2:

CORI SI

Traditional instruction (TI)Language arts

achievement

Language arts-related

affective factors

470L. U. Bradbury

123

Table 1continued

Citation Program name Grade level Length of intervention Groups compared Outcomes investigated

Guthrie et al. (2000) Concept-Oriented

Reading Instruction

(CORI)3rd and 5th School year Reading instruction combined with hands-on science activities (CORI)

Traditionally organized basal and

science instructionLanguage arts-related affective factors

Morrow, Pressley,

Smith, & Smith

(1997)3rd October-May Experimental group 1: literature- based intervention in literacy and science program

Experimental group 2: literature-

based intervention in literacy program

Control group: basal reading and

science textbookScience achievement

Language arts

achievement

Patrick, Mantzicopoulos,

& Samarapunga-van (2009)Science Literacy Project (SLP)Kinder-garten 5 weeks or 10 weeks REG: typical kindergarten experience

SLP: sequence of integrated science

inquiry and literacy activitiesScience-related affective factors

Romance & Vitale

(1992)4th School year Integrated approach: 2 h of combined reading/language arts and science per day

Control group: 1?h reading/

language arts and?h of scienceScience achievement

Language arts

achievement

Language arts and

science-related affective factors

Integrating Science and Language Arts 471

123

Table 1continued

Citation Program name Grade level Length of intervention Groups compared Outcomes investigated

Romance & Vitale

(2001) a

In-Depth Expanded

Applications of

Science (IDEAS)Year 1-4th

Year 2-4th

Year 3-4th and 5th

Year 4-2nd-5thSchool year

(with one exception in year 3 of a half year implementation)Integrated approach: 2 h of combined reading/language arts and science per day

Control group: 1?h reading/

language arts and?h of scienceScience Acheivement

Language arts

achievement

Language arts and

science-related affective factors

Romance & Vitale

(2005)In-depth Expanded

Applications of

Science (IDEAS)

withReading comprehension strategy5th 8 weeks Content oriented science environment: 2 h lessons integrating in-depth science, reading comprehension and writing

Non-content oriented environment:

2 h daily reading/language

instruction emphasizing narrative textScience achievement

Language arts

achievement

Language arts and

science-related affective factors

Shymansky, Yore, &

Anderson (2004)Science, Parents,

Activities, and

Literature (Science

PALs)3rd and 4th School year Compared students who had a high, medium, or low quality science

PALs learning experienceScience achievement

Science-related

affective factors

Vitale & Romance

(2012)In-depth Expanded

Applications of

Science (IDEAS)1st and 2nd School year Experimental groups: daily 45 min science instructional blocks complemented by the existing reading/language arts instructionquotesdbs_dbs14.pdfusesText_20

[PDF] language as a means of suppression

[PDF] language as a school subject

[PDF] language assistant spain 2020

[PDF] language b subject brief 2020

[PDF] language change pdf

[PDF] language changer app for pc

[PDF] language changer html

[PDF] language changer sims 4

[PDF] language concatenation calculator

[PDF] language function examples

[PDF] language function for theme

[PDF] language intervention definition

[PDF] language intervention programs

[PDF] language intervention strategies chapey

[PDF] language intervention strategies chapter pdf