Advertisement

Journal of Science Teacher Education

, Volume 23, Issue 6, pp 559–577 | Cite as

Mind the Gap: Looking for Evidence-Based Practice of Science Literacy for All in Science Teaching Journals

  • Susan L. JaggerEmail author
  • Larry D. Yore
Article

Abstract

Science literacy for all is the central goal of science education reforms, and there is a growing importance of the language arts in science. Furthermore, there are strong calls for teacher professionalism and self-directed professional learning that involve evidence-based best practices. This raises questions about whether science teaching journals’ recommendations are anchored to high-quality evidence. We found that (a) most National Science Teacher Association journals’ science literacy recommendations have weak or no evidence base and (b) those with evidence reference teaching journals, teacher resource books, and literacy education more often than science education research. We concluded that all participants in the knowledge production cycle and transfer process—authors, editors, and reviewers—need to encourage evidence-based practices anchored to ongoing reforms and to literacy and science education research.

Keywords

Science literacy Language in science Evidence-based practice Professional learning 

References

  1. Adey, P. S., & Shayer, M. (1990). Accelerating the development of formal thinking in middle and high school students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 27(3), 267–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1990). Science for all Americans: Project 2061. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  3. American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1993). Benchmarks for science literacy: Project 2061. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Anderson, J. O., Chiu, M.-H., & Yore, L. D. (2010). First cycle of PISA (2000–2006)—International perspectives on successes and challenges: Research and policy directions [Special Issue]. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 8(3), 373–388.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Arons, A. B. (1983). Achieving wider scientific literacy. Daedalus, 112(2), 91–122.Google Scholar
  6. Bauer, H. H. (1992). Scientific literacy and the myth of the scientific method. Champaign, IL: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
  7. Black, P. J., & Wiliam, D. (1998). Inside the black box: Raising standards through classroom assessment. London: King’s College.Google Scholar
  8. Carlsen, W. S. (2007). Language and science learning. In S. K. Abell & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (pp. 57–74). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  9. Council of Chief State School Officers and National Governors Association. (2010). Common core state standards for English language arts & literacy in history/social studies, science, and technical subjects. Available from http://www.corestandards.org/assets/CCSSI_ELA%20Standards.pdf.
  10. Council of Ministers of Education, Canada. (1997). Common framework of science learning outcomes, K to 12: Pan-Canadian protocol for collaboration on school curriculum. Toronto: Council of Ministers of Education.Google Scholar
  11. DeBoer, G. E. (Ed.). (2011). The role of public policy in K-12 science education. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.Google Scholar
  12. Fang, Z. (2005). Scientific literacy: A systemic functional linguistics perspective. Science Education, 89(2), 335–347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Fang, Z. (2006). The language demands of science reading in middle school. International Journal of Science Education, 28(5), 491–520.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Fang, Z., Lamme, L. L., & Pringle, R. M. (2010). Language and literacy in inquiry-based science classrooms, grades 3–8. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin/NSTA Press.Google Scholar
  15. Fang, Z., & Schleppegrell, M. J. (2010). Disciplinary literacies across content areas: Supporting secondary reading through functional language analysis. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 53(7), 587–597.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Ford, C. L., Yore, L. D., & Anthony, R. J. (1997, March). Reforms, visions, and standards: A cross-curricular view from an elementary school perspective. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Oak Brook, IL. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED406168).Google Scholar
  17. Gunel, M., Hand, B., & Prain, V. (2007). Writing for learning in science: A secondary analysis of six studies. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 5, 615–659.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hand, B., & Keys, C. (1999). Inquiry investigation. The Science Teacher, 66(4), 27–29.Google Scholar
  19. Hand, B., Yore, L. D., Jagger, S., & Prain, V. (2010). Connecting research in science literacy and classroom practice: A review of science teaching journals in Australia, the UK, and the United States, 1998–2008. Studies in Science Education, 46(1), 45–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hayward, D. V., & Phillips, L. M. (2009). Considering research quality and applicability through the eyes of stakeholders. In M. C. Shelley II, L. D. Yore, & B. Hand (Eds.), Quality research in literacy and science education: International perspectives and gold standards (pp. 139–148). Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hurd, P. D. (1958). Science literacy: Its meaning for American schools. Educational Leadership, 16, 13–16 & 52.Google Scholar
  22. McDermott, M. A., & Hand, B. (2010). A secondary reanalysis of student perceptions of non-traditional writing tasks over a ten year period. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47, 518–539.Google Scholar
  23. Millar, R., & Osborne, J. (2009). Research and practice: A complex relationship? In M. C. Shelley II, L. D. Yore, & B. Hand (Eds.), Quality research in literacy and science education: International perspectives and gold standards (pp. 41–61). Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Miller, J. D. (1983). Scientific literacy: A conceptual and empirical review. Daedalus, 112(2), 29–48.Google Scholar
