Advertisement

Connecting Theory and Practice: a Systematic Review of K-5 Science and Math Literacy Instruction

  • Xinyuan YangEmail author
  • Li-Jen Kuo
  • Luchen Jiang
Article

Abstract

Literacy instruction in science and math in elementary education lays a critical foundation for later content literacy development and the learning of content subjects in middle and high school. However, limited research has investigated the theoretical basis of instructional practices for science and math literacy instruction at the elementary level. Extending Wright et al., (2016), the present systematic review aims to critically examine the connection between theory and practice for K-5 science and math literacy instruction. Instructional practices recommended in the Reading Teacher, a flagship practitioner–oriented journal published by the leading literacy education association, International Literacy Association, were analyzed to identify the underlying theories. Our findings revealed that most of the science and math literacy practices recommended to elementary reading teachers are well aligned with social theories, which dominate the field of literacy education and conceptualize literacy as a social practice. Following social theories of literacy development, students are encouraged to make connections between the text and their personal interest and life experiences. The current study also revealed gaps between theory and practice in elementary science and math literacy instruction, where key theories were not or underrepresented in practices. Further strengthening the connection between theory and practice requires a joint effort between researchers and practitioners.

Keywords

Content literacy Elementary education Science and math literacy Systematic review Theory and practice 

Supplementary material

10763_2019_9957_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (94 kb)
ESM 1 (PDF 93 kb)

