University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

An investigation on the integration of science and literacy for English language learners

(USC Thesis Other)

An investigation on the integration of science and literacy for English language learners

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content Running head: SCIENCE AND LITERACY INTEGRATION i

AN INVESTIGATION ON THE INTEGRATION OF SCIENCE AND LITERACY
FOR ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS
by

Ryan William McDonnell

A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION

August, 2014

Copyright 2014 Ryan William McDonnell
SCIENCE AND LITERACY INTEGRATION ii
Acknowledgements
There are many people I need to thank for their ongoing support throughout this entire
doctoral program. I am truly blessed beyond measure with so many wonderful people in my life.
I sincerely thank my faculty mentor, Dr. Paula Carbone, for her relentless support during
this process. Thank you for your continual guidance, feedback, and revisions. Your insight and
expertise were a valuable resource throughout this work. Thank you for your never ending
patience with me and for adjusting to my working style. To my additional committee members,
Dr. Gale Sinatra and Dr. Fred Freking, I truly appreciate all of your suggestions and support
throughout this study. Your feedback was crucial to in pushing me to write a better dissertation.
I must also thank my parents, Bob and Diane, for their unconditional support throughout
my entire educational journey. I appreciate how you always find a way to push me to be my best,
yet remind me to stay true to myself and values. Thank you for providing me an excellent
upbringing that made this type of education a reality and not just a dream. I can truly say that I
was blessed with Godly parents. I love you both more than words can say.
I was blessed with two wonderful grandmothers. To my grandma Mickey, although you
have passed on, I still feel your love and support each and every day. You shaped so much of the
man I have become. To my grandma Marian, you have always pushed me to continue my
education and go for my dream of earning my doctorate. To both of you- this is for you. I also
want to acknowledge my grandfather Bill who had such a significant impact on my life. I miss
him very much.
My sincere appreciation goes to all my family and friends for their constant
encouragement. To my brother, sister-in-law, nephews, aunts, uncles, cousins, and close friends
who were always there for me, I thank you. You enrich my life on so many levels.
SCIENCE AND LITERACY INTEGRATION iii
To my students who I have taught over the years, thank you for making me laugh and
bringing energy to the classroom, but more importantly, thank you for teaching me more than I
ever taught you. To my many wonderful teachers throughout my education, thank you for
sharing your passion for education that inspired me to become a teacher. Your example of
commitment and responsibility set the high standard I tried to achieve in my classroom.
To my colleagues at AJR, thank you for your passion to reform urban education. You
inspire me continually to be my absolute best and to never give up. Our students are lucky to
have you as their teachers and administrators.
To the participants in this study, Minnie, Marian, Ruth, and Esther, your zeal and
enthusiasm for teaching science are contagious. I was honored to work with you throughout this
study. The work you are doing with your students is to be commended. Thank you for allowing
me to experience your teaching.
I would be remiss if I did not express my gratitude for my writing partner Armine.
Eat. Write. Revise. Repeat. That became our motto. Thank you for providing the motivation and
encouragement over the last few months to finish this dissertation. Your support in writing the
final chapters is a debt I will never be able to repay. I am thankful a true friendship developed in
this process.
I also want to thank my graduate school partner-in-crime Mavis. We have experienced so
much since we met in TFA. You were my backbone in this program. I could not have done it
without you.
Finally, and most importantly, I thank God that I was able to make it through this
program and complete this dissertation. I count my blessings each and every day and I am
forever grateful. He truly is the rock of my salvation.
SCIENCE AND LITERACY INTEGRATION iv
Dedication
This dissertation is dedicated to my family members who left Italy years ago in pursuit of the
American dream. A part of their dream is realized in this work.
SCIENCE AND LITERACY INTEGRATION v
Table of Contents
Acknowledgements ii
Dedication iv
List of Tables x
Abstract xi
Chapter 1: Introduction 1
Background of the Problem 1
Science Teaching Standards 4
Statement of the Problem 6
Response to the Problem 7
Research Gap 9
Research Questions 9
Study Overview 10
Importance of the Study 11
Limitations of the Study 11
Delimitations of the Study 12
Definition of Terms 12
Chapter Summary 13
Chapter 2: Literature Review 15
The Nature of Science Instruction 16
Science Instruction for ELLs 18
Inquiry-based Instruction 18
Academic Language in Science 22
Instructional Strategies for ELLs 23
SCIENCE AND LITERACY INTEGRATION vi
Integration of Content and Literacy Instruction 27
Teacher Perceptions 32
Perceived Constraints 32
Conceptual Framework 34
Sociocultural Theory of Learning 34
Second Language Acquisition 36
Chapter Summary 38
Chapter 3: Methodology 39
Current Study 40
Sample and Population 41
Setting 41
Gaining Entry 43
Participants 45
Role as a Researcher 46
Building Rapport 47
Approach to Gathering Data 50
Data Sources 52
Semi-structured Interviews 52
Observations 58
Documents and Artifacts 60
Data Analysis 61
Time Line 64
Reliability 67
SCIENCE AND LITERACY INTEGRATION vii
Validity 69
Chapter Summary 73
Chapter 4: Results 75
Vignettes of Teacher Pedagogy 77
Summary of Findings from Vignettes 85
Research Question One 85
Habits of Mind 85
Role of Inquiry 90
Frequency of Inquiry 93
Success of Inquiry 94
Pitfalls of Inquiry 95
Literacy 97
Challenge of Literacy and Instructional Time 103
Challenges of Language Complexity 108
Summary of Findings for Research Question One 112
Research Question Two 113
Implementation of Inquiry 113
Literacy Through Close Reading 118
Literacy Through Discussion 123
Summary of Findings for Research Question Two 130
Research Question Three 130
Approach to Teaching ELL Students 132
ELL Scaffolds Through Vocabulary Instruction 138
SCIENCE AND LITERACY INTEGRATION viii
ELL Scaffolds Through Peer Learning 140
Summary of Findings for Research Question Three 144
Summary of Findings 144
Chapter 5: Discussion 147
Summary of Findings 147
Implications 148
Finding One 148
Finding Two 149
Finding Three 152
Finding Four 153
Finding Five 155
Professional Development 156
Summary of Implications 158
Limitations 159
Next Steps for Educators: Promising Practices 162
Areas for Future Research 163
Conclusion 165
References 167
Appendix A 177
Appendix B 181
Appendix C 182
Appendix D 185
Appendix E 186
SCIENCE AND LITERACY INTEGRATION ix
Appendix F 187
Appendix G 188
Appendix H 189
Appendix I 190

SCIENCE AND LITERACY INTEGRATION x
List of Tables
Table 1: Summary of Participant Demographics 76
Table 2: Summary of ELL Students per Participant 131
Table 3: Summary of Findings by Research Question 145

SCIENCE AND LITERACY INTEGRATION xi
Abstract
The recent adoption of the Next Generation Science Standards and the Common Core State
Standards called for changes to science education in the United States. The new standards
emphasize an integrated approach to teaching science concepts and habits of mind through
inquiry and literacy teaching practices. These habits of mind are necessary to meet the demands
of college level science courses. However, data from international assessments of science
achievement indicate that U.S. students underperform in science and the achievement of English
Language Learners (ELLs) is significantly less than their native English speaking peers. This
study aimed to identify current teacher perceptions and practices on the integration of science
content and literacy in their curriculum in light of the new standards. Furthermore, a goal of this
study was to identify promising practices for educating ELLs in secondary science classes.
Qualitative methods were used for data collection. Three semi-structured interviews and three
classroom observations were conducted with four secondary biology and/or anatomy-physiology
teachers at two charter high schools located within a large urban city in southern California. Both
school sites contained significant populations of ELL students. Constant comparative methods
were used for data analysis. The findings for this study were that teachers viewed literacy as an
important tool to teach scientific concepts. Teachers were able to integrate literacy through close
reading and academic discussion. Furthermore, ELLs were supported through the instructional
scaffolds in vocabulary instruction and peer-based learning activities. An additional finding was
that inquiry was viewed as an important tool for teaching science; however the teachers enacted
more literacy-based pedagogy over inquiry-based. This suggested that the focus on infusing
more literacy into the curriculum has taken precedence over implementing inquiry-based
instruction. An implication of this study was that science educators need more knowledge on
SCIENCE AND LITERACY INTEGRATION xii
how to effectively blend the new sets of standards. An additional implication was that science
teachers need to explore instructional models on how to successfully integrate inquiry and
literacy in their pedagogy. Promising practices for ELLs were also identified.
Keywords: pedagogy, science education, literacy, teacher perceptions, English Learners

SCIENCE AND LITERACY INTEGRATION 1
Chapter 1
Introduction
Background of the Problem
Science education is increasingly on the forefront of the national agenda. In the most
recent State of the Union address President Obama states that his administration will “…reward
schools that develop new partnerships with colleges and employers, and create classes that focus
on science, technology, engineering, and math – the skills today’s employers are looking for to
fill jobs right now and in the future” (State of the Union address, February 13, 2013, p. 5). There
are many reasons why science education is on the national agenda. There are increasing numbers
of societal issues that are science based. For example, we will need improved medicine to
combat cancer and other diseases. Our dependence on fossil fuels, especially from other
countries, will need to be addressed over time. Issues of renewable energy and planet
sustainability are becoming increasingly more important to our world. Finally, the focus on
science is critical to the United States remaining a global competitor in this ever-changing
economy. This study examined science education in the context of a charter school district
located in southern California.
President Obama’s call for increased achievement in science came after years of data
released from the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) at the United States
Department of Education that showed how children in the United States were not achieving at
the same rates as their international peers (U.S. Department of Education, 2013a). The latest data
of the Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) study in 2011
highlighted the progress of science education across the globe (U.S. Department of Education,
2013a). In 2011, the United States was ranked 10
th
in science achievement for both 4
th
and 8
th

SCIENCE AND LITERACY INTEGRATION 2
grade students. Historical trends in this data indicated that the United States was not maintaining
gains in science education over time. Between the years of 1995 to 2011, the average score of 4
th

grade students increased 2 points (from 542 to 544). This change was not statistically significant.
For a point of reference, the increase of scores for 4
th
grade students in Singapore between 1995
and 2011 was 50 points (523 to 585). This change was statistically significant. Finland, another
top performer in science, had a score of 570 for 4
th
grade students in 2011 (no longitudinal data
available). In those same years, the average score of 8
th
grade students in the United States
increased 12 points (from 513 to 525). Although this increase was statistically significant, the
most current data from 2011 show that the United States was still behind other top performing
science education nations. For example, Singapore’s national average was 590 in 2011 and
Finland’s score was 552 for 8
th
grade students in 2011.
Furthermore, science achievement data for high school aged students follows this same
trend. The Program for International Student Assessment (PISA) included a science achievement
component (U.S. Department of Education, 2013b). The science subtest score ranged from 0 to
1000. For 15-year-old students in 2006, the United States scored 489, compared to 563 in
Finland. In 2009, the United States scored 502, compared to 554 in Finland, and 542 in
Singapore. These data were aligned to the TIMSS achievement data at 4
th
and 8
th
grade (U.S.
Department of Education, 2013a). The United States was being outperformed by other nations in
science at the primary, middle, and secondary level. The longitudinal data showed the evidence
of this trend since 1995 (U.S. Department of Education, 2013b). One goal of this study was to
interview and observe secondary high school teachers to gather insight about the current
conditions of science education in a specified context.
SCIENCE AND LITERACY INTEGRATION 3
Although there are numerous explanations for the differences in science achievement,
such as teacher effectiveness, curriculum, school culture, parent education level, and how in
some countries only college bound students participate in these assessments (versus all United
States children taking the assessment), data on language proficiency suggests a relationship
between language proficiency and science achievement. PISA data from 2006 (for 15 year old
students) indicated that students who took the test in the language they speak at home scored an
average of 498, on a range of 0 to 1000 (U.S. Department of Education, 2013b). However,
students who took the test in a language they do not speak at home scored an average of 434 (a
statistically significant difference of 64 points). This suggests that students who are learning an
additional language at school, beyond what is spoken at home, are at risk of decreased science
achievement. Data from 2009 follow the same trend. Students who took the test in their home
language scored an average of 508. Students who took the test in a language that differed from
the primary language spoken at home scored a 469 (a statistically significant difference of 39
points). These data further suggest that students who are learning and being assessed in an
additional language beyond their home language, while they are also learning science, have
lower levels of science achievement.
Other data from the 2009 administration of the National Assessment of Education
Progress (NAEP) program further solidifies the gap in science achievement for ELL students.
The NAEP science scores range from 0 to 300 (U.S. Department of Education, 2013c). Fourth
grade ELL students have an average score of 114, compared to 154 for non-ELL students. This
score is significantly lower indicating that elementary ELL students are already underperforming
in science. The gap for ELL students continues to expand as they progress through their K-12
education. For the same testing year of 2009, eighth grade ELL students scored 106, compared to
SCIENCE AND LITERACY INTEGRATION 4
154 for non-ELL students (U.S. Department of Education, 2013c). This significant difference
shows that the opportunity gap in science increases as ELL students progress through the
educational system. Finally, twelfth grade ELL students scored 104, compared to 151 for non-
ELL students (U.S. Department of Education, 2013c). The collective data from the NAEP
suggests that ELL students do not achieve at the same rates as their native-English speaking
peers (U.S. Department of Education, 2013c).
The data presented here brings attention to the need to increase science achievement for
all students, regardless of language proficiency. Additionally, the data advocates that students
who are learning an additional language need support in the development of both language
proficiency and science. Although there were gains in PISA data from 2009, a difference of 39
points between students who are tested in their native language and those learning an additional
language highlights an opportunity gap in K-12 education (U.S. Department of Education,
2013b). This study examined science education with a focus on ELL students. This study
investigated how secondary science teachers supported the learning needs of ELL students in
their science courses.
Science Teaching Standards
The science teaching community has responded to the need to improve science education
through the formation and adoption of new sets of standards. The Next Generation Science
Standards (NGSS) require drastic changes to science curriculum (Achieve, 2013). The standards
incorporate cross-cutting themes that connect multiple science and engineering concepts. The
seven crosscutting themes of the standards are: a) patterns, b) cause and effect, c) scale,
proportion, and quantity, d) systems and system models, e) energy and matter, f) structure and
function, and g) stability and change (Achieve, 2013). Students are introduced to these seven
SCIENCE AND LITERACY INTEGRATION 5
themes in primary grades and each year students deepen their understanding of the concepts as
they gain more knowledge. The purpose of using crosscutting themes is to show students that
science concepts are interconnected and not separated into content areas such as biology,
chemistry, and physics. For example, students will learn that energy associated with
photosynthesis, chemical reactions, and mechanics is just energy in different forms and that it is
all related. This change to teaching science concepts is intended to help students see the
connections between various courses. This kind of teaching intends to deepen students’
knowledge of science and increase their overall achievement.
The standards also require students to engage in scientific processes such as inquiry and
engineering practices (Achieve, 2013). The incorporation of inquiry and engineering provide
more access to real-world science that has not been a focus in current K-12 science education.
The objective of these additional standards is to provide students with skills and abilities that will
allow them to compete for science-based jobs on the global market (Fensham, 2011).
The new standards are based on a framework for teaching that was published by the
National Research Council in 1996 (NRC, 1996). This framework defines what students are
expected to know and how science teachers are to deliver this information. The framework called
for an increase in inquiry instruction for all students, regardless of language proficiency. The
NGSS are also built on a document published by the American Association for the Advancement
of Science (AAAS, 1993). The AAAS published a set of benchmarks for science literacy. In all
cases, the new set of science standards is propelling students into practicing science and using
the language of scientists. The new standards move away from the negative consequences of rote
memorization and teaching to the test strategies that developed in response to No Child Left
Behind (Menken, 2006).
SCIENCE AND LITERACY INTEGRATION 6
In addition to the new science standards, science educators will also need to respond to
the national initiative of the newly adopted Common Core State Standards (CCSS; National
Governors Association for Best Practices, 2010). The CCSS will have a significant impact on
science educators in that the standards require all teachers, regardless of content area, to become
teachers of reading and writing. So although the CCSS do not have specific content standards for
science, there are literacy standards for science and other technical subjects. For example, the
standards call for increased reading of expository and informational texts. Students will be
required to read these texts and respond writing prompts citing evidence from their readings.
Although these skills have been required at the collegiate level for years, traditional K-12 science
education has focused more on the memorization of facts (Menken, 2006).
In summary, the CCSS standards are meant to supplement content standards and provide
a framework for language instruction/literacy in the content classroom. It will be the integration
of both the NGSS and CCSS that will equip students with the science knowledge and skills to be
globally competitive. However, this shift in education will potentially cause teachers to change
their pedagogy as they adjust to the standards and meet the academic needs of their students.
Both sets of standards have their own timeline for implementation, but educators are doing the
initial work of planning for the implementation (Achieve, 2013; National Governors Association
for Best Practices, 2010). Science teachers will need models of effective instruction that are
aligned to both sets of standards. The goal of this study was to begin to identify teaching
pedagogy that supports the NGSS (inquiry instruction) and CCSS (literacy instruction).
Statement of the Problem
The previous section presented an argument of the increasing importance of improving
K-12 science education in the United States for all students and how science education standards
SCIENCE AND LITERACY INTEGRATION 7
are adjusting. However, there is a population of students who are in a greater need of innovations
in science curriculum. Students who are non-native English speakers are at a disadvantage when
they learn science (Guglielmi, 2012). These students are called English Language Learners
(ELLs). These students have difficulty achieving in science due to the language restraints
presented by the curriculum (Guglielmi, 2012). Furthermore, Santau, Maerten-Rivera, and
Huggins (2011) identify that ELL students are not making the same academic gains in science
achievement as their native speaking peers. Data from the 2009 report of the NAEP shows
differences in science achievement for ELL students in grade 12 (U.S. Department of Education,
2013c). Scores on the science test range from 0 to 300. The average score for non-ELL students
was 151, compared to 104 for ELL students. The achievement for ELL students is significantly
lower on this assessment. This data substantiates the opportunity gap for ELLs in science
courses. The science teaching community needs to address the educational and language needs of
ELLs in science classrooms through identifying teacher pedagogy that has proven successful for
ELL students. One intended outcome of this study was to identify promising practices for
science education relating to ELL students. This study aimed to highlight pedagogical practices
secondary teachers can use to support the learning needs of their ELL students in science.
Response to the Problem
The National Research Council (NRC) published a conceptual framework for K-12
science education over a decade ago (NRC, 1996). The framework identifies components of
science teaching, with an emphasis on inquiry. The NRC states that effective teaching includes a
focus on inquiry. Students are to be taught how to make observations, formulate hypothesis,
design and conduct experiments, record and analyze data, and share findings with the scientific
community. There are numerous curriculums that have been designed over the years to address
SCIENCE AND LITERACY INTEGRATION 8
teaching science through inquiry (for example, Tweed, 2009). The curriculum guides provide
teachers with supports to implement these instructional practices in their classrooms. Although
an effective strategy encouraged by the NRC, teaching science through inquiry presents many
challenges.
The scientific community relies heavily on academic language that presents a challenge
for ELLs (Snow, 2010). For example, a student conducting a chemistry lab on reaction rates
would need to understand the following academic terminology: reactants, products, kinetic
energy, collision theory, surface area, and temperature to name a few. Furthermore, students
would need to have a solid conceptual foundation of general scientific words such as predict,
hypothesize, evaluate, conclude, etcetera. This level of academic language may cause students
who are still developing their English proficiency to struggle with learning the content (Moje,
Collazo, Carrillo & Marx, 2001).
Multiple researchers have begun to identify pedagogical approaches to assist struggling
ELL students learn science (for example, Stoddart, Solis, Tolbert & Bravo, 2010; Beltran,
Sarmiento & Mora-Flores, 2013, Fang & Wei, 2010; Huerta & Jackson, 2010; Snow, 2010;
Durón-Flores & Maciel, 2006; Hampton & Rodriguez, 2001; Haberman, 1991). Stoddard et al.
(2010) and Beltran et al. (2013) present teaching frameworks that integrate teaching science
content and literacy through inquiry. Research on reading infusion and the incorporation of high-
interest science texts shows promising pedagogy for ELLs (Fang & Wei, 2010). Hampton and
Rodriguez (2001) discuss a hands-on approach to inquiry that provides ELL students with a rich
context to deepen their conceptual knowledge. Additionally, Durón-Flores and Maciel (2006)
describe the approach of working word walls for academic terminology. All of these pedagogical
SCIENCE AND LITERACY INTEGRATION 9
approaches have found success at helping ELL students learn science content as they build
literacy skills.
Research Gap
The literature reviewed so far has identified effective strategies for teaching inquiry
science to ELL students at the elementary and middle school level (for example, Fang & Wei,
2010; Huerta & Jackson, 2010; Durón-Flores & Maciel, 2006). Students at these younger grades
have participated in curriculum programs specifically designed to meet their learning and
language needs. However, high school science curriculum requires more advanced literacy and
language needs (Fang & Schleppegrell, 2008) due to the complexity of the standards. Whether or
not these strategies identified for elementary students will prove beneficial to secondary students
has yet to been tested.
Lee (2005) has done research focusing on science teaching for ELLs at the secondary
level. However, a vast majority of the research on supporting ELLs in science remains at the
elementary. This creates a large gap in the literature that needs to be addressed. Research is
needed to explain how to address the different set of needs for older students. President Obama’s
call to action for increased science achievement and college-readiness science skills must be
supported by evidence of effective science teaching for ELLs at the secondary level. Secondary
teachers would benefit from examples that are more closely related to their teaching context.
Research Questions
This study addressed the problem of what pedagogy is most beneficial to help ELL
students learn science content as they build literacy skills. The knowledge generated from this
study helped close the gap in knowledge of how to support ELL students in science classrooms
SCIENCE AND LITERACY INTEGRATION 10
at the secondary level. In order to close the gap in the literature, the following research questions
were used to guide this study:
a) What are secondary-science teachers’ perceptions of the integration of science
content and academic literacy instruction?
b) How do secondary-science teachers integrate science content and academic literacy
instruction as part of their pedagogy?
c) How do secondary-science teachers support the content and literacy needs for ELL
students at the secondary level?
Study Overview
There were multiple goals of this study in response to the problem identified in this
chapter. The goals of this study were to: a) interview secondary-science teachers to identify their
perceptions of science and literacy integration, b) identify promising practices for secondary
science teachers with populations of ELLs to inform pedagogy, and c) add knowledge on this
topic to help close the research gap. In order to achieve this goal, this study examined science
teaching for ELLs at the secondary level. The purpose of this study was to investigate the bridge
between science instruction and literacy development. The study attempted to identify what has
already been done at the secondary level to support ELLs learn science. I conducted a
qualitative case study to interview and observe science teachers in their practice to identify their
perceptions of the integration of science content and literacy development for ELLs. The
interviews and observations were used to identify what strategies science teachers implemented
to support their ELL students.
The following chapters outlined how I attempted to add knowledge to close the gap in the
literature. Chapter two included a literature review that delved into what is currently known
SCIENCE AND LITERACY INTEGRATION 11
about effective science teaching for ELLs. That chapter also described the sociocultural
conceptual framework that guided this study. Chapter three provided a detailed account of the
methodology that was used to answer the research questions. Chapter four presented the findings
of the study and chapter five analyzed the findings and discussed implications for future practice
and research. The chapters together presented a unified argument of how to teach science content
and build literacy for ELL students.
Importance of the Study
The topic of this research study carried much importance for current and future secondary
science educators. Payán and Nettles (2008) report how the population of ELLs grew at
increasing rates over the last decade, even quadrupling in some states. The National
Clearinghouse for English Language Acquisition (NCELA) reports that the rates of ELLs have
increased 57% in the last decade and that this increase in the population of ELL students is
expected to continue this trend in upcoming years (Ballantyne, Sanderman & Levy, 2008).
Teachers at all grade levels need to be prepared to meet the instructional and language needs of
these students. Secondary teachers especially need professional development on working with
ELL students in science courses due to the research gap that was identified previously in this
chapter. This study investigated a population of secondary science teachers that worked with
significant populations of ELL students. The data generated from this study should aid other
teachers as they navigate working with their own ELL populations.
Limitations of the Study
There are a few limitations of the study that were related to the research design. A
detailed explanation of each limitation was provided in Chapter 5. The limitations were as
followed:
SCIENCE AND LITERACY INTEGRATION 12
1. This study had a small sample size. I interviewed and observed four secondary science
teachers.
2. Data was collected in a condensed time frame during the second and third quarters of the
2013-2014 school year.
3. This study focused on teacher perceptions of the integration of science content and
literacy instruction. There was a lack of student perspective on their experiences of
learning science as ELLs.
4. The findings were dependent on the accuracy of the participants self-reporting during the
interview process.
Delimitations of the Study
The nature of this study had some inherent barriers to the generalizability of the findings.
The delimitations of this study were acknowledged:
1. This study took place at two different school sites within one charter district located in
southern California.
2. The participants of this study had at least four years of teaching experience.
3. This study focused on life science contents, either biology or anatomy-physiology.
Definition of Terms
Academic language: The technical vocabulary used to read and discuss texts in an
academic context (Fang & Schleppegrell, 2008).
Academic literacy: The skills required to read, comprehend, discuss orally, and respond
in writing to academic texts presented in the context of schools.
English Language Learner: A student who comes from a home where English is not the
predominant language. This student learns language through social interactions and formal
SCIENCE AND LITERACY INTEGRATION 13
instruction at school. This student also benefits from language support programs (National
Council of Teachers of English, 2008).
Inquiry: The process of doing science: observing, predicting, formulating a hypothesis,
designing and conducting an experiment, interpreting and analyzing the findings, and sharing
results with the scientific community at large (NRC, 1996; Tweed, 2009).
Pedagogy: The set of teacher beliefs and values that affect their choices in instructional
strategies and teaching methods.
Scientific habits of mind: The critical reasoning skills used by scientists: questioning,
predicting, and analyzing (Lee & Fradd, 1998; Westby, Dezale, Fradd & Lee, 1999).
Scientific literacy: The ability to know, do, and talk science as well as have scientific
habits of mind (Lee & Fradd, 1998).
Chapter Summary
This chapter brought to light a problem in science education for ELL students. Data
indicates that ELL students do not achieve at the same level as their native-English speaking
peers (U.S. Department of Education, 2013a; U.S. Department of Education, 2013b; U.S.
Department of Education, 2013c). This chapter also described how science educators will need
to consider the needs of ELL learners as teachers adjust to new sets of teaching and literacy
standards that will alter existing curriculum. This chapter laid the framework for this study by
discussing the purpose and importance of the study as they relate to the overall research
questions. The goals of this study were to interview teachers, identify promising practices for
science educators who work with secondary ELL students, and add to the research knowledge on
the topic of science content integration with literacy. The next chapter provides a review of the
SCIENCE AND LITERACY INTEGRATION 14
literature about what is currently known about the integration of science content and academic
literacy for ELL students.

