Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Leveraging Integrated Science and Disciplinary Literacy Instruction to Teach First Graders to Write Like Scientists and to Explore Their Perceptions of Scientists

  • Published:
Research in Science Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The purpose of the study was to examine how integrated science and disciplinary literacy instruction influenced the quality of science informational text produced by first-grade students and student perceptions these young children held about scientists. The disciplinary literacy instruction took place over the course of 8 weeks (three 20–30-min lessons/week) and incorporated reading, writing, speaking, and listening as literacy tools to make sense of science content. A single-subject design (N = 76) using a paired sample t test was used to compare results of the scores from the informational text writing samples using a writing rubric and the Draw-a-Scientist Test. Results revealed that students were able to produce higher-quality science informational texts in all areas being examined on the weighted writing rubric. However, the perceptions the first graders had regarding scientists remained essentially unchanged from beginning to end of the study. Implications for these findings are discussed. Educators should consider disciplinary literacy instruction as a way to support young children in learning to write science informational texts effectively.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Avalos, M. A., Secada, W. G., Zisselsberger, M. G., & Gort, M. (2017). “Hey! Today I will tell you about the water cycle!”: Variations of language and organizational features in third-grade science explanation writing. The Elementary School Journal, 118(1), 149–176.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blumenfeld, P. C., Kempler, T. M., & Krajcik, J. S. (2006). Motivation and cognitive engagement in learning environments. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 475–488). New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chambers, D. W. (1983). Stereotypic images of the scientist: the draw-a-scientist test. Science Education, 67(2), 255–265.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chambliss, M. J., Christenson, L. A., & Parker, C. (2003). Fourth graders composing scientific explanations about the effects of pollutants: writing to understand. Written Communication, 20(4), 426–454.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clark, S. K., Jones, C. D., & Reutzel, D. R. (2013). Using the text structures of information books to teach writing in the primary grades. Early Childhood Education Journal, 41(4), 265–271.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, B. H. (2008). Explaining psychological statistics. Hoboken: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cutler, L., & Graham, S. (2008). Primary grade writing instruction: a national survey. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100(4), 907–919.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Oliveira, L. C., & Lan, S. W. (2014). Writing science in an upper elementary classroom: a genre-based approach to teaching English language learners. Journal of Second Language Writing, 25, 23–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dickinson, P., & Adams, J. (2017). Values in evaluation –the use of rubrics. Evaluation and Program Planning, 65, 113–116.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Duke, N. K., & 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 (3rd ed., pp. 205–242). Newark: International Reading Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Duke, N. K., & Tower, C. (2004). Nonfiction texts for young readers. In J. Hoffman & D. Schallert (Eds.), The texts in elementary classrooms (pp. 125–144). Mahwah: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Duncan, D., Diefes-dux, H., & Gentry, M. (2011). Professional development through engineering academies: an examination of elementary teachers' recognition and understanding of engineering. Journal of Engineering Education, 100(3), 520–539.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eshach, H., & Fried, M. N. (2005). Should science be taught in early childhood? Journal of Science Education and Technology, 14(3), 315–336.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fang, Z. (2014). Preparing content area teachers for integrated science and disciplinary literacy instruction: The role of literacy teacher educators. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 57(6), 444–448.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fang, Z., & Wei, Y. (2010). Improving middle school students’ science literacy through reading infusion. The Journal of Educational Research, 103, 262–273.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Farland, D., & McComas, W. F. (2006). Deconstructing the DAST: Development of a valid and reliable tool for assessing students’ perceptions of scientists. In Association of Science Teacher Education Conference, Clearwater, FL.

