Language and Literacy in Inquiry-Based Science: Classrooms, Grades 3–8

Books

Zhihui Fang, Linda L. Lamme, Rose M. Pringle & Sandra K. Abell

  • Citations
  • Add to My List
  • Text Size

  • Chapters
  • Front Matter
  • Back Matter
  • Subject Index
  • Copyright

    View Copyright Page

    Foreword

    When my stepson, Matt, was nine years old, he was not particularly interested in reading as a leisure pursuit. He preferred to spend his free time setting traps in the back yard, endlessly hoping to capture some sort of animal. One summer, to capitalize on Matt's interest in animals, his dad helped him build an ant farm. As they puzzled over how to provide the best environment for the ants, something interesting happened. On our weekly trip to the public library, Matt, the child who never picked up a book by choice, asked, “Do you think they will have any ant books?” I seized this literacy opportunity and helped Matt find and check out every book about ants he could find. Matt “read” each book, at times skimming for the answer to a question, at times looking at photos and reading the captions, and sometimes even reading the book cover to cover. Matt had discovered how books might be useful to him. His interest in science led him to this discovery. I have known many children like Matt, turned on by the natural world but disconnected from the school-based world of reading and writing. I suspect many of you know children like Matt as well.

    Matt's story illustrates that science can be the entrée into reading and writing for many of our students. However, as Zhihui Fang and his colleagues make clear in this book, being motivated to read or write about science is only one part of the picture. Even motivated young scientists can be challenged by the language and discourse style of science reading and writing. These discourse challenges can make science seem difficult and inaccessible for all but the brightest. This is certainly not the message we want to send to our students about science. We want all students to believe that they can learn science, not just the elite few.

    By using the ideas in Language and Literacy in Inquiry-Based Classrooms, teachers can help all students build fluency with reading and writing science. The authors provide a thorough description of why science reading and writing are difficult. They also suggest a repertoire of strategies that teachers can use to help students become proficient with the language of science. Teachers who integrate these strategies into their practice increase students’ opportunities to learn science; improve student motivation and self-efficacy to read, write, and do science; and increase the potential of student success, in both science and literacy.

    We often think of the best science instruction as that which engages students in doing what scientists do—asking questions, collecting data, and formulating explanations from evidence. Yet reading and writing are also essential activities of scientists. As part of their professional community, scientists read the literature, write grant proposals, keep a science notebook, and present their findings. Therefore, it is not enough for the science classroom to be physically engaging. In addition to using hands-on instruction, teachers of science must engage students in reading, writing, thinking, and speaking like scientists. Knowing how and when to do so are keys to effective teaching. This book will support classroom teachers in carrying out this challenge.

    Sandra K. Abell Columbia, Missouri

    Acknowledgments

    We would like to thank the many preservice and inservice teachers with whom we have worked over the years. It is through them that we shared, piloted, and received feedback on many of the ideas presented in this book. We are particularly grateful to Sara Charbonnet and Melissa Henkel, two science teachers at Westwood Middle School (Alachua County, Florida), who worked closely with us in 2004 and 2005 on a reading-science integration project supported by a Multi-University Reading, Mathematics, and Science Initiative (MURMSI) grant from the U.S. Department of Education. We also thank our graduate students (Charlotte Mundy, Rebecca Norton, Mary Ellen Oslick, and Jennifer Patrick), who read draft manuscripts of this book and provided helpful comments. Finally, we acknowledge, with appreciation, our acquisitions editor Carol Collins and her team at Corwin for their guidance and professionalism throughout the publication process.

    Publisher's Acknowledgments

    Corwin gratefully acknowledges the contributions of the following reviewers:

    Sergio Z. de Alba, Teacher

    R.M. Miano Elementary School

    Los Banos, CA

    Cynthia Ballenger, Early Childhood Specialist

    Chèche Konnen Center

    Cambridge, MA

    Linda Keteyian, Science/Math Teacher

    Priest Elementary School

    Detroit, MI

    Sarah J. Ramsey, Assistant Professor

    The University of North Carolina at Charlotte

    Charlotte, NC

    About the Author

    Zhihui Fang (PhD, Purdue University) is Professor of Language and Literacy Education in the School of Teaching and Learning at the University of Florida, where he also coordinates the Reading Education program. He specializes in content-area reading and writing, language development, and teacher education. His recent research focuses on the role of language in construing disciplinary knowledge and in shaping students’ literacy development. He is particularly interested in exploring the use of evidence-based language and literacy practices to support science teaching and learning. Zhihui has authored over 70 publications that include books, book chapters, and journal articles. His Reading in Secondary Content Areas: A Language-Based Pedagogy (University of Michigan Press, 2008), coauthored with Mary Schleppegrell, describes a new approach to teaching reading in the subjects of science, mathematics, social studies, and language arts. He can be contacted at zfang@coe.ufl.edu.

    About the Co-Authors

    Linda L. Lamme (PhD, Syracuse University) is Professor of Education in the School of Teaching and Learning at the University of Florida, where she teaches courses in children's literature, including international literature, literature for the writing program, literature for the content areas, and multicultural literature. She conducts research on children's responses to literature, book analyses, and literature in the curriculum. Linda has served on the Notable Books for a Global Society Committee for the Children's Literature and Reading Special Interest Group of the International Reading Association, the Notable Books for Language Arts Committee for the National Council of Teachers of English, and the Children's Literature Assembly Board. She can be contacted at llamme@coe.ufl.edu.

    Rose M. Pringle (PhD, Florida State University) is Associate Professor of Science Education in the School of Teaching and Learning at the University of Florida. Her areas of research include preservice teachers’ positionality as science learners and issues associated with learning to teach inquiry-based science. She is particularly interested in working toward increasing the participation of minorities, especially girls of African descent, into mathematics- and science-related careers. Rose is currently exploring the relationship between science teachers’ and counselors’ expectations and African American girls’ self-perception as science and mathematics learners. She can be contacted at rpringle@coe.ufl.edu.

  • Endnotes

    1. National Research Council (1996); Rutherford & Ahlgren (1990)

    2. Grigg, Lauko, & Brockway (2006)

    3. Gonzales, Williams, Jocelyn, Roey, Kastberg, & Brenwald (2008)

    4. Osborne, Simon, & Collins (2003)

    5. Lemke (2001, p. v)

    6. American Association for the Advancement of Science (1993); National Research Council (1996, 2000)

    7. Hand, Alvermann, Gee, Guzzetti, Norris, Phillips, et al. (2003); Saul (2004); Wellington & Osborne (2001); Yore, Hand, Goldman, Hildebrand, Osborne, Treagust, et al. (2004)

    8. National Research Council (1996)

    9. American Association for the Advancement of Science (1993)

    10. National Research Council (2000, p. 13)

    11. Chiappetta & Adams (2004)

    12. Crawford (2007, p. 614)

    13. National Research Council (2000, p. 13)

    14. National Research Council (1996, p. 22)

    15. Colburn (2008); Hmelo-Silver, Duncan, & Chinn (2007); Shymansky, Kyle, & Alport (1983); Wise & Okey (1983)

    16. Wilson, Taylor, Kowalski, & Carlson (2010)

    17. Chang & Mao (1999)

    18. Dalton, Morocco, Tivnan, & Mead (1997)

    19. Hmelo-Silver, Duncan, & Chinn (2007, p. 104)

    20. Bell, Smetana, & Binns (2005); Crawford (2007)

    21. Abd-el-khalick, F., Boujaoude, S., Duschl, R., Lederman, N., Mamlok-Naaman, R., Hofstein, A., et al. (2004); Anderson (2002); Crawford (2007)

    22. Hudson, McMahon, & Overstreet (2002); Weiss, Pasley, Smith, Banilower, & Heck (2003)

    23. Bybee, Powell, & Trowbridge (2007); Minstrell & van Zee (2000); National Research Council (2000); National Science Foundation (1999)

    24. Bunce (2002)

    25. Crawford (2000, p. 933)

    26. Bell, Smetana, & Binns (2005, p. 33); Fay & Bretz (2008, p. 41)

    27. Flanagan (2000)

    28. Chasek (2000)

    29. Kittinger (1997)

    30. Symes (2004)

    31. Horenstein (1993)

    32. Zim & Shaffer (1985)

    33. Johnson (2004)

    34. Baldwin (2004)

    35. Oxlade (2002)

    36. Hand, Alvermann, Gee, Guzzetti, Norris, Phillips, et al. (2003); Saul (2004); Yore, Hand, Goldman, Hildebrand, Osborne, Treagust, et al. (2004)

    37. Norris & Phillips (2003)

    38. Halliday & Martin (1993); Martin & Veel (1998)

    39. Norris & Phillips (2003, p. 226)

    40. Wellington & Osborne (2001, p. 117)

    41. Glynn & Muth (1994); Rivard (1994); Yore, Bisanz, & Hand (2003)

    42. Palinscar & Magnusson (2001)

    43. Wellington & Osborne (2001)

    44. Yore, Hand, & Florence (2004)

    45. Fang (2005, 2006, in press)

    46. Craig & Yore (1995)

    47. Perie, Grigg, & Donahue (2005)

    48. Cervetti, Pearson, Bravo, & Barber (2006); Fang & Wei (2010); Fellows (1994); Gaskins, Guthrie, Satlow, Ostertag, Six, Byrne, et al. (1994); Guthrie, Van Meter, Hancock, Alao, Anderson, & McCann (1998); Key, Hand, Prain, & Collins (1999); Mason & Boscolo (2000); Morrow, Pressley, Smith, & Smith (1997); Rivard & Straw (2000); Romance & Vitale (1992)

    49. Hand, Alvermann, Gee, Guzzetti, Norris, Phillips, et al. (2003, p. 614)

    1. Wellington & Osborne (2001, p. 59)

    2. M. Brown (2004, pp. 174–177)

    3. Sands (2006d, p. 4)

    4. Kintsch (2004)

    5. Gee (2001)

    6. Veel (1997)

    7. Glencoe/McGraw-Hill (2000b, p. 584).

    8. Halliday (1998)

    9. Glencoe/McGraw-Hill (2000b, p. 674)

    10. Halliday & Matthiessen (2004)

    11. The classification of clause types used in this table is based on Schleppegrell & Colombi (1997), who based their work on Halliday's (1994) functional grammar. For the sake of simplicity, traditional grammar terms “subordinate clauses” and “coordinate clauses” are used here in lieu of the less familiar functional grammar terms “hypotactic clauses” and “paratactic clauses,” respectively. For a more fine-tuned distinction of these clause terms, please refer to Schleppegrell and Colombi (1997).

    12. Halliday & Martin (1993)

    13. Christie & Derewianka (2008)

    14. Glencoe/McGraw-Hill (2000b, p. 401)

    15. Fang, Schleppegrell, & Cox (2006)

    16. Fang (2005, 2006, in press); Fang, Schleppegrell, & Cox (2006); Fang & Schleppegrell (2008)

    17. Urban (2007, p. 160)

    18. Glencoe/McGraw-Hill (2000a, 2000b)

    19. Piddock (2008); Pobst (2008)

    20. Glencoe/McGraw-Hill (2000a, p. 36)

    21. Chall, Jacobs, & Baldwin (1990)

    22. Norris & Phillips (2003)

    23. Veel (1997)

    24. Lemke (1998, 2000, 2002); Kress (2003); Kress, Jewitt, Ogborn, & Tsatsarelis (2001); Unsworth (1997a, 2001); O'Halloran (2004, 2005); Prain & Waldrip (2010)

    1. Anderson (2004); Hirsch (2006)

    2. Kintsch (2004)

    3. Yager (2004, p. 95)

    4. Wellington & Osborne (2001, p. 112)

    5. Cervetti & Barber (2009, p. 39)

    6. Perera (2005)

    7. Straits & Nichols (2006)

    8. Creech & Hale (2006)

    9. King (1990)

    10. Hadaway, Vardell, & Young (2001)

    11. King (1990)

    12. Zales & Unger (2008)

    13. Daniels (1994)

    14. Straits (2007, pp. 33–34)

    15. Fang, Lamme, Pringle, Patrick, Sanders, Zmach, et al. (2008)

    1. Halliday & Martin (1993)

    2. Halliday & Martin (1993)

    3. Wellington & Osborne (2001, p. 139)

    4. Duke (2000)

    5. Fang (2002); Moss & Newton (2002); Moss (2008)

    6. Duke (2004); Young, Moss, & Cornwell (2007)

    7. Derewianka (1990, p. 66)

    8. Fang (2008); Kamil & Bernhardt (2004)

    9. Craig & Yore (1995)

    10. Yore & Treagust (2006, p. 296)

    11. Ivey & Broaddus (2001)

    12. Wade & Moje (2000); Wellington & Osborne (2001)

    13. See, for example, Fang, Lamme, Pringle, Patrick, Sanders, Zmach, et al. (2008) for a detailed description of procedures for managing a home science reading program within an inquiry-based science curriculum.

    14. P. Robinson (2005, p. 443)

    15. P. Robinson (2005, p. 443)

    16. Fang (2006)

    17. Fang (2006)

    18. Fang (2006)

    19. Fang (2006)

    20. Schwartz & Raphael (1985)

    21. Haggard (1986)

    22. Fisher, Brozo, Frey, & Ivey (2011); Vacca, Vacca, & Mraz (2011)

    23. Lambert (1997, p. 36)

    24. Oldfield (2002, p. 94)

    25. Miller (2004, p. 423)

    26. Unsworth (1997b)

    27. Fang (2006)

    28. Sands (2006d, p. 13)

    29. Glencoe/McGraw-Hill (2000a, p. 579)

    30. Halliday (1998); Halliday & Martin (1993)

    31. Glencoe/McGraw-Hill (2000a, p. 495)

    32. Glencoe/McGraw-Hill (2000b, p. 510)

    33. Walker (2003, p. 35)

    34. Parker (1992, p. 8)

    35. Pobst (2008, p. 31)

    36. Gallant (1998, p. 10)

    37. Unsworth (1997b)

    38. Fang (2006)

    39. Scott Foresman (2000, p. C67)

    40. Oldfield (2002, pp. 16–17)

    41. Murphy (2003, p. 137)

    42. Wellington & Osborne (2001); Yore, Hand, Goldman, Hildebrand, Osborne, Treagust, et al. (2004)

    43. Schleppegrell (2004)

    44. Fang (2006)

    45. Wellington & Osborne (2001)

    46. Walker (2003, p. 38)

    47. Glencoe/McGraw-Hill (2000b, p. 400)

    48. Barnitz (1998)

    49. Lemke (1989)

    50. Unsworth (1997b)

    51. Miller (2004, p. 239)

    52. Halliday (1998)

    53. Reif & Larkin (1991, p. 756)

    54. Yore & Treagust (2006, p. 292)

    55. Halliday & Matthiessen (2004); Halliday & Martin (1993)

    56. Fang & Schleppegrell (2010); Schleppegrell, Greer, & Taylor (2008)

    57. Veel & Coffin (1996, p. 225)

    58. See, for example, Alvermann, Phelps, & Gillis (2010) and Vacca, Vacca, & Mraz (2011).

    59. See, for example, Beers (2002), Keene & Zimmermann (2007) and Fisher, Brozo, Frey, & Ivey (2011).

    1. Alvermann & Moore (1991)

    2. Fang (2008); Hirsch (2006)

    3. Pressley (2004, p. 420)

    4. Wellington & Osborne (2001, p. 117)

    5. Alvermann & Moore (1991); Biancarosa & Snow (2004); National Reading Panel (2000); RAND Reading Study Group (2002)

    6. R. Brown, Pressley, van Meter, & Schuder (2004, p. 1000)

    7. Almasi (2002)

    8. Fang & Wei (2010); Gaskins, Guthrie, Satlow, Ostertag, Six, Byrne, et al. (1994); Griffin, Simmons, & Kameenui (1991); Romance & Vitale (1992)

