Abstract
Implemented was a 45-minute per day Primary Science IDEAS intervention in grades 1–2 integrating reading and writing within science instruction in a multi-year study conducted in 8 experimental and 9 control schools. Results found a significant direct achievement effect in grades 1–2 on both the Iowa Tests of Basic Skills (ITBS) Science and Reading. In addition, the direct effect of the intervention in grades 1–2 also resulted in significant achievement transfer from grades 1–2 to grade 3 on both the ITBS Science and Reading. Discussed are policy implications of the findings for increasing instructional time allocated to science in grades 1–2 and expanding the focus of grade 1–2 student achievement assessment to include content-area learning.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.
References
Achieve, Inc. (2013). Next generation science standards. Retrieved from http://www.nextgenscience.org.
Asoko, H. (2002). Developing conceptual understanding in primary science. Cambridge Journal of Education, 32, 153–164.
Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (Eds.). (2000). How people learn. National Academy Press.
Brenneman, K. (2011). Assessment of preschool science learning and learning environments. Early Childhood Research & Practice, 13(1). Retrieved from http://ecrp.uiuc.edu/v13n1/brenneman.html.
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 classrooms. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49, 631–658.
Clements, D., Guernsey, L. & McClure, E. (2015). Fostering STEM trajectories: Part I - Background, challenges and opportunities for change. National Science Foundation.
Conderman, G., & Woods, S. (2008). Science instruction: An endangered species. Kappa Delta Pi Record, 44, 76–80.
Conezio, K., & French, L. (2002). Science in the preschool classroom: Capitalizing on children’s fascination with the everyday world to foster language and literacy development. Young Children, 57, 12–18.
Dickinson, D. (2011). Teacher’s language practices and academic outcomes of preschool children. Science, 333, 964–967.
Dillon, S. (2006). Schools cut back subjects to push reading and math. Retrieved March 26, 2006 from http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/26/education/26child.html.
Dougherty, C. (2014). Starting off strong: The importance of early learning. The American Educator, 38(2),14–18, 42.
Duschl, R. A., & Bismack, A. S. (Eds.). (2016). Reconceptualizing STEM education. Routledge, a Taylor & Francis Group.
Duschl, R. A., Schweingruber, H. A., & Shouse, A. W. (2007). Taking science to school: Learning and teaching science in grades K-8. National Academies.
Gelman, R., & Brenneman, K. (2004). Science pathways for young children. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 19, 150–158.
Greenfield, D., Jirout, J., Dominguez, X., Greenburg, A., Maier, M., & Fuccillo, J. (2009). Science in the preschool classroom: A programmatic research agenda to improve school readiness. Early Education and Development, 20, 238–264.
Guthrie, J. T., Wigfield, A., & Perencevich, K. C. (2004). Motivating reading comprehension: Concept-oriented reading instruction. Erlbaum.
Guthrie & Alao, S. (1997). Designing contexts to increase motivation for reading. Educational Psychologist, 32, 95–105.
Institute of Medicine (IOM) and the National Research Council (NRC). (2015). Transforming the workforce for children birth through age 8: A unifying foundation. The National Academies Press.
Jones, M. G., Jones, B. D., Hardin, B., Chapman, L., Yarbrough, T., & Davis, M. (1999). The impact of high-stakes testing on teachers and students in North Carolina. Phi Delta Kappan, 81, 199–203.
Kintsch, W. (1994). Text comprehension, memory, and learning. American Psychologist, 49, 294–303.
Kintsch, W. (2004). The construction-integration model of text comprehension and its implications for instruction. In R. Ruddell, & N. Unrau (Eds.), Theoretical models and processes of reading (5th ed., pp. 1270–1328). International Reading Association.
McMurrer, J. (2008). Instructional time in elementary schools: A closer look at changes for specific subjects. Center on Education Policy.
McNamara, D. S., & Kintsch, W. (1996). Learning from text: Effects of prior knowledge and text coherence. Discourse Processes, 22, 247–288.
Morgan, P. L., Farkas, G., Hillemeier, M. H., & Maczuga, S. (2016). Science achievement gaps begin very early, persist, and are largely explainable by modifiable factors. Educational Researcher, 22, 1–18.
