Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Direct and Transfer Effects of an Interdisciplinary Model Integrating Science and Reading in Grades 1–3: Results and Policy Implications

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

Abstract

Implemented was a 45-minute per day Primary Science IDEAS intervention in grades 1–2 integrating reading and writing within science instruction in a multi-year study conducted in 8 experimental and 9 control schools. Results found a significant direct achievement effect in grades 1–2 on both the Iowa Tests of Basic Skills (ITBS) Science and Reading. In addition, the direct effect of the intervention in grades 1–2 also resulted in significant achievement transfer from grades 1–2 to grade 3 on both the ITBS Science and Reading. Discussed are policy implications of the findings for increasing instructional time allocated to science in grades 1–2 and expanding the focus of grade 1–2 student achievement assessment to include content-area learning.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Achieve, Inc. (2013). Next generation science standards. Retrieved from http://www.nextgenscience.org.

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Brenneman, K. (2011). Assessment of preschool science learning and learning environments. Early Childhood Research & Practice, 13(1). Retrieved from http://ecrp.uiuc.edu/v13n1/brenneman.html.

  • Cervetti, G. N., Barber, J., Dorph, R., Pearson, P. D., & Goldschmidt, P. G. (2012). The impact of an integrated approach to science and literacy in elementary classrooms. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49, 631–658.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clements, D., Guernsey, L. & McClure, E. (2015). Fostering STEM trajectories: Part I - Background, challenges and opportunities for change. National Science Foundation.

  • Conderman, G., & Woods, S. (2008). Science instruction: An endangered species. Kappa Delta Pi Record, 44, 76–80.

    Article  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, 12–18.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dickinson, D. (2011). Teacher’s language practices and academic outcomes of preschool children. Science, 333, 964–967.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dillon, S. (2006). Schools cut back subjects to push reading and math. Retrieved March 26, 2006 from http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/26/education/26child.html.

  • Dougherty, C. (2014). Starting off strong: The importance of early learning. The American Educator, 38(2),14–18, 42.

  • Duschl, R. A., & Bismack, A. S. (Eds.). (2016). Reconceptualizing STEM education. Routledge, a Taylor & Francis Group.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greenfield, D., Jirout, J., Dominguez, X., Greenburg, A., Maier, M., & Fuccillo, J. (2009). Science in the preschool classroom: A programmatic research agenda to improve school readiness. Early Education and Development, 20, 238–264.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Guthrie & Alao, S. (1997). Designing contexts to increase motivation for reading. Educational Psychologist, 32, 95–105.

  • Institute of Medicine (IOM) and the National Research Council (NRC). (2015). Transforming the workforce for children birth through age 8: A unifying foundation. The National Academies Press.

    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 

  • Kintsch, W. (1994). Text comprehension, memory, and learning. American Psychologist, 49, 294–303.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kintsch, W. (2004). The construction-integration model of text comprehension and its implications for instruction. In R. Ruddell, & N. Unrau (Eds.), Theoretical models and processes of reading (5th ed., pp. 1270–1328). International Reading Association.

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

    Google Scholar 

  • McNamara, D. S., & Kintsch, W. (1996). Learning from text: Effects of prior knowledge and text coherence. Discourse Processes, 22, 247–288.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morgan, P. L., Farkas, G., Hillemeier, M. H., & Maczuga, S. (2016). Science achievement gaps begin very early, persist, and are largely explainable by modifiable factors. Educational Researcher, 22, 1–18.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Governor’s Association Center for Best Practices and Council of Chief State School Officers (NGAC and CCSSO). (2014). Common core state standards. Author.

  • National Research Council. (2005). Mathematical and scientific development in early childhood: A workshop summary. The National Academies Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Committee on a Conceptual Framework for New K-12 Science Education Standards. Author.

  • National Research Council (2014). Literacy for science: Exploring the intersection of the next generation science standards and common core for ELA standards. In H. Rhodes, & M. A. Feder (Eds.). The National Academies Press.

  • 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. 151–193). Erlbaum.

  • 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 

  • Raudenbush, S. W., Bryk, A. S., Cheong, Y. F., & Congdon, R. (2019). HLM 8 for Windows [Computer software]. Scientific Software International Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Romance, N. R., & Vitale, M. R. (2011). 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 (Vol. 2, pp. 1351–1374). Springer.

  • 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). National Science Teachers Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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). Science IDEAS: A research-based K-5 interdisciplinary instructional model linking science and literacy. Science Educator, 21, 1–12.

    Google Scholar 

  • Romance, N. R., & Vitale, M. R. (2017). Direct and Transfer Effects of a Model Integrating Reading with In-Depth Science Instruction in Grades 3–5. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 15, 979–995.

    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 

  • Varelas, M., Pappas, C. C., & Rife, A. (2006). Exploring the role of intertextuality in concept construction: Urban second graders maker sense of evaporation, boiling, and condensation. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43, 637–666.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vitale, M. R., & Romance, N. R. (2007). 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). Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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, 10, 457–472.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weiss, I. R. (1997). The status of science and mathematics teaching in the United States: Comparing teacher views and classroom practice to national standards. NISE Brief: Reporting on Issues and Research in Science, Mathematics, Engineering and Technology Education. University of Wisconsin: National Center for Improving Science Education.

  • Wright, T. S., & Domke, L. M. (2019). The role of language and literacy in K-5 science and social studies standards. Journal of Literacy Research, 51, 5–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

The research reported here was supported by the National Science Foundation through Grant REC 1316433 to Florida Atlantic University.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. College of Education, East Carolina University, Greenville, NC, 27858, USA

    Michael R. Vitale

  2. College of Education, Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton, FL, 33431, USA

    Nancy Romance

Authors
  1. Michael R. Vitale
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Nancy Romance
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Michael R. Vitale.

Additional information

Dr. Michael Vitale passed away suddenly in June 2022.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Vitale, M.R., Romance, N. Direct and Transfer Effects of an Interdisciplinary Model Integrating Science and Reading in Grades 1–3: Results and Policy Implications. Int J of Sci and Math Educ 21, 2203–2214 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-022-10289-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-022-10289-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation