Journal of Science Teacher Education

, Volume 24, Issue 4, pp 665–691 | Cite as

Integrating Physics and Literacy Learning in a Physics Course for Prospective Elementary and Middle School Teachers

  • Emily H. van ZeeEmail author
  • Henri Jansen
  • Kenneth Winograd
  • Michele Crowl
  • Adam Devitt


The ability to listen closely, speak clearly, write coherently, read with comprehension, and to create and critique media offerings in science contexts is essential for effective science teaching. How might instructors develop such abilities in a physics course for prospective elementary and middle school teachers? We describe here such a course, involving collaboration among physics, science education, and literacy faculty members and two graduate assistants. Meeting twice a week for 10 weeks, the course emphasized questioning, predicting, exploring, observing, discussing, writing, and reading in physical science contexts. We report common themes about aspects that fostered or hindered science and literacy learning, changes in views about science teaching and learning, and positive shifts in interest in science and intended teaching practices.


Physics Prospective teachers Literacy learning 



This project is supported by National Science Foundation grant No. 0633752-DUE, Integrating Physics and Literacy Learning in a Physics Course for Elementary and Middle School Teachers, Henri Jansen, PI, Department of Physics, Emily van Zee, co-PI, Department of Science and Mathematics Education, College of Science and Kenneth Winograd, co-PI, Department of Teacher and Counselor Education, College of Education, Oregon State University.