National Governor’s Association Center for Best Practices and Council of Chief State School Officers (NGAC and CCSSO). (2014). Common core state standards. Author.
National Research Council. (2005). Mathematical and scientific development in early childhood: A workshop summary. The National Academies Press.
National Research Council (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Committee on a Conceptual Framework for New K-12 Science Education Standards. Author.
National Research Council (2014). Literacy for science: Exploring the intersection of the next generation science standards and common core for ELA standards. In H. Rhodes, & M. A. Feder (Eds.). The National Academies Press.
Palincsar, A. S. & Magnusson, S. J., (2001). The interplay of first-hand and second-hand investigations to model and support the development of scientific knowledge and reasoning. In S. M. Carver, & D. Klahr (Eds.), Cognition and instruction: Twenty-five years of progress (pp. 151–193). Erlbaum.
Pearson, P. D., Moje, E., & Greenleaf, C. (2010). Literacy and science: Each in the service of the other. Science, 328, 459–463.
Raudenbush, S. W., Bryk, A. S., Cheong, Y. F., & Congdon, R. (2019). HLM 8 for Windows [Computer software]. Scientific Software International Inc.
Romance, N. R., & Vitale, M. R. (2011). Interdisciplinary perspectives linking science and literacy in grades K-5: Implications for policy and practice. In B. J. Fraser, K. G. Tobin, & C. J. McRobbie (Eds.), Second International Handbook of Science Education (Vol. 2, pp. 1351–1374). Springer.
Romance, N. R., & Vitale, M. R. (2001). Implementing an in-depth expanded science model in elementary schools: Multi-year findings, research issues, and policy implications. International Journal of Science Education, 23, 373–404.
Romance, N. R., & Vitale, M. R. (2006). Making the case for elementary science as a key element in school reform: Implications for changing curricular policy. In R. Douglas, M. Klentschy, & K. Worth (Eds.), Linking Science and Literacy in the K-8 Classroom (pp. 391–405). National Science Teachers Association.
Romance, N. R., & Vitale, M. R. (2012a). Expanding the role of K-5 science instruction in educational reform: Implications of an interdisciplinary model for integrating reading within science. School Science and Mathematics, 112, 506–515.
Romance, N. R., & Vitale, M. R. (2012b). Science IDEAS: A research-based K-5 interdisciplinary instructional model linking science and literacy. Science Educator, 21, 1–12.
Romance, N. R., & Vitale, M. R. (2017). Direct and Transfer Effects of a Model Integrating Reading with In-Depth Science Instruction in Grades 3–5. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 15, 979–995.
Van den Broek, P. (2010). Using texts in science education: Cognitive processes and knowledge representation. Science, 328, 453–456.
Varelas, M., Pappas, C. C., & Rife, A. (2006). Exploring the role of intertextuality in concept construction: Urban second graders maker sense of evaporation, boiling, and condensation. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43, 637–666.
Vitale, M. R., & Romance, N. R. (2007). A knowledge-based framework for unifying content-area reading comprehension and reading comprehension strategies. In D. McNamara (Ed.), Reading comprehension strategies: Theory, interventions, and technologies (pp. 75–103). Erlbaum.
Vitale, M. R., & Romance, N. R. (2012). Using in-depth science instruction to accelerate student achievement in science and reading comprehension in grades 1–2. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 10, 457–472.
Weiss, I. R. (1997). The status of science and mathematics teaching in the United States: Comparing teacher views and classroom practice to national standards. NISE Brief: Reporting on Issues and Research in Science, Mathematics, Engineering and Technology Education. University of Wisconsin: National Center for Improving Science Education.
Wright, T. S., & Domke, L. M. (2019). The role of language and literacy in K-5 science and social studies standards. Journal of Literacy Research, 51, 5–29.
Funding
The research reported here was supported by the National Science Foundation through Grant REC 1316433 to Florida Atlantic University.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Dr. Michael Vitale passed away suddenly in June 2022.
Rights and permissions
Springer Nature or its licensor holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
About this article
Cite this article
Vitale, M.R., Romance, N. Direct and Transfer Effects of an Interdisciplinary Model Integrating Science and Reading in Grades 1–3: Results and Policy Implications. Int J of Sci and Math Educ 21, 2203–2214 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-022-10289-z
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-022-10289-z