Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Relationship Between Language and Concept Science Notebook Scores of English Language Learners and/or Economically Disadvantaged Students

International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education volume 14, pages 269–285 (2016)Cite this article

Abstract

Despite research interest in testing the effects of literacy-infused science interventions in different contexts, research exploring the relationship, if any, between academic language and conceptual understanding is scant. What little research exists does not include English language learners (ELLs) and/or economically disadvantaged (ED) student samples—students most at risk academically. This study quantitatively determined if there exists a relationship, and if so, how strong of a relationship, between ELL and ED students’ academic language and conceptual understanding based on science notebook scores used in a larger science and literacy-infused intervention with a sample of culturally diverse students. The study also considered strengths of relationships between language and concept science notebook scores within student language status groups (ELL, former ELL, and English speaking). Correlational analyses noted positive, large, and significant correlations between students’ language and concept scores overall, with the largest correlations for science notebook entries using more academic language. Large correlations also existed for ELL student entries at the end of the school year. Implications of the findings for future research and practice in science classrooms including literacy interventions, such as science notebooks, with populations of culturally diverse students are discussed.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

39,95 €

Price includes VAT (Finland)

Fig. 1

References

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

  • Butler, M. B. & Nesbit, C. N. (2008). Using science notebooks to improve writing skills and conceptual understanding. Science Activities, 44(4), 137–145.

    Google Scholar 

  • Calkins, L. (1994). The art of teaching writing. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 school classrooms. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49(5), 631–658.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen, Y., Hand, B. & McDowell, L. (2013). The effects of writing-to-learn-activities on elementary students’ conceptual understanding: Learning about force and motion through writing to older peers. Science Education, 97(5), 745–771.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Collier, V. P. & Thomas, W. P. (1989). How quickly can immigrants become proficient in school English? Journal of Educational Issues of Language Minority Students, 5, 26–38.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cummins, J. (1981). Empirical and theoretical underpinnings of bilingual education. Journal of Education, 163(1), 16–29.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fang, Z. (2004). Scientific literacy: A systematic functional linguistics perspective. Science Education, 89(2), 335–347.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fang, Z. (2006). The language demands of science reading in middle school. International Journal of Science Education, 28(5), 491–520.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Buchner, A. & Lang, A. G. (2009). Statistical power analyses using G*Power 3.1: Tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behavior Research Methods, 41(4), 1149–1160.

  • Gee, J. P. (2005). Language in the science classroom: Academic social languages as the heart of school-based literacy. In R. Yerrick & W. M. Roth (Eds.), Establishing scientific classroom discourse communities: Multiple voices of teaching and learning research (pp. 19–37). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

  • Gunel, M., Hand, B. & McDermott, A. (2009). Writing for different audiences: Effects on high-school students’ conceptual understanding of biology. Learning and Instruction, 19(4), 354–367.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Halldén, O. (1999). Conceptual change and contextualization. In W. Schnotz, S. Vosniadou & M. Carretero (Eds.), New perspectives on conceptual change (pp. 53–66). Oxford, England: Pergamon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Halliday, M. A. K. & Martin, J. R. (1993). Writing science: Literary and discursive power. London, England: Falmer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hand, B., Gunel, M. & Ulu, C. (2009). Sequencing embedded multimodal representation in a writing to learn approach to the teaching of electricity. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(3), 225–247.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hudicourt-Barnes, J. (2003). The use of argumentation in Haitian Creole science class-rooms. Harvard Educational Review, 73(1), 73–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huerta, M. & Jackson, J. (2010). Connecting literacy and science to increase achievement for English language learners. Early Childhood Education Journal, 38(3), 205–211.

  • Huerta, M., Lara-Alecio, R., Tong, F. & Irby, B. J. (2014). Developing and validating a science notebook rubric for fifth grade non-mainstream students. International Journal of Science Education, 36(11), 1849–1870.

  • Huerta, M., Tong, F., Irby, B. J. & Lara-Alecio, R., (2015). Measuring and comparing academic language development and conceptual understanding via science notebooks. The Journal of Educational Research. (in press).

  • Keys, C. W. (2000). Investigating the thinking processes of eighth grade writers during the composition of a scientific laboratory report. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(7), 676–690.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keys, C. W., Hand, B., Prain, V. & Collins, S. (1999). Using the science writing heuristic as a tool for learning from laboratory investigations in secondary science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36(10), 1065–1084.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kieffer, M. J., Lesaux, N., Rivera, M. & Francis, D. J. (2009). Accommodations for English language learners taking large-scale assessments: A meta-analysis on effectiveness and validity. Review of Educational Research, 29(3), 1168–1201.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kohlhass, K., Lin, H. & Chu, K. (2010). Disaggregated outcomes of ethnicity, gender, and poverty on fifth grade science performance. Research in the Middle Level Education Online, 33(6), 1–12.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lara-Alecio, R., Tong, F., Irby, B. J., Guerrero, C., Huerta, M. & Fan, Y. (2012). The effect of an instructional intervention on middle school learners’ science and English reading achievement. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49(8), 987–1011.