  1. American Association of Physics Teachers. (2001). Powerful Ideas in physical science. College Park, MD: AAPT.Google Scholar
  2. American Association of Physics Teachers and American Physical Society. (n.d.). PhysTEC (Physics Teacher Education Coalition). Retrieved from
  3. Annenberg Foundation. (n.d.) Teacher professional development and classroom resources across the curriculum: Science. Retrieved from
  4. Anthony, R. J., Tippett, C. D., & Yore, L. D. (2010). Pacific CRYSTAL Project: Explicit literacy instruction embedded in middle school science classrooms. Research in Science Education, 40, 45–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Asch, F. (1978). Moon bear. New York: Scribner.Google Scholar
  6. Bangert-Drowns, R. L., Hurley, M. M., & Wilkinson, B. (2004). The effects of school-based writing-to-learn interventions on academic achievement: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 74(1), 29–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Brabham, E. G., & Villaume, S. K. (2001). Building walls of words. The Reading Teacher, 54(7), 700–702.Google Scholar
  8. Century, J. R., Flynn, J., Makang, D. S., Pasquale, M., Robblee, K. M., Winokur, J., et al. (2002). Supporting the science-literacy connection. In R. W. Bybee (Ed.), Learning science and the science of learning. Arlington, VA: NSTA Press.Google Scholar
  9. Cervetti, G., Pearson, P. D., Bravo, M. A., & Barber, J. (2006). Reading and writing in the service of inquiry-based science. In R. Douglas, M. Klentschy, & K. Worth (Eds.), Linking science and literacy in the K-8 classroom (pp. 221–244). Arlington, VA: NSTA Press.Google Scholar
  10. Clement, J. (1993). Using bridging analogies and anchoring intuitions to deal with students’ preconceptions about physics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30(10), 1241–1257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Clement, J. (2008). Creative model construction in scientists and students: The role of imagery, analogy, and mental simulation. Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cochran-Smith, M., & Lytle, S. (1993). Inside outside: Teacher research and knowledge. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  13. Cooper, J. D., & Kiger, N. D. (2006). Literacy: Helping children construct meaning (6th ed.). Boston: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
  14. Crouch, C., & Mazur, E. (2001). Peer instruction: Ten years of experience and results. American Journal of Physics, 69(9), 970–977.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Crowl, M. (2010). Friends and family: One strategy for connecting the classroom with the real world. (Master’s thesis). Retrieved from
  16. Crowl, M., Devitt, A., Jansen, H., van Zee, E., & Winograd, K. (in press). Encouraging prospective teachers to engage friends and family in exploring physical phenomena. Journal of Science Teacher Education. doi: 10.1007/s10972-012-99310-3.
  17. Devitt, A. (2010). Implementing science notebooks and reading strategies in a physics course for prospective elementary and middle school teachers. (Master’s project). Retrieved from
  18. Douglas, D., Klentschy, M. P., Worth, K., & Binder, W. (2006). Linking science and literacy in the K-8 classroom. Arlington, VA: National Science Teachers Association Press.Google Scholar
  19. Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education, 84(3), 287–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Duda, G., & Garrett, K. (2008). Blogging in the physics classroom: A research-based approach to shape students’ attitudes toward physics. American Journal of Physics, 76(11), 1054–1065.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Ellis, R. (2004). University students’ approaches to learning science through writing. International Journal of Science Education, 26, 1835–1853.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Galilei, G. (1638/2002). Dialogue concerning two new sciences (pp. 47–50). Philadelphia: Running Press.Google Scholar
  23. Gallas, K. (1995). Talking their way into science: Hearing children’s questions and theories and responding with curricula. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  24. Goldberg, F., Robinson, S., & Otero, V. (2008). Physics and everyday thinking. Armonk, NY: It’s About Time, Heff Jones Education Division.Google Scholar
  25. Greenleaf, C., Schoenbach, R., Cziko, C., & Mueller, F. (2001). Apprenticing adolescent readers to academic literacy. Harvard Educational Review, 71(1), 79–129.Google Scholar
  26. Guthrie, J., Wigfield, A., Barbosa, P. P., Perencevich, K. C., Taboada, A., Davis, M. H., et al. (2004). Increasing reading comprehension and engagement through concept-oriented reading instruction. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96, 403–423.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hake, R. (1998). Interactive-engagement versus traditional methods: A six-thousand-student survey of mechanics test data for introductory physics courses. American Journal of Physics, 66(1), 64–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hammer, D. (2000). Student resources for learning introductory physics. American Journal of Physics, 68(S1), S52–S59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Hammer, D., & van Zee, E. (2006). Seeing the science in children’s thinking. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.Google Scholar
  30. Hestenes, D. (1987). Toward a modeling theory of physics instruction. American Journal of Physics, 55(5), 440–454.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Hogan, K. (2007). How can playing with a motion detector help children learn to write clear sequential directions? In D. Roberts, C. Bove, & E. van Zee (Eds.), Teacher research: Stories of learning and growing (pp. 2–9). Arlington, VA: National Science Teachers Association Press.Google Scholar
  32. Jansen, H., van Zee, E. H., & Winograd, K. (2006). Integrating physics and literacy instruction in a physics course for prospective elementary and middle school teachers. National Science Foundation grant NO. No. 0633752-DUE.Google Scholar