    9. Harvey & Goudvis (2007)

    10. Frisch (2003)

    11. Hirsch (2006)

    12. Bean, Readence, & Baldwin (2008)

    13. Ogle (1986)

    14. Sands (2006b)

    15. Dole & Smith (1989)

    16. Smith (1996)

    17. Lyman (1981)

    18. Beck, McKeown, Hamilton & Kucan (1997)

    19. Jones (2006)

    20. This table was adapted from Beck, McKeown, Sandora, Kucan, & Worthy (1996, p. 390).

    21. Palinscar & Brown (1984)

    22. Sands (2006c)

    23. Pehrsson & Robinson (1985)

    24. F. Robinson (1946)

    25. Glencoe/McGraw-Hill (2000a)

    26. Palmatier (1973)

    27. Fang, Lamme, Pringle, Patrick, Sanders, Zmach, et al. (2008)

    28. Fang, Lamme, Pringle, Patrick, Sanders, Zmach, et al. (2008)

    29. Bedini (1984)

    1. Turner & Broemmel (2006); Wellington & Osborne (2001); Yore, Hand, & Prain (2002); Yore, Hand, & Florence (2004)

    2. Rivard & Straw (2000)

    3. Fellows (1994); Mason & Boscolo (2000); Warwick, Stephenson, & Webster (2003).

    4. Yore, Hand, & Prain (2002, p. 673)

    5. Yore, Hand, & Florence (2004); Yore, Hand, & Prain (2002)

    6. Yore, Hand, & Florence (2004, p. 339)

    7. Martin (1989); Schleppegell (2004)

    8. This table was adapted from Veel (1997, p. 172).

    9. Catherall (1990, p. 19)

    10. Glencoe/McGraw-Hill, (2000b, p. 543)

    11. Sands (2006a, p. 4)

    12. Oxlade (2002, p. 20)

    13. Ellyard (1996, p. 20)

    14. Pobst (2008, p. 19)

    15. Veel (1997, pp. 173–174)

    16. Fang & Schleppegrell (2008); Schleppegrell (2004)

    17. Halliday & Martin (1993, p. 202)

    18. Derewianka (1990); Unsworth (2001)

    19. Bereiter & Scardamalia (1987); Myhill (2009)

    20. Hand, Prain, Lawrence, & Yore (1999); Hildebrand (1998); Prain (2006); Prain & Hand (1996)

    21. Prain & Hand (1996, p. 618). See also Hand, Prain, Lawrence, & Yore (1999)

    22. Prain & Hand (1996, p. 623)

    23. Bruning & Horn (2000)

    24. Calkins (2004)

    25. Fang & Wang (in press); Schleppegrell (2004)

    26. Bruning & Horn (2000)

    27. Prain & Hand (1996)

    28. Mesa, Klosterman, & Jones (2008)

    29. Klentschy (2005)

    30. McDonald & Domingez (2009, p. 48)

    31. Duplichan (2009)

    32. Duplichan (2009)

    33. McDermott (2010)

    34. Lemke (2002); Yore, Hand, & Florence (2004); Yore, Hand, & Prain (2000); Prain & Waldrip (2010)

    35. McDermott (2010)

    36. A. Robertson & Mahlin (2005)

    37. Monhardt (2005)

    38. Monhardt (2005)

    39. B. Robertson (2005)

    40. Straits (2005)

    41. Akerson & Young (2005)

    42. Dlugokienski & Sampson (2008); Guzzetti, Snyder, Glass, & Gamas (1993)

    43. Duit (1991)

    44. Glynn, Duit, & Thiele (1995); Orgill & Thomas (2007)

    45. Hand & Key (1999)

    46. Hohenshell & Hand (2006, p. 271)

    47. Hohenshell & Hand (2006); Key, Hand, Prain, & Collins (1999)

    48. Novak (1998)

    49. Hand, Prain, Lawrence, & Yore (1999)

    50. Tompkins (2009)

    51. Bean, Readence, & Baldwin (2008)

    52. See, for example, Prain & Hand (1996); Hildebrand (1998).

    53. Turner & Broemmel (2006)

    54. Resnick (1987, p. 38)

    55. Cervetti, Pearson, Bravo, & Barber (2006)

    56. Wellington & Osborne (2001, p. 138)

    References

    Abd-el-khalick, F., Boujaoude, S., Duschl, R., Lederman, N., Mamlok-Naaman, R., Hofstein, A., et al. (2004). Inquiry in science education: International perspectives. Science Education, 88, 397–419. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/sce.10118
    Akerson, V. L., & Young, T. A. (2005). Science the “write” way. Science and Children, 43 (3), 38–41.
    Almasi, J. (2002). Teaching strategic processes in reading. New York: Guilford Press.
    Alvermann, D., & Moore, D. (1991). Secondary school reading. In R. Barr, M. Kamil, P. Mosenthal, & P. D. Pearson (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. II, pp. 951–983). New York: Longman.
    Alvermann, D., Phelps, S., & Gillis, V. (2010). Content area reading and literacy: Succeeding in today's diverse classroom (
    6th ed.
    ). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
    American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1993). Benchmarks for science literacy. New York: Oxford University Press.
    Anderson, R. (2004). Role of the reader's schema in comprehension, learning, and memory. In R. Ruddell & N. Unrau (Eds.), Theoretical models and processes of reading (
    5th ed.
    , pp. 594–606). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
    Anderson, R. D. (2002). Reforming science teaching: What research says about inquiry. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 13 (1), 1–12.
    Barnitz, J. G. (1998). Revising grammar instruction for authentic composing and comprehending. The Reading Teacher, 51 (7), 608–611.
    Bean, T. W., Readence, J. E., & Baldwin, R. S. (2008). Content area literacy: An integrated approach (
    9th ed.
    ). Dubuque, IA: Kendall Hunt Publishing.
    Beck, I., McKeown, M., Hamilton, R., & Kucan, L. (1997). Questioning the author: An approach for enhancing student engagement with text. Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
    Beck, I., McKeown, M., Sandora, C., Kucan, L., & Worthy, J. (1996). Questioning the author: A yearlong classroom implementation to engage students with text. The Elementary School Journal, 96, 385–414. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/461835
    Beers, K. (2002). When kids can't read, what teachers can do: A guide for teachers 6–12. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
    Bell, R. L., Smetana, L., & Binns, I. (2005). Simplifying inquiry instruction. The Science Teacher, 72 (7), 30–33.
    Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (1987). The psychology of written communication. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
    Biancarosa, G., & Snow, C. (2004). Reading next—A vision for action and research in middle and high school literacy: A report from Carnegie Corporation of New York. Washington, DC: Alliance for Excellent Education.
    Brown, R., Pressley, M., van Meter, P., & Schuder, T. (2004). A quasi-experimental validation of transactional strategies instruction with low-achieving second-grade readers. In R. Ruddell & N. Unrau (Eds.), Theoretical models and processes of reading (
    5th ed.
    , pp. 998–1039). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
    Bruning, R., & Horn, C. (2000). Developing motivation to write. Educational Psychologists, 35 (1), 25–37. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/S15326985EP3501_4
    Bunce, D. M. (2002). Inquiry learning: What is it and how do you do it? Washington, DC: American Chemical Society.
    Bybee, R. W., Powell, J. C., & Trowbridge, L. W. (2007). Teaching secondary school science: Strategies for developing scientific literacy. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
    Calkins, L. (2004). The art of teaching writing. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
    Cervetti, G., & Barber, J. (2009). Bringing back books: Using text to support hands-on investigations for scientific inquiry. Science and Children, 47 (3), 36–39.
    Cervetti, G., Pearson, P. D., Bravo, M. A., & Barber, J. (2006). Reading and writing in the service of inquiry-based science. In R. Douglas, M. Klentschy, & K. Worth (Eds.), Linking science and literacy in the K-8 classroom (pp. 221–244). Arlington, VA: The National Science Teachers Association.
    Chall, J., Jacobs, V., & Baldwin, L. (1990). The reading crisis: Why poor children fall behind. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
    Chang, C. Y., & Mao, S. L. (1999). Comparison of Taiwan science students’ outcomes with inquiry-group versus traditional instruction. Journal of Educational Research, 92 (6), 340–349. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00220679909597617