SCIENCE AND LITERACY INTEGRATION 15
Chapter 2
Literature Review
The previous chapter described the increasing call to action for science education reform.
President Obama is urging science educators to equip students with the knowledge and skills to
be proficient scientists in the global market. Students need a solid foundation in science for a
variety of reasons. The increase of globalization connects the world in many new ways
(Fensham, 2011; Spring, 2008; Bybee & Fuchs, 2006). Students across the world are now
competing for jobs on a global market. As the previous chapter illustrates, American students are
underperforming in science and related fields (U.S. Department of Education, 2013b; U.S.
Department of Education, 2013c). Our children will not be competitive in the global market if
there is not an increase in science achievement. More importantly, future scientists will be tasked
with multiple societal issues, such as combating cancer, our dependence on fossil fuels,
alternative energy sources, and planet sustainability to list a few. The importance of these issues
highlights the need for American students to have solid science education if they are going to
contribute to finding solutions to these societal issues.
Responding to this call to action for science education reform is easier said than done.
Data indicate that American students are outperformed by students from other countries, and that
students who do not speak English as a first language perform even lower (U.S. Department of
Education, 2013b). This opportunity gap in science achievement for English Language Learners
(ELLs) needs to be addressed as this population of students continues to increase (U.S.
Department of Education, 2013a).
In order to move forward with the national agenda, science educators have come together
to create a new set of content standards (Achieve, 2013) based in reform efforts from the
American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS, 1993) and the National Research
SCIENCE AND LITERACY INTEGRATION 16
Council (1996). The new standards intend to improve science teaching and better equip students
for college and beyond. However, in order for teachers to be successful at using these standards
in teaching ELLs, they will need models of promising practices for educating ELLs in science
classrooms. The goal of this literature review is to identify what is currently known about
effective pedagogy for ELLs in secondary science classrooms. The literature review will address
salient theory and research related to the research questions, which are:
a) What are secondary-science teachers’ perceptions of the integration of science
content and academic literacy instruction?
b) How do secondary-science teachers integrate science content and academic literacy
instruction as part of their pedagogy?
c) How do secondary-science teachers support the content and literacy needs for ELL
students at the secondary level?
The Nature of Science Instruction
Science has its own set of customs and norms that can be defined as “scientific literacy”
(Lee & Fradd, 1998). Scientific habits of mind include knowing science, doing science, talking
science, and developing scientific reasoning skills called scientific habits of mind (Westby,
Dezale, Fradd & Lee, 1999). To be proficient in science one must think like a scientist: observe
phenomenon, make predictions, conduct experiments, analyze data, and communicate findings.
These processes describe the skills and dispositions a scientist, or in a smaller context, a science
student are expected to have. What may be overlooked in these processes is the amount of
language required to conduct scientific investigation and participate in the scientific community.
The practices of scientists require extensive proficiency in literacy (Fang &
Schleppegrell, 2008; Huerta & Jackson, 2010; Fensham, 2011). Scientists consult the research
SCIENCE AND LITERACY INTEGRATION 17
literature to explore their hypotheses and analyze what has already been studied by other
scientists. Science research also uses complex, specialized vocabulary (Fang & Schleppegrell,
2008; Snow, 2010). This work is often done in collaborative teams and this requires a
proficiency in verbal communication (Pearson, Moje & Greenleaf, 2010; Westby et al., 1999).
Additionally, a key component of the scientific community is reporting your findings to the
broader community (Fensham, 2011). Scientists must be able to report their findings in clear,
concise writing, and be prepared to speak about their work. Furthermore, many professional
organizations use English as their primary means of communication (Fensham, 2011). This is
significant in that students must have a general proficiency in English if they want to pursue a
career in science.
The teaching of science literacy, with the inherent literacy skills required, makes science
teachers very similar to teachers of foreign languages. Science teachers therefore teach content,
as well as the language of science (Fang & Schleppegrell, 2008). For example, teaching
balancing chemical equations in a chemistry class is more than teaching the process skills needed
to complete the task. It also includes describing how mass is conserved in a reaction and
presenting the findings of your experiment that proves this fact. This process has many literacy
demands, such as requiring students to read lab procedures, write results, and present findings
orally, therefore, effective science teachers must teach both their content standards as well as the
conventions of the scientific community. But as stated in chapter one, ELL students are not
learning the content, scientific conventions, and literacy at the same rate as their native English
speaking peers (U.S. Department of Education, 2013a; U.S. Department of Education, 2013b).
The next section will describe how science teachers can attempt to close this gap by the
pedagogical choices they make for their ELL students.
SCIENCE AND LITERACY INTEGRATION 18
Science Instruction for ELLs
Science educators can attempt to bridge the opportunity gap for ELL students by
integrating inquiry and literacy instruction in the classroom (Stoddart, Solis, Tolbert & Bravo,
2010; Beltran, Sarmiento & Mora-Flores, 2013; Stoddart, Bravo, Solis, Mosqueda & Rodriguez,
2011; Stoddart, Pinal, Latzke & Canaday, 2002; Amaral, Garrison & Klentschy, 2002). I will
first examine the literature on the components of inquiry-based pedagogy and its benefits to
student learning. The following section includes various pedagogical techniques that are used to
support ELLs as they learn science. Finally, I will then describe how teachers integrate both the
teaching of inquiry and literacy.
Inquiry-based instruction. The National Research Council (NRC) states that inquiry is a
vital element of science teaching (NRC, 1996). The framework defines scientific inquiry as
making observations, posing questions, consulting past research findings, designing an
investigation, gathering and analyzing data, providing answers and explanations, and
communicating results (NRC, 1996). Inquiry therefore is not a single lesson taught sporadically
throughout the year. Inquiry is a pedagogical approach that is implemented as the classroom
routine. Working through the steps of inquiry described by the framework provides students with
the opportunity to build the skills of scientists working in the field. Students who engage in this
process begin to develop scientific habits of mind and come to learn how scientific knowledge is
the accumulation of multiple data sources and that sometimes a wrong hypothesis pushes your
knowledge in a new direction. Teachers that incorporate this process into their classrooms are
not only modeling good science, but they allow students to engage in science in a risk-free
environment (Huerta & Jackson, 2010). Inquiry-based pedagogy also provides students with an
opportunity to acquire academic terminology through continued practice. This process engages
SCIENCE AND LITERACY INTEGRATION 19
all domains of literacy: listening, reading, speaking, and writing (Stoddard et al., 2002), therefore
supporting development of scientific literacy.
The NRC further defines the components of inquiry-based science instruction with a
more elaborate set of national science education standards (NRC, 2000). According to this
framework, the essential features of inquiry are: a) learner engages in scientifically oriented
questions, b) learner gives priority to evidence in responding to questions, c) learner formulates
explanations from evidence, d) learner connects explanations to scientific knowledge, and e)
learner communicates and justifies explanations (as summarized in Tweed, 2009). This type of
teaching includes direct instruction, and provides students with opportunities to formulate their
own ideas and conduct scientific investigations. The use of inquiry asks teachers to implement
curriculum that has students doing science, instead of just learning concepts using rote
memorization. Inquiry science is more than memorization, it involves using more advanced
thinking skills that are similar to what working scientists use on a daily basis.
In conjunction with the National Science Teachers Association (NSTA), Tweed (2009)
argues the benefits of inquiry-based instruction. She states that “[u]sing inquiry instruction rather
than telling students about science discoveries allows students to think about, reason, discuss,
and make sense of science concepts,” (Tweed, 2009, p.78). This type of instruction provides
many opportunities for hands-on activities that foster student discovery and understanding of the
concept. Inquiry-based instruction typically includes a large social component. Students work
with peers on experiments to gather, discuss, analyze, and debate data. This process allows for
the social exchange of academic discourse (Westby et al., 1999), an important construct
discussed later in this chapter.
SCIENCE AND LITERACY INTEGRATION 20
A critical element of inquiry instruction is the use of hands on learning activities.
Hampton and Rodriguez (2001) studied the effects of inquiry-based instruction on bilingual
elementary students. Their main research finding is that hands on activities that require students
to observe, ask questions, make predictions, conduct experiments, and analyze data have a
positive effect on learning, regardless of language ability. The authors discuss how hands on
activities provide a concrete context for concepts taught in class. Additionally, the experience of
inquiry helps to build language skills by exposing students to all domains of literacy. Siry,
Ziegler and Max (2012) also conclude that hands-on learning activities provide a rich
opportunity for discourse and the discussion of scientific ideas. Hands-on activities provide time
to build context about a topic as students using pre-existing knowledge to guide them through the
activity (Amaral et al., 2002). These activities help students acquire the skills used by actual
scientists in the field (Tweed, 2009).
McCarthy (2005) conducted a study to compare the effects on hands on versus traditional
textbook instruction for middle school students. The teaching intervention lasted eight weeks.
The hands-on group spent the majority of each lesson working with other students conducting
experiments. The teacher provided guidance and feedback along the way, but students were
required to engage in the inquiry process of asking questions, conducting experiments, and
discussing results with other students. In this example, the hands-on activities were an
opportunity for students to engage in the inquiry process described by the NRC (1996). At the
end of the study the students who were in the hands-on teaching group performed significantly
better on short answer and hands on assessments (McCarthy, 2005). The results of the study
show that hands-on, inquiry pedagogy provide an opportunity for students to gain a deeper
understanding of the content, and practice the process and literacy skills used by scientists.
SCIENCE AND LITERACY INTEGRATION 21
A significant component of inquiry-based instruction encompasses the construct of