  • Lee, O. (2005). Science education with English language learners: Synthesis and research agenda. Review of Educational Research, 75(4), 491–530.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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, 42(8), 857–887.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, O. & Fradd, S. H. (1996). Interactional patterns of linguistically diverse students and teachers: Insights for promoting science learning. Linguistics and Education: An International Research Journal, 8(3), 269–297.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, O. & Luykx, A. (2005). Dilemmas in scaling up innovations in elementary science instruction with nonmainstream students. American Educational Research Journal, 42(3), 411–438.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, O., Maerten-Rivera, J., Penfield, R. D., LeRoy, K. & Secada, W. G. (2008). Science achievement of English language learners in urban elementary schools: results of a first-year professional development intervention. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 4(1), 31–52.

  • Lee, O., Mahotiere, M., Salinas, A., Penfield, R. D. & Maerten-Rivera, J. (2009). Science writing achievement among English language learners: results of three-year intervention in urban elementary schools. Bilingual Research Journal, 32, 153–167.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, O., Quinn, H. & Valdés, G. (2013). Science and language for english language learners in relation to next generation science standards and with implications for common core state standards for english language arts and mathematics. Educational Researcher, 42(4), 223–233.

  • Lemke, J. (1990). Talking science: Language, learning and values. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lynch, S., Kuipers, J., Pyke, C. & Szesze, M. (2005). Examining the effects of a highly rated science curriculum unit on diverse students: Results from a planning grant. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42(8), 912–946.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Muller, P. A., Stage, F. K. & Kinzie, J. (2001). Science achievement growth trajectories: Understanding factors related to gender and racial differences in precollege science achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 38(4), 981–1012.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • National Center for Education Statistics (2014). The nation’s report card: Science 2011 (NCES 2012–465). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pinker, S. (1994). The language instinct. New York, NY: Morrow.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Raykov & Marcoulides (2011). Introduction to psychometric theory. New York, NY: Routledge.

  • Rivard, L. P. & Straw, S. B. (2000). The effect of talk and writing on learning science: An exploratory study. Science Education, 84(5), 566–593.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ruiz-Primo, M. A., Li, M., Ayala, C. & Shavelson, R. J. (2004). Evaluating students’ science notebooks as an assessment tool. International Journal of Science Education, 26(12), 1477–1506.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ruiz-Primo, M. A., Li, M., Tsai, S. P. & Schneider, J. (2010). Testing one premise of scientific inquiry in science classrooms: Examining students’ scientific explanations and student learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(5), 583–608.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scarcella, R. (2003). Academic English: A conceptual framework. Technical Reports, University of California Linguistic Minority Research Institute, UC Berkeley. Retrieved from http://escholarship.org/uc/item/6pd082d4.

  • Shaw, J. M., Lyon, E. G., Stoddard, T., Mosqueda, E. & Menon, P. (2014). Improving science and literacy learning for English language learners: Evidence from a pre-service teacher preparation intervention. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 65(5), 621–643. doi:10.1007/s10972-013-9376-6.

  • Stoddard, T., Pinal, A., Latzke, M. & Canaday, D. (2002). Integrating inquiry science and language development for English language learners. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(8), 664–687.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Texas Education Agency (2010). Texas education agency 2009–10 state performance report. Retrieved from http://ritter.tea.state.tx.us/perfreport/aeis/2010/state.html.

  • Texas English Language Proficiency Assessment System [TELPAS] (2011). Manual for raters and test administrators grades K-12 . Austin, TX: Texas Education Agency.

  • Vygotsky, L. S. (1962). Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Tool and symbol in child development. In M. Cole, V. John-Steiner, S. Scribner & E. Souberman (Eds.), Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Webb, N. M., Shavelson, R. J. & Haertel, E. H. (2006). Reliability coefficients and generalizability theory. In C. R. Raoa, S. Sinharay (Eds.), Handbook of Statistics, Volume 26 (pp. 1–44). Amsterdam: Elsiever.

  • Yore, L. D. (2003). Examining the literacy component of science literacy: 25 years of language arts and science research. International Journal of Science Education, 25(6), 689–725.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yore, L. D., Pimm, D. & Tuan, H. (2007). The literacy component of mathematical and scientific literacy. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 5(4), 559–589.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Educational and Clinical Studies, The University of Nevada, Las Vegas, 4505 S. Maryland Parkway, Box 453014, Las Vegas, NV, 89154-3014, USA

    Margarita Huerta

  2. Department of Educational Administration and Human Resource Development, Texas A&M University, 4226 TAMU, College Station, TX, 77843-4226, USA

    Beverly J. Irby

  3. Department of Educational Psychology, Texas A&M University, 4225 TAMU, College Station, TX, 77843-4225, USA

    Rafael Lara-Alecio & Fuhui Tong

Authors
  1. Margarita Huerta
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Beverly J. Irby
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Rafael Lara-Alecio
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Fuhui Tong
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Margarita Huerta.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

ESM 1

(DOCX 88.7 kb)

ESM 2

(DOCX 66.2 kb)

ESM 3

(DOCX 68.8 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Huerta, M., Irby, B.J., Lara-Alecio, R. et al. Relationship Between Language and Concept Science Notebook Scores of English Language Learners and/or Economically Disadvantaged Students. Int J of Sci and Math Educ 14 (Suppl 2), 269–285 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-015-9640-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-015-9640-7

Keywords

  • Academic language
  • Conceptual understanding
  • Economically disadvantaged
  • English language learners
  • Science assessment
  • Science education
  • Science notebook

Search

Navigation