    Chiappetta, E. L., & Adams, A. D. (2004). Inquiry-based instruction. The Science Teacher, 71 (2), 46–50.
    Christie, F., & Derewianka, B. (2008). School discourse: Learning to write across the year of schooling. London: Continuum.
    Colburn, A. (2008). What teacher educators need to know about inquiry-based instruction. Retrieved March 10, 2010, from http://www.csulb.edu/acolburn/AETS.htm.
    Craig, M., & Yore, L. (1995). Middle school students’ metacognitive knowledge about science reading and science text: An interview study. Reading Psychology, 16, 169–213. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0270271950160203
    Crawford, B. A. (2000). Embracing the essence of inquiry: New roles for science teachers. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37 (9), 916–937. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/1098-2736%28200011%2937:9%3C916::AID-TEA4%3E3.0.CO;2-2
    Crawford, B. A. (2007). Learning to teach science as inquiry in the rough and tumble of practice. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44 (4), 613–642. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/tea.20157
    Creech, J., & Hale, G. (2006). Literacy in science: A natural fit. The Science Teacher, 73 (2), 22–27.
    Dalton, B., Morocco, C., Tivnan, T., & Mead, P. (1997). Supported inquiry science: Teaching for conceptual change in urban and suburban science classrooms. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 30, 670–684. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/002221949703000611
    Daniels, H. (1994). Literature circles: Voice and choice in book clubs and reading groups. Portland, ME: Stenhouse.
    Derewianka, B. (1990). Exploring how texts work. Maryborough, Victoria, Australia: Primary English Teaching Association.
    Dlugokienski, A., & Sampson, V. (2008). Learning to write and writing to learn in science: Refutational texts and analytical rubrics. Science Scope, 32 (3), 14–19.
    Dole, J., & Smith, E. J. (1989). Prior knowledge and learning from science text: An instructional study. National Reading Conference Yearbook, 38, 345–352. Chicago: National Reading Conference.
    Duit, R. (1991). On the role of analogies and metaphors in learning science. Science Education, 75 (6), 649–672. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/sce.3730750606
    Duke, N. (2000). 3.6 minutes per day: The scarcity of informational texts in first grade. Reading Research Quarterly, 35 (2), 202–225. http://dx.doi.org/10.1598/RRQ.35.2.1
    Duke, N. (2004). The case for informational text. Educational Leadership, 61 (6), 40–44. http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781446220078
    Duplichan, S. C. (2009). Using web logs in the science classroom. Science Scope, 33 (1), 33–37.
    Fang, Z. (2002). The construction of literate understanding in a literature-based classroom. Journal of Research in Reading, 25 (1), 109–126. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1467-9817.00162
    Fang, Z. (2005). Scientific literacy: A systemic functional linguistics perspective. Science Education, 89, 335–347. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/sce.20050
    Fang, Z. (2006). The language demands of science reading in middle school. International Journal of Science Education, 28, 491–520. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09500690500339092
    Fang, Z. (2008). Going beyond the ‘Fab Five’: Helping students cope with the unique challenges of expository reading in intermediate grades. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 51 (6), 476–487. http://dx.doi.org/10.1598/JAAL.51.6.4
    Fang, Z. (in press). The challenges of reading disciplinary texts. In C. Shanahan & T. Shanahan (Eds.), Adolescent literacy within the disciplines: General principles and practical strategies. New York: Guilford.
    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. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09500690701644266
    Fang, Z., & Schleppegrell, M. J. (2008). Reading in secondary content areas: A language-based pedagogy. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
    Fang, Z., & Schleppegrell, M. J. (2010). Disciplinary literacies across content areas: Supporting secondary reading through functional language analysis. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 53 (7), 587–597. http://dx.doi.org/10.1598/JAAL.53.7.6
    Fang, Z., Schleppegrell, M. J., & Cox, B. E. (2006). Understanding the language demands of schooling: Nouns in academic registers. Journal of Literacy Research, 38 (3), 247–273. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15548430jlr3803_1
    Fang, Z., & Wang, Z. (in press). Beyond rubrics: Using functional language analysis to evaluate student writing. Australian Journal of Language and Literacy.
    Fang, Z., & Wei, Y. (2010). Improving middle school students’ science literacy through reading infusion. Journal of Educational Research, 103 (4), 262–273. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00220670903383051
    Fay, M. E., & Bretz, S. L. (2008). Structuring the level of inquiry in your classroom. The Science Teacher, 75 (5), 38–42.
    Fellows, N. J. (1994). A window into thinking: Using student writing to understand conceptual change in science learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31 (9), 985–1001. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660310911
    Fisher, D., Brozo, W. G., Frey, N., & Ivey, G. (2011). 50 instructional routines to develop content literacy (
    2nd ed.
    ). Boston: Pearson.
    Gaskins, I., Guthrie, J., Satlow, E., Ostertag, J., Six, L., Byrne, J., et al. (1994). Integrating instruction of science, reading, and writing: Goals, teacher development, and assessment. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31 (9), 1039–1056. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660310914
    Gee, J. (2001). Reading as situated language: A sociocognitive perspective. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 44, 714–725. http://dx.doi.org/10.1598/JAAL.44.8.3
    Glynn, S. M., Duit, R., & Thiele, R. B. (1995). Teaching science with analogies: A strategy for constructing knowledge. In S. M. Glynn & R. Duit (Eds.). Learning science in the schools: Research reforming practice (pp. 247–273). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
    Glynn, S. M., & Muth, K. D. (1994). Reading and writing to learn science: Achieving scientific literacy. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31, 1057–1073. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660310915
    Gonzales, P., Williams, T., Jocelyn, L., Roey, S., Kastberg, D., & Brenwald, S. (2008). Highlights from TIMSS 2007: Mathematics and science achievement of U.S. fourth- and eighth-grade students in an international context. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
    Griffin, C., Simmons, D., & Kameenui, E. (1991). Investigating the effectiveness of graphic organizer instruction on the comprehension and recall of science content by students with learning disabilities. Reading, Writing, and Learning Disabilities, 7, 355–376. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0748763910070407
    Grigg, W., Lauko, M., & Brockway, D. (2006). The nation's report card: Science 2005 assessment of student performance in grades 4, 8 and 12 (NCES 2006466). Washington, DC: National Center for Educational Statistics.
    Guthrie, J., Van Meter, P., Hancock, G., Alao, S., Anderson, E., & McCann, A. (1998). Does concept-oriented reading instruction increase strategy use and conceptual learning from text? Journal of Educational Psychology, 90, 261–278. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.90.2.261
    Guzzetti, B., Snyder, T., Glass, G., & Gamas, W. (1993). Promoting conceptual change in science: Meta-analysis of instructional interventions from reading education and science education. Reading Research Quarterly, 28, 116–161. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/747886