scientific literacy. Westby et al. (1999) describe how scientific literacy encompasses knowing,
doing, and talking science, as well as having scientific habits of mind. Many teachers have taken
the direct instruction approach for having their students know science due to limited classroom
resources or text complexity (Lee & Avalos, 2002). Teachers engage in lecture to expose their
students to the required content knowledge. However, there is now more of an impetus to have
students actually do science in order to gain further content knowledge and deepen
understanding (Tweed, 2009). Students need to engage in hands on activities that require them to
make observations, create a hypothesis, design and conduct an experiment in order to prove or
disprove their hypothesis, analyze findings, and then report the results. This process is aligned to
the national science content standards (NRC, 1996), and as it builds student capacity to think and
reason as scientists (Westby et al., 1999).
Finally, inquiry instruction builds scientific habits of mind, which is having an interest in
describing how the world works (Guzzetti & Bang, 2011). Teachers can trigger and build this
interest by providing instruction that captivates students and allows them to explore a topic of
interest (Hidi & Renninger, 2006). For example, O’Neill and Polman (2004) describe an
instructional approach of practice-based learning that fosters scientific habits of mind by having
students design and conduct their own investigations. In this research study, students benefited
from this pedagogical approach because they gained skills by posing their own questions,
designing and conducting experiments, and presenting their data. Completing the entire inquiry
process defined in this study requires extensive amounts of literacy skills and academic language
(Westby et al., 1999), both taken up in following sections.
SCIENCE AND LITERACY INTEGRATION 22
Academic language in science. A critical component of inquiry science is having
students talk science in the form of their observations and findings, with other classmates or the
community at large (Westby et al., 1999; Westby & Torres-Velaquez, 2000). This encompasses
using the language of the discipline (Snow, 2010; Fang & Schleppegrell, 2008). Students must
be taught the appropriate technical vocabulary terms for the course (for example, atom,
molecule, compound in chemistry) as well as the process terms for the content area (for example,
analyze, predict, and evaluate in science). The direct instruction of these two types of
vocabularies gives students the ability to comprehend (Fang & Schleppegrell, 2008) and describe
the phenomena they are learning in class (Kinsella, 2012). This is supported by Snow (2010)
when she argues that students must be able to decode and comprehend the language of the
discipline if they are going to have success at doing and talking science. Teachers providing this
instruction are able to prepare their students for the demands of academic language as they
conduct scientific practices.
One way student learning of academic language is fostered is by completing hands-on
activities that require discourse with peers (Lee & Fradd, 1998). Students gain academic
language, such as compare, contrast, and predict, as they perform the functions of science
(Westby et al., 1999). Students learn these words in the context of classroom activities that
require them to compare data, contrast texts, or make a prediction in an experiment (Pearson et
al., 2010). For example, Siry et al. (2012) discuss how students are required to use academic
language during scientific investigations. ELL students can use hands-on activities as a medium
to rehearse their academic language. Peers and teachers are able to provide feedback as ELL
students learn the formal forms of academic language. Additionally, Haberman (1991) shows
that reading, listening, writing, and speaking about science content solidifies content knowledge
SCIENCE AND LITERACY INTEGRATION 23
as it builds academic language. Furthermore, having students talk science is a way for teachers to
assess current levels of academic language, provide feedback, and present correct models of
academic language (Beltran et al., 2013).
Instructional strategies for ELLs. There is a growing body of research on how to
educate ELLs in the context of their science classroom (for example, Stoddart et al., 2010;
Huerta & Jackson, 2010; Snow, 2010; Durón-Flores & Maciel, 2006; Amaral et al., 2002;
Hampton & Rodriguez, 2001; Haberman, 1991). The literature is beginning to show successful
models of how building academic literacy in science lessons. The strategies provide access to the
science curriculum.
ESTELL teaching model. A team of researchers based at the University of California,
Santa Cruz, have designed a pedagogical framework for teaching science to ELL students
(Stoddart, Solis, Tolbert, & Bravo, 2010). This framework draws upon the synergistic
relationship between teaching inquiry science and language as simultaneous processes. There are
five main components of this framework that allow students to construct their knowledge of
science, while also engaging in literacy rich activities. I will provide a brief summary of each
tenet of the framework, however the five components are: a) integration of literacy, b) scientific
discourse, c) developing scientific understanding, d) collaborative inquiry, and e) contextualized
science instruction. Each of these tenets is discussed in detail below.
The first component is the integration of science, language, and literacy development
(Stoddart et al., 2010). Teachers who employ this framework provide their students with lessons
and activities that provide meaningful context for ELLs. Activities are structured in ways that
allow students to learn science content through relevant and appropriate texts and other forms of
literacy, such as graphs and illustrations. Students are exposed to large amounts of vocabulary
SCIENCE AND LITERACY INTEGRATION 24
that is practiced during assignments. This type of learning is beneficial to ELLs because it allows
for continual practice in an applicable setting. Instead of learning a list of vocabulary words in
isolation, students learn the words while they are gathering and analyzing data, a practice true of
science.
The second component of the ESTELL framework is engaging students in scientific
discourse (Stoddard et al., 2010). The scientific community relies heavily on discourse, therefore
students are expected to not only learn science by completing investigations, they must also
engage in discussing sciences with their teachers and classmates. Students must work
collaboratively to present their findings, discuss results, and answer questions. The framework
calls this process an “instructional conversation.” Students deepen their scientific understanding
as they learn how to use the appropriate vocabulary in preparation for these conversations. This
type of teaching is beneficial for ELLs because it allows for practice and feedback. Students are
coached by teachers and peers during the process and this helps to solidify their language skills.
Traditional methods of writing a lab report and turning it in to the teacher do not provide this
same type of beneficial practice.
Developing scientific understanding is the third component of the ESTELL framework
(Stoddard et al., 2010). ELLs have traditionally been placed into remedial courses that do not
promote critical thinking and analysis (Garcia, 1988). This type of instruction is not beneficial
for ELLs since it does not provide any context for learning. The authors of the ESTELL
framework suggest teachers design activities that require students to make observations,
judgments, and inferences about scientific phenomena (Stoddart et al., 2010). ELLs deepen their
scientific knowledge in this type of teaching because they are able to visualize concepts, discuss
SCIENCE AND LITERACY INTEGRATION 25
them with classmates and teachers, and then evaluate their own understanding. This style of
teaching allows ELLs to have access to the science curriculum while learning language.
The fourth component of the framework is collaborative inquiry in science teaching
(Stoddard et al., 2010). This element of the framework is built off the idea that scientists work in
communities, not isolation. Real world scientists work in teams on projects and present findings
at professional conferences on a continual basis. Teachers who implement this framework have
students work in collaborative groups on inquiry assignments to model the practices of working
scientists. This process is an additional benefit to ELLs because it provides an opportunity to
practice thinking, speaking, reading, and writing like a scientist with the assistance of peers and
the teacher.
The final element of the ESTELL framework is contextualized science instruction
(Stoddart et al., 2010). Contextualized instruction refers to activities and lessons that are
designed to incorporate student background knowledge and experiences. It may also refer to
activities and lessons that are structured around topics that have significant relevance to students,
such as environmental issues that affect their community. The purpose of choosing these types of
activities is to provide students the opportunity to have more access to the curriculum. ELLs
especially benefit from this type of instruction because it provides them an opportunity to learn
science and learn language about topics they already have knowledge about.
Other teaching strategies for ELLs. Amaral, Garrison, and Klentschy (2002) evaluated a
science curriculum that combined inquiry-based instruction with science notebook infusion. The
notebooks supported literacy skills in the areas of reading and writing. The program was
conducted with ELL students in grades K-6, but their findings suggest strategies that prove
helpful for ELL students in secondary classrooms. The findings of the study indicate that ELLs
SCIENCE AND LITERACY INTEGRATION 26
made gains in science achievement as a result of the integrated curriculum. The authors
contribute the success of the program to the fact that inquiry instruction allows time to build
context, build common experiences, builds thinking skills, and relies on cooperative learning.
Additionally, the inquiry based approach benefits ELLs because it takes into account their
comfort level. Students are able to observe and explore a concept prior to giving a definitive
answer. Also, teachers create a certain safety net in this type of instruction because they are
encouraged to learn from their mistakes as they revise their work. This pedagogical approach to
teaching ELLs creates an environment where students feel safe to learn science as they also gain
English proficiency. This pedagogical approach to teaching science aligns with the ESTELL
model described by Stoddart et al. (2010). Both approaches have students learning science in
cooperative settings. The peer to peer interactions help students learn from each other in a safe
learning environment. Additionally, both teaching models emphasize the importance of
providing context to learners.
Hampton and Rodriguez (2001) conducted a study at a bilingual elementary school close
to the United States-Mexico border. Students in this K-6 school were either taught in English or
Spanish according to their language abilities. A group of pre-service teachers taught a hands-on
inquiry curriculum for six to 12 lessons throughout the course of the study. The findings indicate
that ELL students benefited from the hands-on curriculum. The hands-on activity was inclusive
for ELL students because English proficiency was not a prerequisite for the lesson. In fact,
students were able to develop their literacy as they spoke English to their peers and teachers
during the activity. This finding is relevant because it suggests that hands-on activities are an
instructional accommodation for ELL students. This suggests that this type of curriculum may
prove beneficial for older students who are still gaining literacy proficiency.
SCIENCE AND LITERACY INTEGRATION 27
Durón-Flores and Maciel (2006) describe another strategy that has been beneficial to
ELLs as they learn scientific vocabulary. The authors studied the use of a working word wall in a
classroom setting. Traditional word walls are typically a poster of all the vocabulary terms
covered in the class that is displayed somewhere in the classroom. Contrary to this practice, a
working word wall is a dynamic component of a classroom. Teachers and students co-construct
knowledge of vocabulary terms as they encounter the terms in the content. Students draw
diagrams and post examples of how the terms are used. This type of word wall is an effective
strategy to develop scientific vocabulary because it provides students with examples and
opportunities to practice using the words in the appropriate context. Although this strategy was
studied using elementary aged children, the concept of explicitly teaching vocabulary as an
ongoing process applies to secondary students. Secondary teachers can co-construct knowledge
of technical vocabulary terms with their ELL students as an instructional scaffold.
Huerta and Jackson (2010) conducted an investigation on the use of structured science
notebooks. They argue that students should be given the opportunity to write about the science
concepts they are learning in class. The process of writing helps to make meaning and solidifies
the content covered in class. They found, like Amaral et al. (2002), that the use of science
notebooks promotes academic literacy development and provides access to the curriculum for
ELL students. This finding is significant to the current study because it shows how ELL students
are at a disadvantage for learning science if their writing skills, and literacy skills in general, are
not as developed as their native English speaking peers.
Integration of content and literacy instruction. Chapter 1 described the upcoming
changes to science education as a result of new content (Achieve, 2013) and literacy standards
(National Governors Association for Best Practices, 2010) in the form of the Next Generation
SCIENCE AND LITERACY INTEGRATION 28
Science Standards and the Common Core State Standards, respectively. Science teachers are
asked to adjust their curriculum to incorporate inquiry instruction for all students, while
incorporating literacy instruction simultaneously.
There is evidence in the literature that inquiry and literacy instruction have a synergistic
relationship (Stoddart et al., 2002; Stoddart et al., 2010; Beltran et al., 2013; Stoddart et al.,
2011; Amaral et al., 2002). Beltran et al. (2013) conducted a long-term research project at an
elementary school with significant populations of ELL students. The results of the study show
that students had higher achievement scores on science tests after they were taught using a
curriculum that explicitly supported literacy development, in the form of vocabulary instruction,
exposure to text, and writing support, while students were also engaging in hands on, inquiry-
based activities. The authors credit the academic gains to the fact that students were able to
develop their literacy within a specific context of inquiry (Beltran et al., 2013). Students learn
both the content and develop their literacy when there is integration of content and literacy
teaching (Pearson et al., 2010). Although many of these studies have been conducted at the
elementary level, the findings can be used as proxy for secondary schools since many aspects of
teaching and learning are similar across K-12 education.
There is a growing body of research about the integration of science content and literacy
instruction, however most if it is centered on the elementary level. For example, a study by Fang
and Wei (2010) tested the effects of a reading program in a science classroom. The authors
conducted a quasi-experimental design to test the effects of reading program in sixth grade
science classrooms for approximately six months. Students in the control group were taught
using an inquiry-based curriculum. The experimental group was taught using the same inquiry-
based curriculum, however there was an addition of reading infusion. In the experimental
SCIENCE AND LITERACY INTEGRATION 29
classrooms the teachers explicitly taught a reading strategy each week. Examples of the
strategies include predicting, concept mapping, and paraphrasing. Students practiced the strategy
in class and received feedback from the teacher. The students were expected to implement the
strategy at home during independent reading of science trade books. The students were required
to discuss their weekly readings in small groups every Friday. Results of the study indicate that
the experimental group outperformed the control group on a curriculum referenced science test
of achievement designed by the teachers. Furthermore, the experimental group showed deeper
understanding of both fundamental literacy (reading comprehension) and derived science literacy
(the process of doing and understanding science). The results of this study support the notion that
students who are required to read in science classes have a better understanding of science. This
supports the synergistic relationship of science and language.
In a holistic manner, Beltran et al. (2013) present a framework for teaching science to
ELL students that also supports the synergistic relationship between teaching science content and
literacy. Beltran et al. (2013) describe the 5E model for teaching science that is adapted from
Bybee, Buchwald, Crissman et al. (1989). Bybee et al. (1989) designed the 5E model as a way to
deepen students’ understandings of science content. The 5E model stands for: engage, explore,
explain, extend, and evaluate. Students who are taught using this model are exposed to scientific
dilemma that sparks their interest, which leads to an ongoing investigation that builds their
content knowledge.
Beltran et al. (2013) further the model by delineating how to integrate literacy instruction
for ELL students throughout all segments of the 5E model. The main objective of the engage
phase, the first “E,” is to spark interest in the topic, activate prior knowledge, and prime students
for the lesson. Teachers can integrate literacy during this time by using academic language as
SCIENCE AND LITERACY INTEGRATION 30
they spark interest. Teachers can model the terminology that will be covered in the lesson and
begin to allow ELLs to practice using the academic language. Additionally, teachers can
structure student to student interactions in this time to allow students to practice speaking the
academic terminology in a non-evaluative setting. The use of teacher modeling and discourse
with peers addresses many of the literacy learning needs of ELLs.
The explore phase of the 5E model, the second “E,” transitions to a hands-on activity
(Beltran et al., 2013). Students are given the time to practice doing science in this phase.
Students observe, predict, collect data, and discuss findings. The critical support for ELLs during
this phase of instruction is the shared inquiry with peers. Peer to peer interactions mediate
student learning. Students are able to ask each other questions and provide support for each other
in this phase. For example, a more able peer could correct an ELLs phrasing of certain
terminology. Teachers also build literacy skills in this segment by asking probing questions of
the students as they circulate throughout the room, such as “Can you explain what you are
doing?” As teachers monitor instruction moving around from group to group they are able to ask
questions of students that require students to think about the content and practice using academic
language, such as “Can you clarify your observation? What is your prediction?” This is also a
time for teachers to model academic language throughout their questioning and discussions with
students.
The explain portion of this framework, the third “E,” bears the most resemblance to direct
instruction (Beltran et al., 2013). During this segment of the lesson teachers either provide or
reinforce the content knowledge that has been introduced during the engage and explore phases.
Teachers emphasize content specific language and provide the definitions of the terms students
have been using throughout the investigation. It is the direct and explicit teaching of academic
SCIENCE AND LITERACY INTEGRATION 31
vocabulary during this segment that is impactful for ELL students. Also, teachers have students
explain their current learning either orally or in writing. This provides an opportunity for
students to practice speaking or writing in academic language in a time when they can receive
feedback.
The extend (or elaborate) phase of the 5E model, the fourth “E,” is when students put
their learning into practice (Beltran et al., 2013). Students are expected to apply their knowledge
in a new context by designing and conducting their own mini-investigation. As stated earlier, this
process of “doing science” is critical to deepening their content knowledge (Tweed, 2009). This
part of the model requires students to practice using academic language as they work with their
peers. Furthermore, students are expected to explain their reasoning using academic language as
the teacher circulates to monitor progress (Beltran et al., 2013). Teachers can take this
opportunity to model and coach academic language in a context that is relevant to students.
The final part of this framework is evaluate, the fifth “E.” This is a time for students to
reflect on their learning (Beltran et al., 2013). Students are asked to be metacognitive and
determine what they have learned by going through this process. Although this may include
traditional assessments such as a summative exam or lab report, it may also include a written
reflection or presentation of results to the class. ELLs further develop their literacy skills as they
speak science in the presentations. Teachers provide feedback on their progress, in both domains
of content and literacy, and then decide next steps for instruction.
As an integrated model for teaching science to ELLs, the 5E model highlights the
synergy between teaching science content and literacy (Beltran et al., 2013). What is beneficial
about this model is that students are exposed to content standards as they build literacy skills at
each of the five phases. Students are encouraged to build literacy skills in this type of model
SCIENCE AND LITERACY INTEGRATION 32
because the teacher is facilitating their literacy in the role of a coach. Moreover, this model has
all components described by the NRC’s framework for teaching science: inquiry, direct
instruction, and literacy integration for all students (NRC, 1996).
Teacher Perceptions
Chapter one identified a problem in science education: ELL students are not achieving at
equal rates as their native English-speaking peers in their science classes (U.S. Department of
Education, 2013a; U.S. Department of Education, 2013b). ELL students have often been
scheduled into remedial classes that focus on teaching English, and do not provide access to
rigorous content curriculum (Garcia, 1988). Chapter one also identified new sets of content and
literacy standards that will impact science education (Achieve, 2013; National Governors
Association for Best Practices, 2010). This chapter has reviewed the literature on various
teaching models science educators may use that will help them shift towards the new sets of
standards, for example the ESTELL model (Stoddart et al., 2010) or the 5E model for ELLs
(Beltran et al., 2013). The models and strategies discussed in this chapter may prove beneficial to
teachers, but the literature reviewed to this point has lacked the voice of teacher practitioners
who are working with ELLs. Teacher perceptions of the integration of inquiry and literacy
instruction are needed to identify what teachers know about the topic and what tools they will
need in order to be successful at teaching ELLs under the new set of standards.
Perceived Constraints
Teachers note the assessment demands of NCLB as one of the barriers to implementing
an integrated curriculum (Donnelly & Sadler, 2009). Federal legislation puts an emphasis on
multiple-choice tests and some teachers adjust curriculum to only cover topics that are assessed.
This practice prevents teachers from covering all of the topics outlined by the standards. An
additional concern for teachers is the content of science assessments (Lee, 2005). Teachers
SCIENCE AND LITERACY INTEGRATION 33
debate if the current assessments measure science content, literacy, or combination of both.
Furthermore, teachers working in low socioeconomic status areas tend to make more significant
cuts to their curriculum in response to assessment constraints (Blanchard, Southerland, Osborne
et al., 2010). Teachers express a desire for assessments that are fair and take English proficiency
into consideration (Lee, 2005).
An additional perceived constraint is the lack of resources needed to conduct inquiry
science curriculum (Taylor, Jones, Broadwell, & Oppewal, 2008). Teachers express a need for
more resources that are aligned to the types of materials and equipment working scientists use.
Teachers argue that pre-prescribed labs with simple materials are insufficient in preparing
students to conduct inquiry activities similar to professional scientists. A final constraint related
to resources at the school site is linked to professional development. Santau, Maerten-Riever, and
Huggins (2011) discuss how science teachers may feel comfortable teaching their content, but
are unsure of how to integrate literacy into their pedagogy. Professional development is needed
to equip teachers with strategies to support this integration of content and literacy.
Although there are these barriers to science and literacy integration, this chapter has
provided a synthesis of teaching frameworks or instructional strategies that have been used to
meet the learning needs of ELL students in science classrooms, for example Stoddart et al.
(2010) and Beltran et al. (2013). The literature has shown that there are specific activities
teachers can implement in their classrooms that will support ELL students as they learn both the
science content and further develop their literacy. The underlying themes that have emerged
throughout the literature is that science is best learned for all students through inquiry practices
that are mediated through peers (Amaral et al., 2002) and that developing literacy can be
SCIENCE AND LITERACY INTEGRATION 34
strengthened through social interactions (Siry et al., 2012). These premises serve as the
conceptual framework for this study.
Conceptual Framework: Sociocultural Pedagogy
The conceptual framework for this study is rooted in sociocultural theory that argues that
learning is a social process (Vygotsky, 1978) and that a second language (encompassing the
skills of reading, writing, and oral communication) can be acquired through social interactions
(Block, 2003; Gee, 1992). I will now review the literature on sociocultural theory and second
language acquisition as they pertain to the current research study.
Sociocultural Theory of Learning
Lev Vygotsky is one of the most quoted educational theorists of the 20
th
century
(Smagorinsky, 2007). Although he only lived to be 38 years old, his writings about education
and children have made a lasting impact on the educational community. Vygotsky’s seminal
work Mind in Society was published in English in 1978. American educators used Vygotsky’s
work to revolutionize curriculum and instruction for the benefit of students (Mahn, 1999). A
review of Vygotsky’s theory in the field of science sheds light on how ELL students benefit from
teaching rooted in sociocultural theory.
One of the salient points of Vygotsky’s work is that knowledge is constructed through
social interactions (Vygotsky, 1978; Woolfolk, 2001). He states that formal learning is the result
of interactions between teachers and students that is formed through discourse, prior knowledge,
inquiry, and classroom activities. Vygotsky makes this point when he defines the zone of
proximal development (ZPD) as an integral construct in educating children (Mahn, 1999). The
ZPD can be defined as the set of mental and physical conditions that are the most conducive to
learning. ZPD is a two-tier approach to learning. The first level is what the child is capable of
SCIENCE AND LITERACY INTEGRATION 35
doing independently. The second level is what the child is able to accomplish through the
assistance of a teacher or more able peer. Activities in the ZPD provide the appropriate amount
of challenge to the student, but more importantly are designed with the students’ pre-existing
knowledge and skills in mind. Teachers who use pedagogy that is based on ZPD implement
instruction that begins at students’ current skill level and provides supports and scaffolds to
increase their abilities.
Another key aspect of Vygotsky’s sociocultural theory is the use of peer interactions as a
catalyst for learning (van Compernolle & Williams, 2012). Vygotsky asserted that students of all
skill levels benefit from the interactions with peers who are both more advanced than them and
with those who are less advanced (1978). Students gain knowledge from the coaching and
feedback they receive from peers who have a deeper understanding of the content (Woolfolk,
2001). Peer supports provide a safe learning environment where students can learn from their
mistakes and get immediate feedback on how to improve. More able or proficient students
benefit from coaching other students because it provides them an opportunity to rehearse and
reinforce their knowledge. In essence, all students increase in ability as a result of peer
interactions during learning experiences.
Vygotsky’s framework for education has practical implications for science classrooms.
Howes, Lim, and Campos (2008) describes an example of how young elementary students learn
more about the solar system by incorporating their pre-existing knowledge of the sun and moon
with the astronomy concepts of stars, planets, and moons. Through classroom experiences and
discussions with peers, students adjust their pre-existing knowledge (their personal ZPD) of the
solar system to incorporate new knowledge (their new ZPD). What is Vygotskyian in nature
about this process is the notion that students expand their knowledge based on the information
SCIENCE AND LITERACY INTEGRATION 36
presented in class as a result of social interactions. In this approach conceptual understanding
changes in a dynamic process over time. These same thinking processes apply to secondary
students as well.
The ESTELL framework (Stoddart et al., 2010) and 5E model (Beltran et al., 2013) both
are based in Vygoysky’s sociocultural framework. In the ESTELL model students conduct
collaborative inquiries (Stoddart et al., 2010). Students work with their peers to practice science
skills and to learn content knowledge through the hands on activity. Teachers can support ELLs
during these activities by structuring the activities in the ZPD of the students, and by strategically
pairing more able peers with classmates they will be able to assist. In the 5E model, students
work in collaborative groups during the explore and extend components of the lessons (Beltran et
al., 2013). Students work with peers during these activities to learn together as they explore
concepts covered in class or as they design and conduct their own experiments. These
opportunities provide rich experiences for students to gain content knowledge and increase their
competencies as peers provide assistance and support. Although these pedagogical approaches
have been studied on elementary students, they serve as examples of what could be studied and
then implemented in secondary classrooms.
Second Language Acquisition
Freeman and Freeman (2001) provide a review of the major theories of second language
acquisition. Block (2003) describes a social theory to second language acquisition that is rooted
in a sociocultural framework. Block writes how languages are acquired through interactions in
particular settings, such as schools. For example, children in school are exposed to language
through their discourse with teachers and peers. These opportunities provide rich learning
opportunities for students to absorb language and copy the models presented by their teachers
SCIENCE AND LITERACY INTEGRATION 37
and peers. Therefore, this theory of second language acquisition supports Vygotsky’s (1978)
sociocultural theory because it shows how language acquisition can be facilitated by more
competent peers.
Gee (1992) further supports the concept that language is acquired through social
interaction. Much of our language acquisition takes place within social groups through trial and
error and repeated exposure to language. Gee writes how much of this learning takes place
without formal teaching. The context of the social interaction provides the forum to acquire a
second language. This view of second language acquisition is informed by Vygotsky’s theory of
the ZPD (1978) and how teachers can facilitate second language acquisition. Teachers can
prescribe to a type of pedagogy that incorporates social interactions in classrooms. Activities can
be structured so that students work in pairs or cooperative groups where there is an opportunity
to use language in a social context. Moreover, teachers can make explicit choices in student
pairings. Students with less developed language can be partnered with a more able peer. The
more abled peer should be able to provide the appropriate scaffolding (instructional supports)
that allow their partner to acquire more language (Freeman & Freeman, 2001).
The social aspects of second language acquisition (Block, 2013; Freeman & Freeman,
2001; Gee, 1992) have practical implications for science teachers. Science teachers should be
aware that language acquisition occurs over an extended period of time (Cummins, 1991).
Students may take upwards of seven years to fully acquire an academic proficiency in a second
language. Science teachers can use this time to provide the modeling, coaching, and feedback
students need to further develop their language and literacy skills (Beltran et al., 2013).
Furthermore, teachers can implement curriculum that has multiple opportunities for social
interactions with peers during inquiry activities (Stoddart et al., 2010; Beltran et al., 2013). The
SCIENCE AND LITERACY INTEGRATION 38
social interactions with peers during these activities facilitate second language acquisition as
more abled peers move other students forward in their personal ZPD (Vygotsky, 1978). It is this
integration of science content and literacy, rooted in a sociocultural framework for education that
helps close the opportunity gap for ELLs in science courses.
Chapter Summary
This chapter provided an overview of what is currently known about educating ELL
students in science classrooms. ELL students benefit from instruction that integrates both content
knowledge, through inquiry activities (Stoddart et al., 2010; Beltran et al., 2013), and literacy
development, in the form of vocabulary, reading, and writing infusion in the curriculum (Fang &
Schleppegrell, 2008). The instructional approaches that support ELLs are built upon the
sociocultural theory of learning put forth by Vygotsky (1978). Teachers who implement this type
of pedagogy are ones who structure learning activities so that students gain knowledge and
experience working with peers. More able peers serve as models and scaffolds for students
gaining literacy skills. This view is rooted in Vygotsky’s theory of the zone of proximal
development (1978). Through the assistance of teachers and more able peers, students can build
both their science content and literacy abilities. Teachers who prescribe to this approach to
teaching design curriculum that incorporates students’ background knowledge, adjust instruction
to meet literacy needs, and create classrooms the foster scientific habits of mind (Westby et al.,
1999). However, there are insufficient models of this pedagogy at the secondary level. This study
seeks to identify how secondary science teachers integrate science content and literacy