References

Asterisk indicates articles included in the final analysis in the current study

  1. Alverman, D. E., Unrau, N. J. & Ruddell, R. B. (Eds.). (2013). Theoretical models and processes of reading (6th ed.). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.Google Scholar
  2. Anderson, E. & Fenty, N. (2013). Integrating early literacy and other content curriculum in an ear of increased accountability: A review of the literature. In L. E. Cohen & S. Waite-Stupiansky (Eds.), Learning across the early childhood curriculum (pp. 153–177). Bingley, England: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.Google Scholar
  3. *Atkinson, T. S., Matusevich, M. N. & Huber, L. (2009). Making science trade book choices for elementary classrooms. The Reading Teacher, 62(6), 484–497.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. *Batchelor, K. E. & Bintz, W. P. (2012). Hand-clap songs across the curriculum. The Reading Teacher, 65(5), 341–345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Beck, I. L. & McKeown, M. G. (1984). Application of theories of reading to instruction. American Journal of Education, 93(1), 61–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. *Bintz, W. P. (2010). Fibbin with poems across the curriculum. The Reading Teacher, 63(6), 509–513.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. *Bintz, W. P., Moore, S. D., Wright, P. & Dempsey, L. (2011). Using literature to teach measurement. The Reading Teacher, 65(1), 58–70.Google Scholar
  8. Britt, M. A., Richter, T. & Rouet, J. F. (2014). Scientific literacy: The role of goal-directed reading and evaluation in understanding scientific information. Educational Psychologist, 49(2), 104–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. *Broemmel, A. D., & Rearden, K. T. (2006). Should teachers use the Teachers' Choices books in science classes? The Reading Teacher, 60(3), 254-265.Google Scholar
  10. *Cappello, M., & Lafferty, K. E. (2015). The roles of photography for developing literacy across the disciplines. The Reading Teacher, 69(3), 287-295.Google Scholar
  11. *Carrier, K. A., & Tatum, A. W. (2006). Creating sentence walls to help English‐language learners develop content literacy. The Reading Teacher, 60(3), 285-288.Google Scholar
  12. *Brozo, W. G. (2010). The role of content literacy in an effective RTI program. The Reading Teacher, 64(2), 147-150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. *Carter, S. (2009). Connecting mathematics and writing workshop: It’s kinda like ice skating. The Reading Teacher, 62(7), 606–610.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. *Coleman, J. M., Bradley, L. G., & Donovan, C. A. (2012). Visual representations in second graders' information book compositions. The Reading Teacher, 66(1), 31-45.Google Scholar
  15. Common Core State Standards Initiative. (2018). English Language Arts Standards. Retrieved from http://www.corestandards.org/ELA-Literacy/RI/5/. Accessed 30 Nov 2018
  16. Dressman, M. (2007). Theoretically framed: Argument and desire in the production of general knowledge about literacy. Reading Research Quarterly, 42(3), 332–363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. *Frye, E. M., Bradbury, L. & Gross, L. A. (2016). Teaching students to compose informational poetic riddles to further scientific understanding. The Reading Teacher, 69(4), 435–445.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. *Frye, E. M., Trathen, W. & Schlagal, B. (2010). Extending acrostic poetry into content learning: A scaffolding framework. The Reading Teacher, 63(7), 591–595.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Glenberg, A., Willford, J., Gibson, B., Goldberg, A. & Zhu, X. (2012). Improving reading to improve math. Scientific Studies of Reading, 16(4), 316–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Goodson, P. (2010). Theory in health promotion research and practice: Thinking outside the box. Sudbury, MA: Jones and Bartlett Publishers.Google Scholar
  21. Guthrie, J. T., Hoa, A. L. W., Wigfield, A., Tonks, S. M., Humenick, N. M. & Littles, E. (2007). Reading motivation and reading comprehension growth in the later elementary years. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 32(3), 282–313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Guthrie, J. T. & Wigfield, A. (2000). Engagement and motivation in reading. In M. L. Kamil, P. B. Mosenthal, P. D. Pearson & R. Barr (Eds.), Reading research handbook (Vol. III, pp. 403–424). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  23. Guthrie, J. T., Wigfield, A., Metsala, J. L. & Cox, K. E. (1999). Motivational and cognitive predictors of text comprehension and reading amount. Scientific Studies of Reading, 3(3), 231–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. *Halladay, J. L. & Neumann, M. D. (2012). Connecting reading and mathematical strategies. The Reading Teacher, 65(7), 471–476.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. *Hedin, L. R. & Conderman, G. (2010). Teaching students to comprehend informational text through rereading. The Reading Teacher, 63(7), 556–565.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. *Heisey, N. & Kucan, L. (2010). Introducing science concepts to primary students through read-alouds: Interactions and multiple texts make the difference. The Reading Teacher, 63(8), 666–676.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hillman, A. M. (2014). A literature review on disciplinary literacy: How do secondary teachers apprentice students into mathematical literacy? Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 57(5), 397–406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. *Hintz, A. & Smith, A. T. (2013). Mathematizing read-alouds in three easy steps. The Reading Teacher, 67(2), 103–108.Google Scholar
  29. Hodges, T. S., Feng, L., Kuo, L. -J., & McTigue, E. (2016). Discovering the literacy gap: A systematic review of reading and writing theories in research. Cogent Education, 3(1), 1228284.Google Scholar
  30. Howes, E. V., Lim, M. & Campos, J. (2009). Journeys into inquiry-based elementary science: Literacy practices, questioning, and empirical study. Science Education, 93(2), 189–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Hunsader, P. D. (2004). Mathematics trade books: Establishing their value and assessing their quality. The Reading Teacher, 57(7), 618–629.Google Scholar
  32. InCites Journal Citation Report. (2017). Retrieved from https://jcr.incites.thomsonreuters.com. Accessed 10 Feb 2019
  33. International Literacy Association (2019). The Reading Teacher. Retrieved from https://www.literacyworldwide.org/get-resources/journals
  34. *Lee, A. (2010). A way of understanding the world of science informational books. The Reading Teacher, 63(5), 424–428.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. *Maloch, B. & Horsey, M. (2013). Living inquiry: Learning from and about informational texts in a second-grade classroom. The Reading Teacher, 66(6), 475–485.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. *McTigue, E. M. & Flowers, A. C. (2011). Science visual literacy: Learners’ perceptions and knowledge of diagrams. The Reading Teacher, 64(8), 578–589.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Moje, E. B. (2007). Developing socially just subject-matter instruction: A review of the literature on disciplinary literacy teaching. Review of Research in Education, 31, 1–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Moody, S., Hu, X., Kuo, L. -J., Jouhar, M., Xu, Z., & Lee, S. (2018). Vocabulary instruction: A critical analysis of theories, research, and practice. Education Sciences, 8(4), 180.Google Scholar
  39. Moss, B. (2005). Making a case and a place for effective content area literacy instruction in the elementary grades. The Reading Teacher, 59(1), 46–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. National Reading Panel (US). (2000). Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction: Reports of the subgroups. Bethesda, MD: National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, National Institutes of Health.Google Scholar
  41. Pearson, P. D., Moje, E. & Greenleaf, C. (2010). Literacy and science: Each in the service of the other. Science, 328, 459–463.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. *Pollard-Durodola, S. D., Gonzalez, J. E., Simmons, D. C., Davis, M. J., Simmons, L. & Nava-Walichowski, M. (2012). Using knowledge networks to develop preschoolers’ content vocabulary. The Reading Teacher, 65(4), 265–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Rosenblatt, L. M. (2013). The transactional theory of reading and writing. In D. E. Alverman, N. J. Unrau & R. B. Ruddell (Eds.), Theoretical models and processes of reading (6th ed., pp. 923–956). Bingley, England: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.Google Scholar
  44. *Santoro, L. E., Chard, D. J., Howard, L., & Baker, S. K. (2008). Making the very most of classroom read‐alouds to promote comprehension and vocabulary. The Reading Teacher, 61(5), 396-408.Google Scholar
  45. Shanahan, T. & Shanahan, C. (2008). Teaching disciplinary literacy to adolescents: Rethinking content-area literacy. Harvard Educational Review, 78(1), 40–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Slavin, R. E. (2013). Effective programmes in reading and mathematics: Lessons from the best evidence encyclopaedia. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 24(4), 383–391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Slavin, R. E., Lake, C., Hanley, P. & Thurston, A. (2014). Experimental evaluations of elementary science programs: A best-evidence synthesis. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 51(7), 870–901.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. *Spencer, B. H., & Guillaume, A. M. (2006). Integrating curriculum through the learning cycle: Content‐based reading and vocabulary instruction. The Reading Teacher, 60(3), 206-219.Google Scholar
  49. Tracey, D. H. & Morrow, L. M. (2006). Lenses on reading: An introduction to theories and models. New York, NY: The Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  50. Vacca, R. T., Vacca, J. A. L. & Mraz, M. (2013). Content area reading: Literacy and learning across the curriculum (11th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.Google Scholar
  51. *Washburn, E. & Cavagnetto, A. (2013). Using argument as a tool for integrating science and literacy. The Reading Teacher, 67(2), 127–136.Google Scholar
  52. Wigfield, A. (1997). Reading motivation: A domain-specific approach to motivation. Educational Psychologist, 32(2), 59–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Wright, K. L., Franks, A. D., Kuo, L.- J., McTigue, E. M., & Serrano, J. (2016). Both theory and practice: Science literacy instruction and theories of reading. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 14(7), 1275-1292.Google Scholar
  54. Yang, X., Kuo, L.-J., Ji, X., & McTigue, E. (2018). A critical examination of the relationship among research, theory, and practice: Technology and reading instruction. Computers & Education, 125, 62-73.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Ministry of Science and Technology, Taiwan 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Teaching, Learning, and CultureTexas A&M UniversityCollege StationUSA

Personalised recommendations