  • Flick, L., & Lederman, N. G. (2006). Scientific inquiry and nature of science. New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gee, J. P. (2011). Introduction to discourse analysis: theory and method (3rd ed.). New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gee, J. P. (2012). Social linguistics and literacies: ideology in discourses. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gerde, H. K., Bingham, G. E., & Wasik, B. A. (2012). Writing in early childhood classrooms: guidance for best practices. Early Childhood Education Journal, 40(6), 351–359.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Graham, Bolinger, Booth, Olson, D’Aoust, MacArthur, McCutchen D, & Olinghouse N. (2012). Teaching elementary school students to be effective writers. Retrieved  March 6, 2020 from https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/PracticeGuide/17

  • Graves, D. H. (1983). Writing: teachers and children at work. Exeter: Heinemann Educational Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Guthrie, J. T., Anderson, E., Alao, S., & Rinehart, J. (1999). Influences of concept-oriented reading instruction on strategy use and conceptual learning from text. Elementary School Journal, 99, 343–366.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hall, K. M., Sabey, B. L., & McClellan, M. (2005). Expository text comprehension: helping primary-grade teachers use expository texts to full advantage. Reading Psychology, 26(3), 211–234.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hand, B., Alvermann, D., Gee, J., Guzzetti, B., Norris, S., Phillips, L., et al. (2003). Guest editorial: message from the “island group”: what is literacy in science literacy? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40, 607–615.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hart, J. E., & Lee, O. (2003). Teacher professional development to improve the science and literacy achievement of English language learners. Bilingual Research Journal, 27(3), 475–501.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holliday, W. G. (2006). A balanced approach to science inquiry teaching. In L. Flick & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Scientific inquiry and nature of science (pp. 201–217). New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jones, C. D., Clark, S. K., & Reutzel, D. R. (2016). Teaching text structure: Examining the affordances of children’s informational texts. The Elementary School Journal, 117(1), 143–169.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kersten, S. (2017). Becoming nonfiction authors: engaging in science inquiry. The Reading Teacher, 71(1), 33–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Long, M., Steinke, J., Applegate, B., Knight Lapinski, M., Johnson, M. J., & Ghosh, S. (2010). Portrayals of male and female scientists in television programs popular among middle school-age children. Science Communication, 32(3), 356–382.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mariage, V., Englert, C., & Garmon, M. A. (2000). The teacher as" more knowledgeable other" in assisting literacy learning with special needs students. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 16(4), 299–336.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marx, R. W., & Harris, C. J. (2006). No child left behind and science education: opportunities, challenges, and risks. The Elementary School Journal, 106(5), 467–478.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCarthey, S. J., & Ro, Y. S. (2011). Approaches to writing instruction. Pedagogies: An International Journal, 6(4), 273–295.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meyer, B. J. F., & Freedle, R. O. (1984). Effects of discourse type on recall. American Educational Research Journal, 21, 121–143.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meyer, B. J. F., Young, C. J., & Bartlett, B. J. (1989). Memory improved: enhanced reading comprehension and memory across the life span through strategic text structure. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc..

    Google Scholar 

  • Miller, D. I., Nolla, K. M., Eagly, A. H., & Uttal, D. H. (2018). The development of children’s gender-science stereotypes: a meta-analysis of 5 decades of US draw-A-scientist studies. Child Development, 89(6), 1943–1955.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moje, E. B. (2007). Chapter 1: developing socially just subject-matter instruction: a review of the literature on disciplinary literacy teaching. Review of Research in Education, 31(1), 1–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • National Center for Education Statistics. (2011). Digest of education statistics. Retrieved March 6, 2020 from http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d11/tables/dt11_007.asp

  • 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: Authors.

  • National Research Council. (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Osborne, J., & Dillon, J. (2008). Science education in Europe: critical reflections (Vol. 13). London: The Nuffield Foundation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ozel, M. (2012). Children's images of scientists: does grade level make a difference? Educational Sciences: Theory and Practice, 12(4), 3187–3198.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pate, P. E., Homestead, E., & McGinnis, K. (1993). Designing rubrics for authentic assessment. Middle School Journal, 25(2), 25–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pearson, P. D., Moje, E., & Greenleaf, C. (2010). Literacy and science: each in the service of the other. Science, 328(5977), 459–463.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pienta, R. S., & Smith, A. M. (2012). Women on the margins. In The new politics of the textbook (pp. 33–47). Rotterdam: SensePublishers.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Previs, K. K. (2016). Gender and race representations of scientists in highlights for children: a content analysis. Science Communication, 38(3), 303–327.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Primary Connections: Linking Science with Literacy (2019). Primary connections: linking science with literacy: report from Australian Government Department of Education and Training. Retrieved from https://primaryconnections.org.au/about/our-project

