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

  • Margarita HuertaEmail author
  • Beverly J. Irby
  • Rafael Lara-Alecio
  • Fuhui Tong


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.


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

Supplementary material

10763_2015_9640_MOESM1_ESM.docx (89 kb)
ESM 1 (DOCX 88.7 kb)
10763_2015_9640_MOESM2_ESM.docx (66 kb)
ESM 2 (DOCX 66.2 kb)
10763_2015_9640_MOESM3_ESM.docx (69 kb)
ESM 3 (DOCX 68.8 kb)


  1. Achieve, Inc (2013). Next generation science standards. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from
  2. 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
  3. Calkins, L. (1994). The art of teaching writing. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.Google Scholar
  4. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 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
  7. Cummins, J. (1981). Empirical and theoretical underpinnings of bilingual education. Journal of Education, 163(1), 16–29.Google Scholar
  8. Fang, Z. (2004). Scientific literacy: A systematic functional linguistics perspective. Science Education, 89(2), 335–347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Fang, Z. (2006). The language demands of science reading in middle school. International Journal of Science Education, 28(5), 491–520.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 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.Google Scholar
  11. 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.Google Scholar
  12. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 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
  14. Halliday, M. A. K. & Martin, J. R. (1993). Writing science: Literary and discursive power. London, England: Falmer.Google Scholar
  15. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hudicourt-Barnes, J. (2003). The use of argumentation in Haitian Creole science class-rooms. Harvard Educational Review, 73(1), 73–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Huerta, M. & Jackson, J. (2010). Connecting literacy and science to increase achievement for English language learners. Early Childhood Education Journal, 38(3), 205–211.Google Scholar
  18. 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.Google Scholar
  19. 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).Google Scholar
  20. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 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
  24. 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.Google Scholar
  25. Lee, O. (2005). Science education with English language learners: Synthesis and research agenda. Review of Educational Research, 75(4), 491–530.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 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.Google Scholar
  30. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 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.Google Scholar
  32. Lemke, J. (1990). Talking science: Language, learning and values. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation.Google Scholar
  33. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 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
  36. Pinker, S. (1994). The language instinct. New York, NY: Morrow.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Raykov & Marcoulides (2011). Introduction to psychometric theory. New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  38. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 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
  41. Scarcella, R. (2003). Academic English: A conceptual framework. Technical Reports, University of California Linguistic Minority Research Institute, UC Berkeley. Retrieved from
  42. 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.
  43. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Texas Education Agency (2010). Texas education agency 2009–10 state performance report. Retrieved from
  45. Texas English Language Proficiency Assessment System [TELPAS] (2011). Manual for raters and test administrators grades K-12 . Austin, TX: Texas Education Agency.Google Scholar
  46. Vygotsky, L. S. (1962). Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 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
  48. 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.Google Scholar
  49. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Ministry of Science and Technology, Taiwan 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Margarita Huerta
    • 1
    Email author
  • Beverly J. Irby
    • 2
  • Rafael Lara-Alecio
    • 3
  • Fuhui Tong
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Educational and Clinical StudiesThe University of Nevada, Las VegasLas VegasUSA
  2. 2.Department of Educational Administration and Human Resource DevelopmentTexas A&M UniversityCollege StationUSA
  3. 3.Department of Educational PsychologyTexas A&M UniversityCollege StationUSA

Personalised recommendations