    Hadaway, N. L., Vardell, S. M., & Young, T. A. (2001). Scaffolding oral language development through poetry for students learning English. The Reading Teacher, 54, 796–806.
    Haggard, M. R. (1986). The vocabulary self-collection strategy: Using student interest and world knowledge to enhance vocabulary growth. Journal of Reading, 29 (7), 634–642.
    Halliday, M. A. K. (1994). An introduction to functional grammar (
    2nd ed.
    ). London: Edward Arnold.
    Halliday, M. A. K. (1998). Things and relations: Regrammaticising experience as technical knowledge. In J. R. Martin & R. Veel (Eds.), Reading science: Critical and functional perspectives on discourses of science (pp. 185–235). London: Routledge.
    Halliday, M. A. K., & Martin, J. R. (1993). Writing science: Literacy and discursive power. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.
    Halliday, M. A. K., & Matthiessen, C. (2004). An introduction to functional grammar (
    3rd ed.
    ). London: Arnold.
    Hand, B., Alvermann, D., Gee, J., Guzzetti, B., Norris, S., & Phillips, L., et al. (2003). Guest editorial: Message from the “Island Group”: What is literacy in science literacy? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40 (7), 607–615. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/tea.10101
    Hand, B., & Key, C. (1999). Inquiry investigation. The Science Teacher, 66 (4), 27–29.
    Hand, B., Prain, V., Lawrence, C., & Yore, L. (1999). A writing in science framework designed to enhance science literacy. International Journal of Science Education, 21 (19), 1021–1035. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/095006999290165
    Harvey, S., & Goudvis, A. (2007). Strategies that work: Teaching comprehension for understanding and engagement (
    2nd ed.
    ). Portland, ME: Stenhouse.
    Hildebrand, G. M. (1998). Disrupting hegemonic writing practices in school science: Contesting the right way to write. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35, 345–362. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/%28SICI%291098-2736%28199804%2935:4%3C345::AID-TEA4%3E3.0.CO;2-Q
    Hirsch, E. D., Jr. (2006). The knowledge deficit: Closing the shocking education gap for American children. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
    Hmelo-Silver, C. E., Duncan, R. G., & Chin, C. A. (2007). Scaffolding and achievement in problem-based and inquiry learning: A response to Kirschner, Sweller, and Clark (2006). Educational Psychologist, 42, 99–107. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00461520701263368
    Hohenshell, L. M., & Hand, B. (2006). Writing-to-learn strategies in secondary school cell biology: A mixed method study. International Journal of Science Education, 28 (2–3), 261–289. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09500690500336965
    Hudson, S. B., McMahon, K. C., Overstreet, C. M. (2002). The 2000 national survey of science and mathematics education: Compendium of tables. Chapel Hill, NC: Horizon Research.
    Ivey, G., & Broaddus, K. (2001). “Just plain reading”: Asurvey of what makes students want to read in middle school classrooms. Reading Research Quarterly, 36, 350–377. http://dx.doi.org/10.1598/RRQ.36.4.2
    Jones, L. (2006, October). How textbooks influence the formal EE curriculum: A case study. Paper presented at the annual meeting of North American Association for Environmental Education, Minneapolis, Minnesota.
    Kamil, M., & Bernhardt, E. (2004). The science of reading and the reading of science: Successes, failures, and promises in the search for prerequisite reading skills for science. In W. Saul (Ed.), Crossing borders in literacy and science instruction: Perspectives on theory and practice (pp. 123–139). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
    Keene, E. O., & Zimmermann, S. (2007). Mosaic of thought: The power of comprehension strategy instruction (
    2nd ed.
    ). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
    Key, 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. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/%28SICI%291098-2736%28199912%2936:10%3C1065::AID-TEA2%3E3.0.CO;2-I
    King, R. (1990). Poetry and science in the classroom. Insights into Open Education, 22 (5). (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED313716).
    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). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
    Klentschy, M. (2005). Science notebook essentials. Science and Children, 43 (30), 24–27.
    Kress, G. (2003). Genres and the multimodal production of “scientificness.” In G. Kress & C. Jewitt (Eds.), Multimodal literacy (pp. 173–186). New York: Peter Lang.
    Kress, G., Jewitt, C., Ogborn, J., & Tsatsarelis, C. (2001). Multimodal teaching and learning: The rhetorics of the science classroom. London: Continuum.
    Lemke, J. (1989). Making text talk. Theory into Practice, 28, 136–141. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00405848909543392
    Lemke, J. (1998). Multiplying meaning: Visual and verbal semiotics in scientific text. In J. Martin & R. Veel (Eds.), Reading science: Critical and functional perspectives on discourses of science (pp. 87–113). New York: Routledge.
    Lemke, J. (2000). Multimedia literacy demands of the scientific curriculum. Linguistics and Education, 10, 247–271. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0898-5898%2899%2900009-1
    Lemke, J. (2001). Foreword. In J. Wellington & J. Osborne, Language and literacy in science education (pp. iv-v). Philadelphia: Open University Press.
    Lemke, J. (2002). Multimedia semiotics: Genres for science education and scientific literacy. In M. J. Schleppegrell & M. C. Colombi (Eds.), Developing advanced literacy in first and second languages: Meaning with power (pp. 21–44). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
    Lyman, F. T. (1981). The responsive classroom discussion: The inclusion of all students. In A. Anderson (Ed.), Mainstreaming digest (pp. 109–113). College Park: The University of Maryland Press.
    Martin, J. R. (1989). Factual writing: Exploring and challenging the experiential world. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
    Martin, J. R. & Veel, R. (1998). Reading science: Critical and functional perspectives on discourses of science. New York: Routledge.
    Mason, L., & Boscolo, P. (2000). Writing and conceptual change: What changes? Instructional Science, 28 (3), 199–226. http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1003854216687
    McDermott, M. (2010). Using multimodal writing tasks in science classrooms. The Science Teacher, 77 32–36.
    McDonald, J., & Domingez, L. (2009). Reflective writing. The Science Teacher, 76 (3), 46–49.
    Mesa, J., Klosterman, M., & Jones, L. (2008). The P.O.E.T.R.Y. of science: A flexible tool for assessing elementary student science journals. Science and Children, 46 (3), 36–41.
    Minstrell, J., & van Zee, E. H. (2000). Inquiring into inquiry learning and teaching in science. Washington, DC: American Association for the Advancement of Science.
    Monhardt, R. (2005). Reading & writing nonfiction with children: Using biographies to learn about science and scientists. Science and Children, 28 (6), 16–19.
    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, 54–76. http://dx.doi.org/10.1598/RRQ.32.1.4
    Moss, B. (2008). The information text gap: The mismatch between non-narrative text types in basal readers and 2009 NAEP recommended guidelines. Journal of Literacy Research, 40 (2), 201–219. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10862960802411927
    Moss, B., & Newton, E. (2002). An examination of the informational text genre in basal readers. Reading Psychology, 23 (1), 1–13. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/027027102317345376
    Myhill, D. (2009). Becoming a designer: Trajectories of linguistic development. In R. Beard, D. Myhill, J. Riley, & M. Nystrand (Eds.), The Sage handbook of writing development (pp. 402–414). London: Sage Publications. http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9780857021069
    National Reading Panel. (2000). Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction. Washington, DC: National Institute of Child Health and Human Development.
    National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
    National Research Council. (2000). Inquiry and the national science education standards: A guide for teaching and learning. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
    National Science Foundation. (1999). Inquiry: Thoughts, views and strategies for the K-5 classroom (Foundations, Vol. 2). Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation.
    Norris, S., & Phillips, L. (2003). How literacy in its fundamental sense is central to scientific literacy. Science Education, 87 (2), 224–240. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/sce.10066
    Novak, J. D. (1998). Learning, creating, and using knowledge: Concept maps as facilitative tools in schools and corporations. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
    Ogle, D. (1986). K-W-L: A teaching model that develops active reading of expository text. The Reading Teacher, 39, 564–570. http://dx.doi.org/10.1598/RT.39.6.11
    O'Halloran, K. L. (Ed.) (2004). Multimodal discourse analysis: Systemic functional perspectives. London: Continuum.
    O'Halloran, K. L. (2005). Mathematical discourse: Language, symbolism and visual images. London: Continuum.
    Orgill, M., & Thomas, M. (2007). Analogies and the 5E model. The Science Teacher, 74 (1), 40–45.
    Osborne, J., Simon, S., & Collins, S. (2003). Attitudes towards science: A review of the literature and its implications. International Journal of Science Education, 25, 1049–1079. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0950069032000032199
    Palinscar, A., & Brown, A. (1984). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension fostering and comprehension monitoring activities. Cognition and Instruction, 1, 117–176. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s1532690xci0102_1
    Palinscar, A., & Magnusson, S. J. (2001). The interplay of firsthand and text-based investigations to model and support the development of scientific knowledge and reasoning. In S. Carver & D. Glahr (Eds.), Cognition and instruction: Twenty-five years of progress (pp. 151–194). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
    Palmatier, R. (1973). A note taking system for learning. Journal of Reading, 17, 36–39.
    Pehrsson, R. S., & Robinson, H. A. (1985). The semantic organizer approach to writing and reading instruction. Rockville, MD: Aspen Systems Corporation.
    Perera, K. (2005). The ‘good book’: Linguistic aspects. In Z. Fang (Ed.), Literacy teaching and learning: Current issues and trends (pp. 134–143). Columbus, OH: Merrill.
    Perie, M., Grigg, W., & Donahue, P. (2005). The nation's report card: Reading 2005 (NCES, 2006451). Washington, DC: National Center for Educational Statistics.
    Prain, V. (2006). Learning from writing in secondary science: Some theoretical and practical implications. International Journal of Science Education, 28 (2–3), 179–201. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09500690500336643
    Prain, V., & Hand, B. (1996). Writing for learning in secondary science: Rethinking practices. Teaching & Teacher Education, 12 (6), 609–626. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0742-051X%2896%2900003-0
    Prain, V., & Waldrip, B. (Eds.) (2010). Special Issue: Representing science literacies. Research in Science Education, 40 (1).
    Pressley, M. (2004). The need for research on secondary literacy instruction. In T. L. Jetton & J. A. Dole (Eds.), Adolescent literacy research and practice (pp. 415–432). New York: Guilford.
    RAND Reading Study Group. (2002). Reading for understanding: Toward a RAND program in reading comprehension. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation.
    Reif, F., & Larkin, J. (1991). Cognition in scientific and everyday domains: Comparison and learning implications. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 28 (9), 733–760. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660280904
    Resnick, L. B. (1987). Education and learning to think. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
    Rivard, L. P. (1994). A review of writing to learn in science: Implications for practice and research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31 (9), 969–983. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660310910
    Rivard, L. P., & Straw, S. B. (2000). The effect of talk and writing on learning science: An exploratory study. Science Education, 84, 566–593. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/1098-237X%28200009%2984:5%3C566::AID-SCE2%3E3.0.CO;2-U
    Robertson, A., & Mahlin, K. (2005). Ecosystem journalism. Science and Children, 43 (3), 42–45.
    Robertson, B. (2005). What writing represents what scientists actually do? Science and Children, 43 (3), 50–51.
    Robinson, F. (1946). Effective study. New York: Harper & Row.
    Robinson, P. J. (2005). Teaching key vocabulary in geography and science classrooms: An analysis of teachers’ practice with particular reference to EAL pupils’ learning. Language and Education, 19 (5), 428–445. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09500780508668695
    Romance, N., & Vitale, M. (1992). A curriculum strategy that expands time for in-depth elementary science instruction by using science-based reading strategies: Effects of a year-long study in grade 4. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 63, 201–243.
    Rutherford, F. J., & Ahlgren, A. (1990). Science for all Americans. New York: Oxford University Press.
    Saul, E. W. (2004). Crossing borders in literacy and science instruction: Perspectives on theory into practice. Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
    Schleppegrell, M. J. (2004). The language of schooling: A functional linguistics perspective. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
    Schleppegrell, M. J., & Colombi, M. C. (1997). Text organization by bilingual writers: Clause structure as a reflection of discourse structure. Written Communication, 14 (4), 481–503. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0741088397014004003
    Schleppegrell, M. J., Greer, S., & Taylor, S. (2008). Literacy in history: Language and meaning. Australian Journal of Language and Literacy, 31 (2), 174–187.
    Schwartz, R., & Raphael, T. (1985). Concept of definition: A key to improving students’ vocabulary. Reading Teacher, 39, 198–203.
    Shymansky, J. A., Kyle, W. C., Jr., & Alport, J. M. (1983). The effects of new science curricular on student performance. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 20 (5), 387–404. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660200504
    Smith, F. (1996). Reading without nonsense (
    3rd ed.
    ). New York: Teachers College Press.
    Straits, W. (2005). Mystery box writing. Science and Children, 43 (3), 33–37.
    Straits, W. (2007). Literature-circles approach to understanding science as a human endeavor. Science Scope, 31 (2), 32–36.
    Straits, W., & Nichols, S. (2006). Literature circles for science. Science and Children, 44 (3), 52–55.
    Tompkins, G. E. (2009). 50 literacy strategies. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
    Turner, T., & Broemmel, A. (2006). 14 writing strategies. Science Scope, 30 (4), 27–31.
    Unsworth, L. (1997a). Scaffolding reading of science explanations: Assessing the grammatical and visual forms of specialized knowledge. Reading, 31 (3), 30–42. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1467-9345.00061
    Unsworth, L. (1997b). Some practicalities of a language-based theory of learning. Australian Journal of Language and Literacy, 20, 36–52.
    Unsworth, L. (2001). Teaching multiliteracies across the curriculum: Changing contexts of text and image in classroom practice. Philadelphia: Open University Press.
    Vacca, R. T., Vacca, J. A. L., & Mraz, M. (2011). Content area reading: Literacy and learning across the curriculum (
    10th ed.
    ). Boston: Pearson.
    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 workplace and school (pp. 161–195). London: Cassell.
    Veel, R., & Coffin, C. (1996). Learning to think like an historian: The language of secondary school history. In R. Hasan & G. Williams (Eds.), Literacy in society (pp. 191–231). London: Longman.
    Wade, S., & Moje, E. (2000). The role of text in classroom learning. In M. Kamil, P. Mosenthal, P. D. Pearson, & R. Barr (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. III, pp. 609–627). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
    Warwick, P., Stephenson, P., & Webster, J. (2003). Developing pupils’ written expression of procedural understanding through the use of writing frames in science: Findings from a case study approach. International Journal of Science Education, 25 (2), 173–192. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09500690210163251
    Weiss, I. R., Pasley, J. D., Smith, P. S., Banilower, E. R., & Heck, D. J. (2003). Looking inside the classroom: A study of K-12 mathematics and science education in the U.S. Chapel Hill, NC: Horizon Research.
    Wellington, J., & Osborne, J. (2001). Language and literacy in science education. Philadelphia: Open University Press.
    Wilson, C. D., Taylor, J. A., Kowalski, S. M., & Carlson, J. (2010). The relative effects and equity of inquiry-based and commonplace science teaching on students’ knowledge, reasoning, and argumentation. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47 (3), 276–301.
    Wise, K. C., & Okey, J. R. (1983). A meta-analysis of the effects of various science teaching strategies on achievement. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 20 (5), 419–435. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660200506
    Yager, R. E. (2004). Science is not written, but it can be written about. In W. E. Saul (Ed.), Crossing borders in literacy and science instruction: Perspectives on theory and practice (pp. 95–108). Arlington, VA: NSTA Press and Newark, DE: IRA.
    Young, T. A., Moss, B., & Cornwell, L. (2007). The classroom library: A place for nonfiction, nonfiction in its place. Reading Horizons, 48 (1), 1–18.
    Yore, L., Bisanz, G., & Hand, B. M. (2003). Examining the literacy component of science literacy: 25 years of language and science research. International Journal of Science Education, 25 (6), 689–725. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09500690305018
    Yore, L. D., Hand, B. M., & Florence, M. K. (2004). Scientists’ views of science, models of writing, and science writing practices. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41 (4), 338–369. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/tea.20008
    Yore, L. D., Hand, B. M., Goldman, S., Hildebrand, G., Osborne, J., Treagust, D., et al. (2004). New directions in language and science education research. Reading Research Quarterly, 39 (3), 347–352.
    Yore, L., Hand, B., & Prain, V. (2002). Scientists as writers. Science Education, 86, 672–692. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/sce.10042
    Yore, L., & Treagust, D. (2006). Current realities and future possibilities: Language and science literacy—empowering research and informing instruction. International Journal of Science Education, 28 (2–3), 291–314. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09500690500336973
    Zales, C. R., & Unger, C. S. (2008). The science and literacy framework. Science and Children, 46 (3), 42–45.
    Children's Books Cited
    Baldwin, C. (2004). Acids and bases. Chicago: Raintree.
    Bedini, S. (1984). The life of Benjamin Banneker. Rancho Cordova, CA: Landmark Enterprises.
    Brown, M. (2004). The world of Arthur and friends: Six Arthur adventures in one volume. New York: Little, Brown and Company.
    Catherall, E. (1990). Exploring electricity. Austin, TX: Steck-Vaughn.
    Chasek, R. (2000). Rocks and minerals. New York: Grolier Publishing.
    Ellyard, D. (1996). Weather. San Francisco: Time Life Books.
    Flanagan, A. K. (2000). Rocks. Minneapolis, MN: Compass Point Books.
    Frisch, J. (2003). Temperature: Understanding science. North Mankato, MN: Smart Apple Media.
    Gallant, R. A. (1998). Limestone. Danbury, CT: Grolier Publishing.
    Glencoe/McGraw-Hill. (2000a). Science voyages: Exploring the life, earth, and physical sciences (Red level, Florida edition). Boston Columbus, OH: Author.
    Glencoe/McGraw-Hill. (2000b). Science voyages: Exploring the life, earth, and physical sciences (Green level, Florida edition). Columbus, OH: Author.
    Horenstein, S. (1993). Rocks tell stories. Brookfield, CT: The Millbrook Presss.
    Johnson, R. L. (2004). Acids and bases. Washington, DC: National Geographic Society.
    Kittinger, J. S. (1997). A look at rocks: From coal to kimberlite. New York: Franklin Watts.
    Lambert, D. (1997). The Kingfisher young people's book of ocean. New York: Kingfisher.
    Miller, G. T. (2004). Living in the environment: Principles, connections, and solutions (
    13th ed.
    ). Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.
    Murphy, J. (2003). An American plague: The true and terrifying story of the yellow fever epidemic of 1793. New York: Clarion Books.
    Oldfield, S. (2002). Rainforest. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
    Oxlade, C. (2002). Elements and compounds. Chicago: Heinemann Library.
    Oxlade, C. (2007). Acids and bases: Chemicals in action. Oxford, England: Heinemann Library.
    Parker, S. (1992). Electricity. New York: Dorling Kindersley.
    Piddock, C. (2008). Outbreak: Science seeks safeguards for global health. Washington, DC: National Geographic Society.
    Pobst, S. (2008). Animals on the edge: Science races to save species threatened with extinction. Washington, DC: National Geographic Society.
    Sands, S. (2006a). Kids Discover: Grand Canyon. New York: Kids Discover.
    Sands, S. (2006b). Kids Discover: Insects. New York: Kids Discover.
    Sands, S. (2006c). Kids Discover: Planets. New York: Kids Discover.
    Sands, S. (2006d). Kids Discover: Plants. New York: Kids Discover.
    Scott Foresman. (2000). Science Grade 5. New York: Scott Foresman.
    Symes, R. F. (2004). Rocks and minderals. New York: DK Publishing.
    Urban, L. (2007). A crooked kind of perfect. Orlando, FL: Harcourt.
    Walker, R. (2003). Genes and DNA. Boston: Kingfisher.
    Zim, H. S., & Shaffer, P. R. (1985). Rocks and minerals: A guide to familiar minerals, gems, ores and rocks. New York: Golden Books.

    About the Corwin Logo

    The Corwin logo—a raven striding across an open book—represents the union of courage and learning. Corwin is committed to improving education for all learners by publishing books and other professional development resources for those serving the field of PreK–12 education. By providing practical, hands-on materials, Corwin continues to carry out the promise of its motto: “Helping Educators Do Their Work Better.”

    The National Science Teachers Association is the largest professional organization in the world promoting excellence and innovation in science teaching and learning for all. NSTA's membership includes approximately 60,000 science teachers, science supervisors, administrators, scientists, business and industry representatives, and others involved in science education.


    • Loading...
Back to Top

Copy and paste the following HTML into your website