Advertisement

Journal of Science Education and Technology

, Volume 27, Issue 3, pp 270–283 | Cite as

Modern Scientific Literacy: A Case Study of Multiliteracies and Scientific Practices in a Fifth Grade Classroom

  • Elizabeth Allison
  • M. Jenice Goldston
Article

Abstract

This study investigates the convergence of multiliteracies and scientific practices in a fifth grade classroom. As students’ lives become increasingly multimodal, diverse, and globalized, the traditional notions of literacy must be revisited (New London Group 1996). With the adoption of the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS Lead States 2013a) in many states, either in their entirety or in adapted forms, it becomes useful to explore the interconnectedness multiliteracies and scientific practices and the resulting implications for scientific literacy. The case study included a fifth grade classroom, including the students and teacher. In order to create a rich description of the cases involved, data were collected and triangulated through teacher interviews, student interviews and focus groups, and classroom observations. Findings reveal that as science activities were enriched with multiliteracies and scientific practices, students were engaged in developing skills and knowledge central to being scientifically literate. Furthermore, this study establishes that characteristics of scientific literacy, by its intent and purpose, are a form of multiliteracies in elementary classrooms. Therefore, the teaching and learning of science and its practices for scientific literacy are in turn reinforcing the development of broader multiliteracies.

Keywords

Multiliteracies Scientific literacy Scientific practices Elementary science education 

References

  1. Ajayi, L. (2011). A multiliteracies pedagogy: exploring semiotic possibilities of a Disney video in a third grade diverse classroom. The Urban Review, 43(3), 396–413.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11256-010-0151-0.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Anastopoulou, S., Sharples, M., & Baber, C. (2011). An evolution of multimodal interactions with technology while learning science concepts. British Journal of Educational Technology, 42(2), 266–290.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2009.01017.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Anderson, K. (2012). “It’s funny that we don’t see the similarities when that’s what we’re aiming for”—visualizing and challenging teachers’ stereotypes of gender and science. Research in Science Education, 42(2), 281–302.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-010-9200-7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Banjong, D. (2014). Same performance but different perception: female stereotypes in mathematics emerge in fifth grade. International Online Journal of Educational Sciences, 6(2), 258–268.  https://doi.org/10.15345/iojes.2014.02.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Blackwell, C., Lauricella, A., Wartella, E., Robb, M., & Schomburg, R. (2013). Adoption and use of technology in early education: the interplay of extrinsic barriers and teacher attitudes. Computers in Education, 69, 310–319.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2013.07.024.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing grounded theory: a practical guide through qualitative analysis. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications, Inc..Google Scholar
  7. Cohen, M., & Johnson, H. (2012). Improving the acquisition and retention of science material by fifth grade students through the use of imagery interventions. Instructional Science, 40(6), 925–955.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-011-9197-y.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Coleman, J., & Goldston, J. (2011). What do you see? Science and Children, 49(1), 42–47.Google Scholar
  9. Coleman, J., McTigue, E., & Smolkin, L. (2011). Elementary teachers’ use of graphical representations in science teaching. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 22(7), 613–643.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10972-010-9204-1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Coleman, J., Bradley, L., & Donovan, C. (2012). Visual representations in second graders’ information book compositions. The Reading Teacher, 66(1), 31–45.  https://doi.org/10.1002/TRTR.01100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Collins, A., & Halverson, R. (2010). The second educational revolution: rethinking education in the age of technology. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 26(1), 18–27.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2729.2009.00339.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Gee, J. (1994). New alignments and old literacies: from fast capitalism to the canon Australian Reading Association. In B. Shortland-Jones, B. Bosich, & J. Rivalland (Eds.), Living literacy: conference papers, Australian Reading Association twentieth national conference. Australian Reading Association.Google Scholar
  13. Gee, J. P. (2000). New people in new worlds: networks, the new capitalism and schools. In B. Cope & M. Kalantzis (Eds.), Multiliteracies: literacy learning and the design of social futures (pp. 43–68). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  14. Gee, J. P. (2013). The anti-education era: creating smarter students through digital learning. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  15. Glesne, C. (2006). Becoming qualitative researchers: an introduction. Boston: Pearson Education, Inc..Google Scholar
  16. Goldston, J., Allison, E., Fowler, L., & Glaze, A. (2013). The dynamic earth: Recycling naturally. Science and Children50(8), 38–45.Google Scholar
  17. Goldston, M. J., & Downey, L. (2013). Your science classroom: Becoming and Elementary/Middle school science teacher. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications.Google Scholar
  18. Greer, R., & Sweeney, T. (2012). Students’ voices about learning with technology. Journal of Social Sciences, 8(2), 294–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Holbrook, J., & Rannikmae, M. (2009). The meaning of scientific literacy. International Journal of Environmental & Science Education, 4(3), 275–288.Google Scholar
  20. Hurd, P. (1970). Scientific enlightenment for an age of science. The Science Teacher, 37, 13–16.Google Scholar
  21. Hurd, P. (1998). Scientific literacy: new minds for a changing world. Issues and Trends, 82(3), 407–416.Google Scholar
  22. Knobel, M., & Lankshear, C. (2006). Discussing new literacies. Language Arts, 84(1), 78–86.Google Scholar
  23. Knobel, M., & Lankshear, C. (2009). Digital literacies: wikis, digital literacies, and professional growth. Journal & of Adolescent Adult Literacy, 52(7), 631–634.  https://doi.org/10.1598/JAAL.52.7.8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kress, G. (2003). Literacy in the new media age. New York: Routledge.  https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203164754.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. NGSS Lead States. (2013a). Next generation science standards. Retrieved from www.nextgenscience.org
  26. NGSS Lead States. (2013b). Appendix F: Science and Engineering Practices in the NGSS. Retrieved from www.nextgenscience.org
  27. NRC. (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  28. NRC. (2007). Taking science to school: learning and teaching science in grades K-8. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  29. NRC. (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  30. Prain, V., & Waldrip, B. (2010). Representing science literacies: an introduction. Research in Science Education, 40(1), 1–3.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-009-9153-x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Rowsell, J., McLean, C., & Hamilton, M. (2012). Visual literacy as a classroom approach. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 55, 444–447.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Scholastic Inc. (2014). Science court. Retrieved from www.tomsnyder.com
  33. Stake, R. (1995). The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  34. Tang, K., & Moje, E. (2010). Relating multimodal representations to the literacies of science. Research in Science Education, 40(1), 81–85.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-009-9158-5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. The New London Group. (1996). A pedagogy of multiliteracies: designing social futures. Harvard Educational Review, 66(1), 60–93.  https://doi.org/10.17763/haer.66.1.17370n67v22j160u.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Weinstein, M. (2006). Slash writers and guinea pigs as models for a scientific multiliteracy. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 38(5), 607–623.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-5812.2006.00215.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Yore, L., & Hand, B. (2010). Epilogue: plotting a research agenda for multiple representations, multiple modality, and multimodal representational competency. Research in Science Education, 40(1), 93–101.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-009-9160-y.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Yore, L., Pimm, D., & Tuan, H. (2007). The literacy component of mathematical and scientific literacy. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 5(4), 559–589.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-007-9089-4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of South AlabamaMobileUSA
  2. 2.University of AlabamaTuscaloosaUSA

Personalised recommendations