  33. Kelly, G. J. (2007). Discourse in science classrooms. In S. Abell & N. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  34. Klein, P. D. (2000). Elementary students’ strategies for writing-to-learn in science. Cognition and Instruction, 18(3), 317–348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Laws, P. W. (2004). Workshop physics activity guide (2nd ed.). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  36. Lee, O., Deaktor, R. A., Hart, J. E., Cuevas, P., & Enders, C. (2005). An instructional intervention’s impact on the science and literacy achievement of culturally and linguistically diverse elementary students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(10), 1021–1043.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Lemke, J. (1990). Talking science: Language, learning and values. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
  38. Loughran, J. (2007). Researching teacher education practices: Responding to the challenges, demands, and expectations of self-study. Journal of Teacher Education, 58(12), 11–21.Google Scholar
  39. Mazur, E. (1997). Peer instruction: A user’s manual. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  40. McDermott, L. C. (1990). A perspective on teacher preparation in physics and other sciences: The need for special science courses for teachers. American Journal of Physics, 58, 734–742.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. McDermott, L. C. (2006). Preparing K-12 teachers in physics: Insights from history, experience, and research. American Journal of Physics, 74(9), 758–762.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. McDermott, L. C. and the Physics Education Group. (1996). Physics by Inquiry. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  43. Meltzer, D. E., & Manivannan, K. (2002). Transforming the lecture-hall environment: The fully interactive physics lecture. American Journal of Physics, 70(6), 639–654.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Mikeska, J. (2006). Falling objects. In D. Hammer & E. H. van Zee (Eds.), Seeing the science in children’s thinking (pp. 72–83). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.Google Scholar
  45. Minstrell, J. (2000). Student thinking and related assessment: Creating a facet assessment-based learning environment. In J. Pellegrino, L. Jones, & K. Mitchell (Eds.), Grading the nation’s report card: Research from the evaluation of NAEP. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  46. National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  47. National Research Council. (2007). Taking science to school: Learning and teaching science in grades K-8. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  48. National Research Council. (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  49. Novak, J. D., & Cañas, A. J. (2006). The origins of the concept mapping tool and the continuing evolution of the tool. Information Visualization, 5(3), 175–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Ogle, D. M. (1986). K-W-L: A teaching model that develops active reading of expository text. The Reading Teacher, 39(6), 564–570.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Osborne, J. (2010). Arguing to learn in science: The role of collaborative, critical discourse. Science, 328, 463–466.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Pearson, P. D., Raphael, T. E., Benson, V. L., & Madda, C. L. (2007). Balance in comprehensive literacy instruction: Then and now. In L. B. Gambrell, L. M. Morrow, & M. Pressley (Eds.), Best practices in literacy instruction. New York: Guilford Publications, Inc.Google Scholar
  53. Readence, J. E., Moore, D. W., & Rickelman, R. J. (2000). Prereading activities for content area reading and learning (3rd ed.). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.Google Scholar
  54. Roth, K. (2007). Teachers as researchers. In S. Abell & N. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  55. Rowe, M. B. (1986). Wait time: Slowing down may be a way of speeding up! Journal of Teacher Education, 37(1), 43–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Saul, W. (Ed.). (2004). Crossing borders in literacy and science instruction: Perspectives on theory and practice. Arlington, VA: NSTA Press and Newark, DE: International Reading Association.Google Scholar
  57. Shulman, L. (2004). Teaching as community property: Essays on higher education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  58. Smith, J. P., diSessa, A. A., & Roschelle, J. (1993). Misconceptions reconceived: A constructivist analysis of knowledge in transition. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 3(2), 115–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Ukens, L., Hein, W. W., Johnson, P. A., & Layman, J. (2004). Powerful ideas in physical science. Journal of College Science Teaching, 33(7), 38–41.Google Scholar
  60. van Zee, E. H. (2000). Analysis of a student-generated inquiry discussion. International Journal of Science Education, 22, 115–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. van Zee, E. H., Hammer, D., Bell, M., Roy, P., & Peter, J. (2005). Learning and teaching science as inquiry: A case study of elementary school teachers’ investigations of light. Science Education, 89, 1007–1042.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. van Zee, E. H., & Roberts, D. (2001). Using pedagogical inquiries as a basis for learning to teach: Prospective teachers’ perceptions of positive science learning experiences. Science Education, 85, 733–757.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. White, R., & Gunstone, R. (1992). Probing understanding. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  64. Yore, L. D., Hand, B., Goldman, S. R., Hildebrand, G. M., Osborne, J. F., Treagust, D. F., et al. (2004). New directions in language and science education research. Reading Research Quarterly, 39(3), 347–352.Google Scholar
  65. Yore, L. D., & Treagust, D. F. (2006). Current realities and future possibilities: Language and science literacy—empowering research and informing instruction. International Journal of Science Education, 28(2–3), 291–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Zeichner, K. M., & Noffke, S. E. (2001). Practitioner research. In V. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (pp. 298–330). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Association for Science Teacher Education, USA 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Emily H. van Zee
    • 1
    Email author
  • Henri Jansen
    • 2
  • Kenneth Winograd
    • 3
  • Michele Crowl
    • 1
  • Adam Devitt
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Science and Mathematics EducationOregon State UniversityCorvallisUSA
  2. 2.Department of Physics, College of ScienceOregon State UniversityCorvallisUSA
  3. 3.Department of Teacher and Counselor Education, College of EducationOregon State UniversityCorvallisUSA