Journal of Science Teacher Education

, Volume 25, Issue 4, pp 465–488

Linking Science and Language Arts: A Review of the Literature Which Compares Integrated Versus Non-integrated Approaches

Elementary Science Teacher Education

Abstract

The purpose of this paper is to review the literature published during the last 20 years that investigates the impact of approaches that describe themselves as integrating science and language arts on student learning and/or attitude at the elementary level. The majority of papers report that integrated approaches led to greater student achievement in science and language arts across elementary grade levels. Additionally, integrated approaches facilitate improved attitudes toward both science and reading. The second section of the findings provides an overview of the types of pedagogical approaches used in the classrooms described in the studies. At all grade levels, teachers linked a variety of strategies including read-alouds, independent reading, at home reading, and writing in various genres that connected hands-on science activities to language arts skills.

Keywords

Integration Elementary science Language arts 

References

  1. Akerson, V. L. (2008). Using action research projects to help preservice elementary teachers effectively use interdisciplinary language arts and science instruction. In V. L. Akerson (Ed.), Interdisciplinary language arts and science instruction in elementary classrooms: Applying research to practice (pp. 279–293). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  2. Akerson, V., & Young, T. A. (2008). Why research on interdisciplinary language arts and science instruction. Interdisciplinary language arts and science instruction in elementary classrooms: Applying research to practice (pp. 3–11). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  3. Baker, L. (1991). Metacognition, reading, and science education. In C. M. Santa & D. E. Alvermann (Eds.), Science learning: Processing and applications (pp. 2–13). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.Google Scholar
  4. Baker, L. (2004). Reading comprehension and science inquiry: Metacognitive connections. In W. Saul (Ed.), Crossing borders in literacy and science instruction: Perspectives on theory and practice (pp. 239–257). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.Google Scholar
  5. Baker, L., & Saul, W. (1994). Considering science and language arts connections: A study of teacher cognition. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31(9), 1023–1037.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Barber, J., Catz, K. N., & Arya, D. (2006). Improving science content acquisition through a combined science/literacy approach: A quasi-experimental study. In annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA.Google Scholar
  7. Beck, I. L. & McKeown, M. G. (1989). Expository text for young readers: The issue of coherence. In L. B. Resnick (Ed.), Knowing, learning, and instruction (pp. 47–65). Hillsdale, NJ: Earlbaum.Google Scholar
  8. Bintz, W., & Moore, S. (2007). Using a literature-based text cluster to teach science. In V. L. Akerson (Ed.), Interdisciplinary language arts and science instruction in elementary classrooms: Applying research to practice (pp. 159–172). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  9. Bransford, J., & National Research Council(U.S.). (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. Washington, D.C: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  10. Carter, G. S., & Simpson, R. D. (1978). Science and reading: A basic duo. The Science Teacher, 45(3), 18–21.Google Scholar
  11. Casteel, C. P., & Isom, B. A. (1994). Reciprocal processes in science and literacy learning. The Reading Teacher, 47(7), 538–545.Google Scholar
  12. Cervetti, G. N., Pearson, P. D., Bravo, M. A., & Barber, J. (2006). Reading and writing in the service of inquiry-based science. In R. Douglas, M. P. Klentschy, & K. Worth (Eds.), Linking science and literacy in the k-8 classroom (pp. 221–244). Arlington, VA: NSTA Press.Google Scholar
  13. Connor, C. M., Kaya, S., Luck, M., Toste, J. R., Canto, A., Rice, D., et al. (2010). Content area literacy: Individualizing student instruction in second-grade science. The Reading Teacher, 63(6), 474–485.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Donovan, C. A., & Smolkin, L. B. (2001). Genre and other factors influencing teachers’ book selections for science instruction. Reading Research Quarterly, 36(4), 412–440.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Driver, R., Asoko, H., Leach, J., Scott, P., & Mortimer, E. (1994). Constructing scientific knowledge in the classroom. Educational Researcher, 23(7), 5–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Fang, Z., Lamme, L., Pringle, R., Patrick, J., Sanders, J., Zmach, C., et al. (2008). Integrating reading into middle school science: What we did, found and learned. International Journal of Science Education, 30(15), 2067–2089.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Fleener, C., & Bucher, K. (2003). Linking reading, science, and fiction books. Childhood Education, 80(2), 76–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. French, L. (2004). Science as the center of a coherent, integrated early childhood curriculum. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 19, 138–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Girod, M., & Twyman, T. (2009). Comparing the added value of blended science and literacy curricula to inquiry-based science curricula in two 2nd grade classrooms. Journal of Elementary Science Education, 21(3), 13–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Glynn, S. M., & Muth, K. D. (1994). Reading and writing to learn science: Achieving scientific literacy. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31(9), 1057–1073.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Guthrie, J. T., Wigfield, A., Barbosa, P., Perencevich, K. C., Taboada, A., Davis, M. H., et al. (2004). Increasing reading comprehension and engagement through concept-oriented reading instruction. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96(3), 403–423.