  • Purcell-Gates, V., Duke, N. K., & Martineau, J. A. (2007). Learning to read and write genre- specific text: roles of authentic experience and explicit teaching. Reading Research Quarterly, 42(1), 8–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Romance, N., & Vitale, M. (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, 63, 201–243.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shadish, W. R., Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (2002). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for generalized causal inference. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shanahan, T., & Shanahan, C. (2008). Teaching disciplinary literacy to adolescents: rethinking content-area literacy. Harvard Educational Review, 78(1), 40–59.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shanahan, C., & Shanahan, T. (2014). Does disciplinary literacy have a place in elementary school? The Reading Teacher, 67(8), 636–639.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Trygstad, P. J., Smith, P. S., Banilower, E. R., & Nelson, M. M. (2013). The status of elementary science education: are we ready for the next generation science standards? Chapel Hill: Horizon Research, Inc..

    Google Scholar 

  • Türkmen, H. (2008). Turkish primary students' perceptions about scientist and what factors affecting the image of the scientists. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 4(1), 55-61.

  • Vygotsky, L. (1978). Interaction between learning and development. Readings on the Development of Children, 23(3), 34–41.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walls, L. (2012). Third grade African American students' views of the nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49(1), 1–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Williams, J. P., Hall, K. M., & Lauer, K. D. (2004). Teaching expository text structure to young at-risk learners: building the basics of comprehension instruction. Exceptionality, 12(3), 129–144.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Williams, J. P., Nubla-Kung, A. M., Pollini, S., Stafford, K. B., Garcia, A., & Snyder, A. E. (2007). Teaching cause—effect text structure through social studies content to at-risk second graders. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 40(2), 111–120.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wolf, K., & Stevens, E. (2007). The role of rubrics in advancing and assessing student learning. Journal of Effective Teaching, 7(1), 3–14.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wright, T. S. (2014). From potential to reality: content-rich vocabulary and informational text. Reading Teacher, 67, 359–367.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wright, T. S., & Gotwals, A. W. (2017). Supporting kindergartners’ science talk in the context of an integrated science and disciplinary literacy curriculum. The Elementary School Journal, 117(3), 513–537.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wright, T. S., & Neuman, S. B. (2014). Paucity and disparity in kindergarten oral vocabulary instruction. Journal of Literacy Research, 46, 330–357.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yore, L., Hand, B., Goldman, S., Hildebrand, G., Osborne, J., Treagust, D., et al. (2004). New directions in language and science education research. Reading Research Quarterly, 39, 347–352.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Brigham Young University, 201-N MCKB, Provo, UT, 84602, USA

    Sarah K. Clark

  2. Utah State University, Logan, UT, USA

    Kimberly Lott & Mark Larese-Casanova

  3. Brigham Young University, Provo, UT, USA

    Anne Marie Taggart & Emma Judd

Authors
  1. Sarah K. Clark
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Kimberly Lott
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Mark Larese-Casanova
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Anne Marie Taggart
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Emma Judd
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sarah K. Clark.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendices

Appendix 1

Table 4 Sequence Text Writing Rubric (First Grade)
Full size table

Appendix 2

Table 5 Draw A Scientist Test Coding Sheet
Full size table

Appendix 3

Pre-Instruction Writing Instruction

figure a

Writing Translation:

I pak my bak pak. I brush my teth.

Post-Instruction Writing Sample

figure b

Writing Translation:

I am going to tell you about plants. Frst the plant is a seed. You put the seed in dirt. Next, the plant cames out of the seed. Its small still. It is a seedling. The last stage…

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Clark, S.K., Lott, K., Larese-Casanova, M. et al. Leveraging Integrated Science and Disciplinary Literacy Instruction to Teach First Graders to Write Like Scientists and to Explore Their Perceptions of Scientists. Res Sci Educ 51, 1153–1175 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-020-09927-9

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-020-09927-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation