The Common Core State Standard and Next Generation Science Standards emphasize language and literacy across disciplines, requiring shifts in teaching practices and inventive approaches. This case study focuses on the instructional decision-making and activities of one uniquely experienced and qualified seventh-grade science teacher, whose English Language Arts background made her approach to vocabulary instruction distinctive, as she selected focus vocabulary and incorporated morphological instruction and lexical enhancement into science teaching practices. Results highlight the differences between content literacy and disciplinary literacy and the pitfalls of applying broad literacy strategies without deep consideration of disciplinary knowledge and requirements and provide examples of naturalistic ways to incorporate morphology instruction into science instructional conversations to enhance students’ relational knowledge.
AbellS. K. (2008). Twenty years later: Does pedagogical content knowledge remain a useful idea?International Journal of Science Education, 30, 1405–1416.
BarryC. A.BrittenN.BarberN.BradleyC.StevensonF. (1999). Using reflexivity to optimize teamwork in qualitative research. Qualitative Health Research, 9, 26–44. doi:10.1177/104973299129121677
4.
BeckI. L. (2010). Half-full or half-empty. Journal of Literacy Research, 42, 94–99.
5.
BeckI. L.McKeownM. G.KucanL. (2002). Bringing words to life: Robust vocabulary instruction. New York, NY: Guilford.
6.
BlachowiczC. L. Z.FisherP. J. L.OgleD.Watts-TaffeS. (2006). Vocabulary: Questions from the classroom. Reading Research Quarterly, 41, 524–539.
7.
BraundM.LeighJ. (2012). Frequency and efficacy of talk-related tasks in primary science. Research in Science Education [online version]. doi:10.1007/s11165-011-9270-1
8.
CarlisleJ. F.FlemingJ. E.GudbrandsenB. (2000). Incidental word learning in science classes. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25, 184–211.
9.
CarlisleJ. F.KelceyB.BerebitskyD. (2013). Teachers’ support of students’ vocabulary learning during literacy instruction in high poverty elementary schools. American Educational Research Journal, 50, 1360–1391. doi:10.3102/0002831213492844
10.
CharmazK. (2006). Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
11.
CoxheadA. (2011). The academic word list 10 years on: Research and teaching implications. TESOL Quarterly, 45, 355–362.
12.
DysonA. H.GenishiC. (2005). On the case: Approaches to language and literacy research. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
13.
FisherD. (2007). Creating a schoolwide vocabulary initiative in an urban high school. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, 12, 337–351.
14.
GeeJ. P. (2005). Language in the science classroom: Academic social languages as the heart of school-based literacy. In YerrickR. K.RothW.-M. (Eds.), Establishing scientific classroom discourse communities: Multiple voices of teaching and learning research (pp. 19–44). New Jersey, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
15.
GlaserB. G.StraussA. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory. Chicago, IL: Aldine.
16.
HandB. M.AlvermannD. E.GeeJ.GuzzettiB. J.NorrisS. P.PhillipsL. M.…YoreL. D. (2003). Message from the “Island Group:” What is literacy in science literacy?Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40, 607–615.
17.
HaydenH. E.RundellT. D.Smyntek-GworekS. (2013). Adaptive expertise: A view from the top, and the ascent. Teaching Education, 24, 395–414. doi:10.1080/10476210.2012.724054
18.
HiebertE. H. (2005). In pursuit of an effective, efficient vocabulary curriculum for elementary students. In HiebertE. H.KamilM. L. (Eds.), Teaching and learning vocabulary: Bringing research to practice (pp. 243–263). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
19.
HiebertE. H. (2006, 4). A principled vocabulary curriculum. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA.
JaggerS. L.YoreL. D. (2012). Mind the gap: Looking for evidence-based practice of “Science Literacy for All” in science teaching journals. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 23, 559–577.
22.
KamilM. L.HiebertE. H. (2005). Teaching and learning vocabulary: Perspectives and persistent issues. In HiebertE. H.KamilM. L. (Eds.), Teaching and learning vocabulary: Bringing research to practice (pp. 1–23). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
23.
KarpickeJ.ZarombF. (2010). Retrieval mode determines the testing effect from their generation effect. Journal of Memory and Language, 62, 227–239.
24.
KiefferM. J.LesauxN. K. (2012). Effects of academic language instruction on relational and syntactic aspects of morphological awareness for sixth graders from linguistically diverse backgrounds. The Elementary School Journal, 112, 519–545.
25.
LeeO.QuinnH.ValdesG. (2013). Science and language for English language learners in relation to next generation science standards and with implications for common core state standards for English language arts and mathematics. Educational Researcher, 42, 223–233.
26.
LewisE.DemaO.HarshbargerD. (2014). Preparation for practice: Elementary preservice teachers learning and using scientific classroom discourse community instructional strategies. School Science and Mathematics, 114, 154–165.
27.
MarzanoR. (2004). Building background knowledge for academic achievement. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
MetcalfJ.KornellN. (2007). Principles of cognitive science in education: The effects of generations, errors, and feedback. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 14, 225–229.
30.
NagyW. E.AndersonR. C. (1984). How many words are there in printed school English?Reading Research Quarterly, 19, 304–330.
31.
NagyW. E.TownsendD. (2012). Words as tools: Learning academic vocabulary as language acquisition. Reading Research Quarterly, 47, 91–108.
32.
National Governors Association Center for Best Practices, Council of Chief State School Officers. (2010). Common core state standards for science. Washington, DC: Author.
33.
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 (NIH Publication No. 00-4754). Washington, DC: National Institutes of Health and National Institute of Child Health and Human Development.
34.
National Research Council. (2011). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
35.
NixonS. B.SaundersG. L.FishbackJ. E. (2012). Implementing an instructional framework and content literacy strategies into middle and high school science classes. Literacy Research and Instruction, 51, 344–365.
36.
OgleD.BlachowiczC. L. Z. (2002). Beyond literature circles: Helping students comprehend informational texts. In BlockC. C.PressleyM. (Eds.), Comprehension instruction: Research-based best practices (pp. 259–274). New York, NY: Guilford.
37.
PearsonP. D. (2010). Reading First: Hard to live with—or without. Journal of Literacy Research, 42, 100–108.
38.
PearsonP. D.HiebertE. H.KamilM. L. (2007). Theory and research into practice: Vocabulary assessment: What we know and what we need to learn. Reading Research Quarterly, 42, 282–296.
39.
PearsonP. D.MojeE.GreenleafC. (2010). Literacy and science: Each in the service of the other. Science, 328, 459–463.
40.
RasinskiT. V.PadakN.NewtonJ.NewtonE. (2011). The Latin–Greek connection: Building vocabulary through morphological study. Reading Teacher, 65, 133–141.
41.
RodgersC. (2002a). Defining reflection: Another look at John Dewey and reflective thinking. Teachers College Record, 104, 842–866.
42.
RodgersC. (2002b). Seeing student learning: Teacher change and the role of reflection. Harvard Educational Review, 72, 230–253.
43.
RodgersC. R.Raider-RothM. B. (2006). Presence in teaching. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 12, 265–287.
44.
SadlerP. M.SonnertG.CoyleH. P.Cook-SmithN.MillerJ. L. (2013). The influence of teachers’ knowledge on student learning in middle school physical science classrooms. American Educational Research Journal, 50, 1020–1049.
45.
SchönD. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. New York, NY: Basic Books.
46.
ShanahanL. E.McVeeM. B.SchillerJ. A.TynanE. A.D’AbateR. L.Flury-KashmanianC. M.…HaydenH. E. (2013). Supporting struggling readers and literacy clinicians through reflective video pedagogy. In OrtliebE. T.CheekE. H., Jr. (Eds.), Advanced literacy practices: From the clinic to the classroom (Vol. 2, pp. 303–324). Bingley, England: Emerald Group.
47.
ShanahanC.ShanahanT. (2014). Does disciplinary literacy have a place in elementary school?Reading Teacher, 67, 636–639.
48.
ShanahanT.ShanahanC. (2008). Teaching disciplinary literacy to adolescents: Rethinking content area literacy. Harvard Education Review, 78, 40–59.
49.
ShanahanT.ShanahanC. (2012). What is disciplinary literacy and why does it matter?Topics in Language Disorders, 32, 7–18.
50.
ShoreR.RayJ.GoolkasianP. (2013). Too close for (brain) comfort: Improving science vocabulary learning in the middle grades. Middle School Journal, 44, 16–21.
51.
ShulmanL. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15, 4–14. doi:10.2307/1175860
52.
SnowC. E. (2010). Academic language and the challenge of reading for learning about science. Science, 328, 450–452.
53.
SnowC. E. (2015). Rigor and realism: Doing educational science in the real world. Educational Researcher, 44, 460–466.
54.
StakeR. (1995). The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
55.
StakeR. E. (2010). Qualitative research: Studying how things work. New York, NY: Guilford.
56.
TownsendD.FilippiniA.CollinsP.BiancarosaG. (2012). Evidence for the importance of academic word knowledge for the academic achievement of diverse middle school students. Elementary School Journal, 113, 497–518.
57.
TylerA.NagyW. E. (1989). The acquisition of English derivational morphology. Journal of Memory and Language, 28, 649–667.
58.
YinR. K. (1981). The case study crisis: Some answers. Administrative Science Quarterly, 26, 58–65.
59.
YoungE. (2005). The language of science, the language of students. Science Activities, 42, 12–17.