  25. Moje, E. B. (2008). Foregrounding the disciplines in secondary literacy teaching and learning: A call for change. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 52(2), 96–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. National Science Teachers Association. (n.d.). Right from the start. Retrieved from http://www.nsta.org/pdfs/writestart.pdf.
  27. Norris, S. P., & Phillips, L. M. (2003). How literacy in its fundamental sense is central to scientific literacy. Science Education, 87(2), 224–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Norton-Meier, L., Hand, B., Hockenberry, L., & Wise, K. (2008). Questions, claims and evidence: The important place of argument in children’s science writing. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann/NSTA Press.Google Scholar
  29. Osborne, J. (2010). Arguing to learn in science: The role of collaborative, critical discourse [Special Issue]. Science, 328(5977), 463–466.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Pearson, P. D., Moje, E. B., & Greenleaf, C. (2010). Literacy and science: Each in the service of the other [Special Issue]. Science, 328(5977), 459–463.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Roberts, D. A. (2007). Scientific literacy/science literacy. In S. K. Abell & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (pp. 729–780). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  32. Rossman, G. B., & Yore, L. D. (2009). Stitching the pieces together to reveal the generalized patterns: Systematic research reviews, secondary reanalyses, case-to-case comparisons, and metasyntheses of qualitative research studies. In M. C. Shelley II, L. D. Yore, & B. Hand (Eds.), Quality research in literacy and science education: International perspectives and gold standards (pp. 575–601). Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Rowe, M. B. (1974). Wait-time and rewards as instructional variables, their influence on language, logic, and fate control: Part I - Wait-time. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 11(2), 81–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Saul, E. W. (Ed.). (2004). Crossing borders in literacy and science instruction: Perspectives on theory and practice. Newark, DE: International Reading Association/National Science Teachers Asssociation.Google Scholar
  35. Shanahan, T., & Shanahan, C. (2008). Teaching disciplinary literacy to adolescents: Rethinking content-area literacy. Harvard Educational Review, 78(1), 40–61.Google Scholar
  36. Shelley, M. C, I. I. (2009). Speaking truth to power with powerful results: Impacting public awareness and public policy. In M. C. Shelley II, L. D. Yore, & B. Hand (Eds.), Quality research in literacy and science education: International perspectives and gold standards (pp. 443–466). Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Shen, B. S. P. (1975). Science literacy: The public understanding of science. In S. B. Day (Ed.), Communication of scientific information (pp. 44–52). New York, NY: S. Karger.Google Scholar
  38. United States Institute of Education Sciences. (2003). Identifying and implementing educational practices supported by rigorous evidence: A user friendly manual. Washington, DC: Author.Google Scholar
  39. United States National Council of Teachers of English & International Reading Association. (1996). Standards for English language arts. Urbana, IL & Newark, DE: Authors.Google Scholar
  40. United States National Research Council. (1996). The national science education standards. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  41. United States National Research Council. (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and schoolExpanded edition. Committee on Developments in the Science of Learning. J. D. Bransford, A. L. Brown, & R. R. Cocking (Eds.). Commission on Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  42. United States National Research Council. (2007). Taking science to school: Learning and teaching science in grades K-8. Committee on Science Learning, Kindergarten through Eighth Grade. R. A. Duschl, H. A. Schweingruber, & A. W. Shouse (Eds.). Board on Science Education, Center for Education, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  43. United States National Research Council. (2011). A framework for K12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Committee on a Conceptual Framework for New K–12 Science Education Standards. Board on Science Education, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. Available from http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=13165.
  44. Veel, R. (1997). Learning how to mean—scientifically speaking: Apprenticeship into scientific discourse in the secondary school. In F. Christie & J. R. Martin (Eds.), Genre and institutions: Social processes in the workpace and school (pp. 161–195). London: Cassell.Google Scholar
  45. Webb, P. (2010). Science education and literacy: Imperatives for the developed and developing world [Special Issue]. Science, 328(5977), 448–450.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Yore, L. D. (2011). Foundations of scientific, mathematical and technological literacies—Common themes and theoretical frameworks. In L. D. Yore, E. Van der Flier-Keller, D. W. Blades, T. W. Pelton, & D. B. Zandvliet (Eds.), Pacific CRYSTAL centre for science, mathematics, and technology literacy: Lessons learned (pp. 23–44). Rotterdam: Sense.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Yore, L. D., Bisanz, G. L., & Hand, B. (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
  48. Yore, L. D., Pimm, D., & Tuan, H.-L. (2007). The literacy component of mathematical and scientific literacy [Special Issue]. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 5(4), 559–589.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Association for Science Teacher Education, USA 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Ontario Institute for Studies in EducationUniversity of TorontoTorontoCanada
  2. 2.Department of Curriculum and InstructionUniversity of VictoriaVictoriaCanada

Personalised recommendations