There are a number of challenges associated with using text in science to promote general literacy skills and advance conceptual understanding. This article identifies the principles that informed the design of educative curriculum supports for teaching such texts and reports how elementary teachers chose to use the supports, which included identified learning goals, discussion moves to support sensemaking with the text, and narratives of teachers’ uses of text in science teaching. The within- and across-teacher variations are discussed in terms of their implications for student learning opportunities and the future design of educative supports for text-based discussions.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AbellS. K. (2007). Research on science teacher knowledge. In AbellS. K., & LedermanN. (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (pp. 1105–1149). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
2.
ApplebeeA. N., LangerJ. A., NystrandM., & GamoranA. (2003). Discussion-based approaches to developing understanding: Classroom instruction and student performance in middle and high school English. American Educational Research Journal, 40(3), 685–730.
3.
AriasA. M., BismackA. S., DavisE. A., & PalincsarA. S. (in review). Interacting with a suite of educative features: Elementary science teachers’ use of educative curriculum materials.
4.
AronsonE. (1978). The jigsaw classroom.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
5.
AraH. J., & WhiteR. T. (2004). Change in teachers’ knowledge of subject matter: A 17–year longitudinal study. Science Education, 92(2), 221–251.
6.
BallD. L., & CohenD. K. (1996). Reform by the book: What is—or might be—the role of curriculum materials in teacher learning and instructional reforms?Educational Researcher, 25(9), 6–8, 14.
7.
BeckI. L., McKeownM. G., HamiltonR. L., & KucanL. (1997). Questioning the author: An approach for enhancing student engagement with text.Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
8.
BeyerC. J., & DavisE. A. (2009). Using educative curriculum materials to support preservice elementary teachers’ curricular planning: A comparison between two different forms of support. Curriculum Inquiry, 39(5), 679–703.
9.
BeyerC. J., DelgadoC., DavisE. A., & KrajcikJ. S. (2009). Investigating teacher learning supports in high school biology curricular programs to inform the design of educative curriculum materials. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(9), 977–998.
10.
BiggersM., Forbes, CoryT., & ZangoriL. (2013). Elementary teachers-curriculum design and pedagogical reasoning for supporting students’ comparison and evaluation of evidence-based explanations. The Elementary School Journal, 114(1), 48–72. doi: 10.1086/670738
11.
BorkoH., JacobsJ., EiteljorgE., & PittmanM. E. (2008). Video as a tool for fostering productive discussions in mathematics professional development. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24(2), 417–436.
12.
BrownM. W. (2009). The teacher-tool relationship: Theorizing the design and use of curriculum materials. In RemillardJ. T., Herbel-EisenmannB. A., & LloydG. M. (Eds.), Mathematics teachers at work: Connecting curriculum materials and classroom instruction (pp. 18–36). New York, NY and London, UK: Routledge.
13.
CarneyM., & IndrisanoR. (2013). Disciplinary literacy and pedagogical content knowledge. Journal of Education193(3), 39–50.
14.
CervettiG. N., KulikowichJ. M., & BravoM. A. (2015). The effects of educative curriculum materials on teachers’ use of instructional strategies for English language learners in science and on student learning. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 40, 86–89.
15.
CervettiG. N., PearsonP. D., BravoM. A., & BarberJ. (2006). Reading and writing in the service of inquiry-based science. In DouglasR., KlentschyM., & WorthK. (Eds.), Linking science and literacy in the K–8 classroom (pp. 221–244). Arlington, VA: NSTA Press.
16.
CharalambousC. Y., & HillH. C. (2012). Teacher knowledge, curriculum materials, and quality of instruction: Unpacking a complex relationship. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 44(4), 443–466.
17.
CollopyR. (2003). Curriculum materials as a professional development tool: How a mathematics textbook affected two teachers’ learning. The Elementary School Journal, 103(3), 287–311.
18.
DavisE. A., & KrajcikJ. S. (2005). Designing educative curriculum materials to promote teacher learning. Educational Researcher, 34(3), 3–14.
19.
DavisE. A., PalincsarA. S., AriasA. S., BismackA., MarulisL., & IwashynaS. (2014). Designing educative curriculum materials: A theoretically and empirically driven process. Harvard Educational Review, 84(1), 24–52.
20.
DuncanJ. K., & FrymierJ. R. (1967). Explorations in the systematic study of curriculum. Theory into Practice, 6(4), 180–199.
21.
EnfieldM., SmithE. L., & GrueberD. J. (2008). “A sketch is like a sentence”: Curriculum structures that support teaching epistemic practices of science. Science Education, 92(4), 608–630. doi: 10.1002/sce.20252
FangZ. (2006). The language demands of science reading in middle school. International Journal of Science Education, 28(5), 491–520.
24.
GrossmanP., & ThompsonC. (2008). Learning from curriculum materials: Scaffolds for teacher learning?Teaching and Teacher Education, 24(3), 2014–2026.
25.
Herbel-EisenmannB. A. (2007). From intended curriculum to written curriculum: Examining the “voice” of a mathematics textbook. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 38(4), 344–369.
26.
JadallahM., AndersonR. C., Nguyen-JahielK., MillerB.W., KimI.-H., KuoL.-J. … WuX. (2011). Influence of a teacher's scaffolding moves during child-led small-group discussions. American Educational Research Journal, 48(1), 194–230.
27.
KintschW. (1998). Comprehension: A paradigm for cognition.Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
28.
KucanL., & PalincsarA. S. (2011). Text-based discussion: The case of reading. Teachers College Record, 111(9), 2055–2100.
29.
KucanL., & PalincsarA. S. (2013). Comprehension instruction through text-based discussion.Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
30.
LeeB. O., & BuxtonC. (2008). Science curriculum and student diversity: A framework for equitable learning opportunities. The Elementary School Journal, 109(2), 123–137. doi: 10.1086/590522
31.
LewisC. C., PerryR. R., FriedkinS., & RothJ. R. (2012). Improving teaching does improve teachers: Evidence from lesson study. Journal of Teacher Education, 63(5), 368–375.
32.
UnS.-F., LieuS.-C., ChenS., HuangM.-T., & ChangW.-H. (2012). Affording explicit-reflective science teaching by using an educative teachers’ guide. International Journal of Science Education, 34(7), 999–1026.
33.
MerriamS. B. (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation.San Francisco. CA: Jossey-Bass.
34.
MilesM. B., & HubermanA. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
35.
National Governors Association Center for Best Practices, Council of Chief State School Officers (2010). Common Core State Standards, Reading.Washington, DC: Author National Science Resources Center. (2005). Science technology and children ecosystems (2nd ed.). Burlington, NC: Carolina Biological Supply Company.
36.
NGSS Lead States. (2013). Next Generation Science Standards: For States, By States.Washington, D.C.: The National Academies Press.
37.
NystrandM., & GamoranA. (1991). Instructional discourse, student engagement, and literature achievement. Research in the Teaching of English, 25(3), 261–290.
38.
PalincsarA. S., & BrownA. L. (1984). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension-fostering and comprehension-monitoring activities. Cognition and Instruction, 1(2), 117–175.
39.
PalincsarA. S., & MagnussonS. J. (2001). The interplay of first-hand and text-based investigations to model and support the development of scientific knowledge and reasoning. In CarverS., & KlahrD. (Eds.), Cognition and instruction: Twenty-five years of progress (pp. 151–194). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
40.
RemillardJ. T. (2000). Can curriculum materials support teachers learning? Two fourth-grade teachers’ use of a new mathematics text. The Elementary School Journal, 100(4), 331–350. doi: 10.2307/1002146
41.
RemillardJ.T. (2005). Examining key concepts in research on teachers’ use of mathematics curricula. Review of Educational Research, 75(2), 211–246.
42.
RemillardJ. T., & BryansM. B. (2004). Teachers’ orientations toward mathematics curriculum materials: Implications for teacher learning. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 35(5), 352–388.
43.
RoehrigG. H., KruseR. A., & KernA. (2007). Teacher and school characteristics and their influence on curriculum implementation. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(1), 883–907.
44.
RomanceN. R., & VitaleM. R. (2012). Interdisciplinary perspectives linking science and literacy in grades K–5: Implications for policy and practice. In FraserB. J., TobinK., & McRobbieC. J. (Eds.), Second international handbook of science education (pp. 1351–1373). Dordrecht, NL: Springer.
45.
RoseberyA. S., & PuttickG. M. (1998). Teacher professional development as situated sense-making: A case study in science education. Science Education, 82(6), 649–677.
46.
SchneiderR. M., & KrajcikJ. (2002). Supporting science teacher learning: The role of educative curriculum materials. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 13(3), 221–245.
47.
SchneiderR. M., KrajcikJ., & BlumenfeldP. (2005). Enacting reform-based science materials: The range of teacher enactments in reform classrooms. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42(3), 283–312.
48.
SherinM. G. (2004). Teacher learning in the context of a video club. Teaching and Teacher Education, 20, 163–183.
49.
ShulmanL. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4–14.
50.
SloughS.W., McTigueE. M., KimS., & JenningsS. K. (2010). Science textbooks’ use of graphical representation: A descriptive analysis of four sixth grade science texts. Reading Psychology, 31(3), 301–325.
51.
SnowC., GriffinP., & BurnsM. S. (Eds.). (2007). Knowledge to support the teaching of reading: Preparing teachers for a changing world.New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.
52.
StakeR. E. (2000). Case studies. In DenzenN. K., & LincolnY. S. (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 435–454). Thousand Oaks. CA: Sage.
53.
StylianidesG. J. (2007). Investigating the guidance offered to teachers in curriculum materials: The case of proof in mathematics. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 6, 191–215.
54.
van den BroekP., YoungM., TzengY., & LinderholmT. (1999). The landscape model of reading: Inferences and the online construction of a memory representation. In OostendorpH., & GoldmanS. R. (Eds.), The construction of mental representations during reading (pp. 71–98). New York. NY: Taylor and Francis.
55.
WigfieldA., GuthrieJ. T., TonksS., & PerencevichK. C. (2004). Children's motivation for reading: Domain specificity and instructional influences. The Journal of Educational Research, 97(6), 299–310.
56.
WilsonS. M., & BerneJ. (1999). Teacher learning and the acquisition of professional knowledge: An examination of research on contemporary professional development. In Iran-NejadA., & PearsonP. D. (Eds.), Review of research in education (pp. 173–209). Washington, DC: AERA.
57.
YoreL. D., HandB. M., & FlorenceM. K. (2004), Scientists’ views of science, models of writing, and science writing practices. Journal of Research on Science Teaching, 41(4), 338–369.