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Guthrie, J. T., Wigfield, A., & VonSecker, C. (2000). Effects of integrated instruction on motivation and strategy use in reading. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92(2), 331–341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hand, B. M., Alvermann, D. E., Gee, J., Guzzetti, B., Norris, S. P., Phillips, L. M., et al. (2003). Message from the “Island group”: What is literacy in science literacy? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40(7), 607–615.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hapgood, S., Magnusson, S. J., & Palincsar, A. S. (2004). Teacher, text, and experience: A case study of young children’s scientific inquiry. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(4), 455–505.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. International Reading Association, & National Council of Teachers of English. (1996). Standards for the English language arts. Newark, DE and Urbana, IL: Authors.Google Scholar
  26. Krajcik, J. S., & Sutherland, L. M. (2010). Supporting students in developing literacy in science. Science, 328(5977), 456–459.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Magnusson, S. J., & Palincsar, A. S. (2004). Learning from text designed to model scientific thinking in inquiry-based instruction. In E. W. Saul (Ed.), Crossing borders in literacy and science instruction: Perspective on theory and practice (pp. 316–333). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.Google Scholar
  28. Michaels, S., Shouse, A. W., & Schweingruber, H. A. (2008). Ready, set, science! Putting research to work in K-8 science classrooms. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  29. Morrow, L., Pressley, M., Smith, J., & Smith, M. (1997). The effect of a literature-based program integrated into literacy and science instruction with children from diverse backgrounds. Reading Research Quarterly, 32(1), 54–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. National Governors Association Center for Best Practices, & Council of Chief State School Officers, (2010). Common core state standards for English language arts and literacy in history/social studies, science, and technical subjects. Washington, DC: National Governors Association Center for Best Practices, Council of Chief State School Officers.Google Scholar
  31. National Research Council. (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  32. 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
  33. Osborne, J. (2002). Science without literacy: A ship without a sail? Cambridge Journal of Education, 32(2), 203–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Padilla, M. J., Muth, D., & Padilla, R. K. (1991). Science and reading: Many process skills in common? In C. M. Santa & D. E. Alvermann (Eds.), Science learning: Processing and applications (pp. 14–19). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.Google Scholar
  35. Patrick, H., Mantzicopoulos, P., & Samarapungavan, A. (2009). Motivation for learning science in kindergarten: Is there a gender gap and does integrated inquiry and literacy instruction make a difference. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(2), 166–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Pearson, P., Moje, E., & Greenleaf, C. (2010). Literacy and science: Each in the service of the other. Science, 328(5977), 459–463.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Rice, D. C. (2002). Using trade books in teaching elementary science: Facts and fallacies. The Reading Teacher, 55(6), 552–565.Google Scholar
  38. Romance, N. R., & Vitale, M. R. (1992). A curriculum strategy that expands time for in-depth elementary science instruction by using science instruction by using science-based reading strategies: Effects of a year-long study in grade four. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29(6), 545–554.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 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(4), 373–404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Romance, N. R., & Vitale, M. R. (2005). A knowledge-focused multi-part strategy for enhancing student reading comprehension proficiency in grade 5. San Antonio, Texas: In annual meeting of the International Reading Association.Google Scholar
  41. Ross, D., & Frey, N. (2002). In a spring garden: Literacy and science bloom in second grade. Reading Improvement, 39(4), 164–174.Google Scholar
  42. Routman, R. (1994). Invitations: Changing teachers and learners k-12. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.Google Scholar
  43. Saul, E. W., & Dieckman, D. (2005). Choosing and using information trade books. Reading Research Quarterly, 40, 502–513.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Shymansky, J. A., Yore, L. D., & Anderson, J. O. (2004). Impact of a schools district’s science reform effort on the achievement and attitudes of third- and fourth-grade students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42(8), 771–790.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Simpson, R. D., Koballa, T. R., Oliver, J. S., & Crawley, F. E. (1994). Research on the affective dimension of science learning. In D. Gabel (Ed.), Handbook of research on science teaching and learning (pp. 211–234). New York, NY: MacMillan Reference Books.Google Scholar
  46. Stoddart, T., Pinal, A., Latzke, M., & Canady, D. (2002). Integrating inquiry science and language development for English language learners. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(8), 664–687.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Varelas, M., & Pappas, C. C. (2006). Intertextuality in read-alouds of integrated science-literacy units in urban primary classrooms: Opportunities for the development of thought and language. Cognition and Instruction, 24(2), 211–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 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(2), 457–472.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Yore, L., Bisanz, G. L., & Hand, B. M. (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

Copyright information

© The Association for Science Teacher Education, USA 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Appalachian State UniversityBooneUSA

Personalised recommendations