Skip to main content
Log in

Helping science methods students construct meaning from text

  • Published:
Journal of Science Teacher Education

Conclusion

The pursuit of meaning through reflection is an ultimate goal of teacher education. The reading reaction sheet strategy is one way to help methods students construct meaning about science teaching and learning, and is applicable to other college courses where considerable reading is expected. Furthermore, through instructor modeling (Kyle, Abell, & Shymansky, 1989; Yeany & Padilla, 1986), preservice teachers are more likely to employ techniques for reading in the content area in their own teaching. Thus the reading reaction sheet strategy illustrates the integration of research in reading, writing, and science education and its application to classroom practice.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Abell, S. K., & Shepardson, D. P. (1990, October).Promoting meaningful learning from science books. Paper presented at the meeting of the School Science and Mathematics Association, Cincinnati, OH.

  • Anders, P. L., & Lloyd, C. V. (1989). The significance of prior knowledge in the learning of new content-specific instruction. In D. Lapp, J. Flood, & N. Farnan (Eds.),Content area reading and learning: Instructional strategies (pp. 258–269). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, R. C., & Pearson, P. D. (1984). A schematheoretic view of basic processes in reading. In P. D. Pearson (Ed.),Handbook of reading research (pp. 255–292). New York: Longman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anthony, H. M., & Raphael, T. E. (1989). Using questioning strategies to promote students active comprehension of content area materiial. In D. Lapp, J. Flood, & N. Farnan (Eds.),Content area reading and learning: Instructional strategies (pp. 244–257). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baker, L., & Brown, A. L. (1984). Metacognitive skills and reading. In P. D. Pearson (Ed.),Handbook of reading research (pp. 353–394). New York: Longman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barrow, L. H. (1988).Demographic survey of elementary science methods faculty at Big Eight state institutions. Unpublished manuscript, University of Missouri.

  • Berthoff, A. E. (1978).Forming/Thinking/Writing: The composing imagination. Rochelle Park, NJ: Hayden.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, A. L., Campione, J. C., & Day, J. D. (1981). Learning to learn: On training students to learn from texts.Educational Researcher, 10 (2), 14–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Emig, J. (1977). Writing as a mode of learning.College Composition and Communication, 28, 122–128.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Flower, L., & Hayes, J. R. (1981). A cognitive process theory of writing.College Composition and Communication, 32, 365–387.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fulwiler, T. (1987).Teaching with writing. Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fulwiler, T., & Young, A. (1982).Language connections: Writing and reading across the curriculum. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.

    Google Scholar 

  • Glatthorn, A. (1989). Thinking, writing, and reading: Making connections. In D. Lapp, J. Flood, & N. Farnan (Eds.),Content area reading and learning: Instructional strategies (pp. 283–296). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goodman, K. S. (1968).The psycholinguistic nature of the reading process. Detroit: Wayne State University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grimmett, P. P. (1988). The nature of reflection and Schon’s conception in perspective. In P. P. Grimmett, & G. L. Erickson (Eds.),Reflection in teacher education. New York: Teachers College Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Healy, M. K. (1984).Writing in a science class: A case study of the connections between writing and learning. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. New York University.

  • Jones, B., Pierce, J., & Hunter, B. (1988/1989). Teaching students to construct graphic representations.Educational Leadership, 46 (4), 20–25.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kyle, W. C., Jr., Abell, S. K., & Shymansky, J. A. (1989). Enhancing prospective teachers’ conceptions of teaching and science,Journal of Science Teacher Education, 1, 10–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Langer, J. A., & Applebee, A. N. (1987).How writing shapes thinking: A study of teaching and learning. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lipson, M. V. (1982). Learning new information from text: The role of prior knowledge and reading ability.Journal of Reading Behavior, 14, 243–261.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mason, J. M., & Au, K. H. (1986).Reading instruction for today. Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mayher, J. S., Lester, N., & Pradl, G. M. (1983).Learning to write: Writing to learn. Portsmouth, NH: Boyton/Cook Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Newell, G. (1984). A case study/protocol of learning to write.Research in the Teaching of English, 18, 205–287.

    Google Scholar 

  • Niles, O. S. (1985). Integration of content and skills instruction. In T. L. Harris, & E. J. Cooper (Eds.),Reading, thinking and concept development: Strategies for the classroom (pp. 177–194). New York: College Entrance Examination Board.

    Google Scholar 

  • Novak, J. D., & Gowin, D. B. (1984).Learning how to learn. Cambridge University Press.

  • Pankiewicz, P. R. (1988, October).An AETS survey of science methods textbooks. A paper presented at the National Science Teachers Association Regional Meeting, Columbus, OH.

  • Ruddell, R. B., & Speaker, Jr., R. B. (1985). The interactive reading process: A model. In H. Singer & R. B. Ruddell (Eds.),Theoretical models and processes of reading (pp. 751–793). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rumelhart, D. E. (1981). Schemata: The building blocks of cognition. In J. T. Guthrie (Ed.),Comprehension and teaching: Research reviews (pp. 3–26). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (1984). Development of strategies in text processing. In H. Mandl, N. Stein, & T. Trabasso (Eds.),Learning and comprehension of text (pp. 379–406). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schon, D. A. (1983).The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schon, D. A. (1987).Educating the reflexive practitioner: Toward a new design for teaching and learning in the professions. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, F. (1971).Understanding reading: A psycholinguistic analysis of reading and learning to read. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tierney, R. J. et al. (1986, April).The effects of reading and writing upon thinking critically. Paper presented and the American Educational Research Association Meeting, New Orleans.

  • Tolman, M. N., & Campbell, M. K. (1989). What are we teaching the teachers of tomorrow?Science and Children, 27 (3), 56–59.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yeany, R. H., & Padilla, M. J. (1986). Training science teachers to utilize better teaching strategies: A research synthesis,Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 23, 85–95.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zinsser, W. (1988).Writing to learn. New York: Harper & Row, Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

About this article

Cite this article

Abell, S.K. Helping science methods students construct meaning from text. J Sci Teacher Educ 3, 11–15 (1992). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02614731

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02614731

Keywords

Navigation