instruction for ELL students. The following chapter describes the methodology used in the
current research study that will be used to help identify promising practices of this integration at
the secondary level.
SCIENCE AND LITERACY INTEGRATION 39
Chapter 3
Methodology
As stated in Chapter 1, there was an opportunity gap in science education for English
Language Learners (ELLs) in the United States (National Center for Education Statistics, 2011).
ELL students were not achieving at the same level of their native English-speaking peers. The
goals of this study were multi-faceted. One goal was to interview teachers and learn about their
perceptions of the integration of science content and literacy. I wanted to uncover what teachers
already understood and implemented in regards to the integration. Another goal was to identify
promising practices for secondary science teachers who work with ELL students. The promising
practices could inform practitioners with adjustments to their pedagogy that could benefit ELL
students and help close the opportunity gap. A final goal of this study was to add to the literature
about the integration of science content and literacy in the context of ELL students. This study
investigated the following research questions to accomplish the goals:
a) What are secondary-science teachers’ perceptions of the integration of science
content and academic literacy instruction?
b) How do secondary-science teachers integrate science content and academic literacy
instruction as part of their pedagogy?
c) How do secondary-science teachers support the content and literacy needs for ELL
students at the secondary level?
To answer the research questions, I examined how secondary science teachers integrated
the instruction of scientific literacy (the ability to know, do, and talk science as well as have
scientific habits of mind [Lee & Fradd, 1998] which is the process of actually conducting inquiry
science) and literacy (the skills required to read, comprehend, discuss orally, and respond in
SCIENCE AND LITERACY INTEGRATION 40
writing to academic texts presented in the context of schools) for ELLs. This chapter will explain
the qualitative methodology that was used throughout this study.
Current Study
I conducted a qualitative case study with high school science teachers working within
Charter School District (CSD). A case study provided an opportunity to become immersed in an
environment (Bogdan & Biklen, 2003). I chose to conduct a case study in order to allow me as a
researcher to become familiar with the ins and outs of a specific setting. For this study, I wanted
to identify promising practices of how science teachers integrate the teaching of scientific
content and literacy for ELLs. A case study allowed for opportunities to observe behavior and
speak to individuals in the setting. This methodology was appropriate to this study in that it
allowed me to become familiar with teacher pedagogy and perceptions around the issues of
science content and literacy instruction. Additionally, this case study provided the ability to
interview teachers to glean their perceptions on the integration of content and literacy instruction.
This study consisted mostly of semi-structured interviews (Merriam, 2009). This type of
methodology was advantageous to this study because it provided a forum for teachers to discuss
their approach to teaching science content and literacy. Merriam (2009) states that interviews
provide information about teacher perceptions of pedagogy and instruction that cannot be
gathered through observations alone. The information gathered from interviews was used as the
lens to gather data during observations to show what the participants actually did in practice
(Maxwell, 2013). The observations allowed me to observe the practices described in the
interviews in an authentic setting. The combination of interviews and observations allowed for
immersion into the environment (Bogdan & Biklen, 2003) and allowed for valid claims
regarding promising practices in the field of science education.
SCIENCE AND LITERACY INTEGRATION 41
The conceptual framework for this study was rooted in Vygotsky’s (1978) sociocultural
theory. According to Vygotsky (1978), learning occurs through the social interactions of peers.
Vygotsky (1978) proposes that students working with peers are able to mediate each other’s
learning as they support each other on academic tasks. A qualitative case study provided a
mechanism to observe these social learning experiences in action (Bogdan & Biklen, 2003).
Furthermore, the qualitative analysis framework of constant comparative method was used for
data collection and analysis in this study (Glaser & Strauss, 1967). I used this method to guide
data collection and analysis because I wanted to develop an understanding of the commonalities
in teaching pedagogy between the participants in the study. This framework was used to uncover
common themes and findings between the participants that are explained in Chapter 4.
Sample and Population
Setting. The research questions provided the parameters for identifying the appropriate
sample and population for the study (Merriam, 2009). To accomplish the research goals and
answer the research questions, it was necessary that I interview and observe secondary science
teachers who have insight into working with ELL students. In order to obtain this goal, this study
was conducted at CSD, a charter school organization based in a large urban city in southern
California.
CSD was founded and opened its first high school in 2000 (Green Dot Public Schools,
2013). The organization has now expanded to 14 high schools and four middle schools. CSD had
an academic model that included: personalized learning, effective teaching and instruction, data-
driven assessment, college-going culture, family involvement, and beyond the classroom
activities (Green Dot Public Schools, “Mission and Model,” 2013). CDS began a transformation
of Saint High School, a pseudonym, in 2008 (Herman, Wang, & Rickles et al, 2012). Recent
SCIENCE AND LITERACY INTEGRATION 42
studies from the University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) Center for Research on
Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing (CRESST) show that students who attend Saint High
School under CSD management were less likely to drop out and demonstrate higher achievement
on multiple measures (Rickles, Wang & Herman, 2013). School accountability report cards
indicate the other CSD high schools outperform the public home schools in the area (California
Department of Education [CDE], 2012). CSD schools were located throughout the inner-city a
large southern California city. CDE (2012) reports indicate CSD schools were made up of
students who are predominantly Latino/a or African American, with significant populations of
ELL students (range of 10.2% to 24.2%) with low socio-economic status (range 88.3% to 98%).
Appendix D provides more detailed demographic data for the founding five schools of CSD.
These demographics, coupled with the data indicating a record of students persisting longer over
time in high school and scoring higher on state assessments (Herman, Wang, Rickles et al.,
2012), suggest that CSD’s academic model is obtaining results in promoting student achievement
and is working to close the opportunity gap for inner-city students. The success of CSD was
important because it suggested that teachers within this organization were able to make academic
gains for ELL students. Therefore it was important that I researched teachers from CSD to see
what was contributing to their success. Interviews and observations of science teachers from
various schools within this organization were used to identify any promising practices in regards
to the integration of science content and literacy.
The research questions also set the parameter for science teachers who had ELLs in their
classrooms. On average, approximately 20% of students at all CSD campuses are ELLs (CDE,
2012). Additionally, large numbers of students are re-designated fluent English proficient
(RFEP). RFEP students still demonstrate common characteristics of ELLs and benefit from
SCIENCE AND LITERACY INTEGRATION 43
instructional pedagogy that supports their academic literacy development. This population of
students made CSD an optimal candidate for this research study. Conducting this study at CSD
provided an opportunity to interview and observe secondary science teachers who work with
ELLs on a daily basis.
CSD was also selected for this study since all their schools are at the secondary level,
with a vast majority of them being high schools. The research gap identified in chapter one
showed some promising practices for science instruction and ELL support at the elementary
level, but there was less research at the secondary (Lee & Fradd, 1998). The interviews and
observations of the selected CSD science teachers in this study provided insight into the
integration of scientific content and literacy at the secondary level. CSD fit all the parameters of
the research questions and goals of the study and was therefore an appropriate candidate for this
study.
Gaining Entry. There was no official process for gaining access to researching a CSD
school as listed on their website. However, I negotiated access through the assistance of one of
CSD’s vice presidents, Ms. Diaz, and a local superintendent, Mr. Smith, both pseudonyms. In the
capacity of vice-president, Ms. Diaz oversees curriculum, instruction, and assessment.
Additionally, she managed all area superintendents who in turn managed principals and schools.
This position in the organization made Ms. Diaz an initial gatekeeper for the organization
(Maxwell, 2009). She was the best first point of contact because she had thorough knowledge of
the entire organization. Ms. Diaz had thorough knowledge of each school and many of the
teachers at the various school sites. Her approval was crucial for gaining access to participants.
Mr. Smith is the local superintendent of five high schools in CSD that met the parameters
SCIENCE AND LITERACY INTEGRATION 44
discussed above. His knowledge of the principals and schools were crucial to gaining access to
participants.
I submitted an IRB proposal (UP-13-00440) to conduct this study after I passed the
proposal defense. After I received IRB clearance, I began to formally negotiate access and select
the actual setting and participants with the assistance of Ms. Diaz and Mr. Smith. I sent both of
them a formal email request to begin participant selection. Ms. Diaz and Mr. Smith gave
permission to email principals of high schools within CSD asking for their permission to recruit
teachers who would be willing to participate in the study. Ms. Diaz emphasized that participation
in the study would be voluntary, non-evaluative, and confidential. Mr. Smith provided a list of
names and emails of teachers who I could recruit after receiving permission from the principals.
I emailed the principals of three different schools requesting permission to conduct
research at their site. The email included a synopsis of the study that detailed the purpose,
methodology, and IRB approval. I also reaffirmed to the principals that Ms. Diaz and Mr. Smith
approved my request to email them and that participation in the study would be voluntary, non-
evaluative, and confidential. All three principals replied giving permission to email their science
teachers a formal request to participate in the study.
I emailed science teachers at the three sites with the same program description that was
reviewed by Ms. Diaz, Mr. Smith, and the principals. The teachers were informed of the purpose,
frequency of visits, and expected outcomes. Initially two teachers responded stating their interest
in participating in the study. Their informed consent was gained after they agreed to participate.
I had difficulty obtaining an additional participant for the study. After working with my
dissertation committee, I emailed two additional teachers at the school site I worked at (Royal
High School) to join the research study. The two teachers from this school site agreed to join the
SCIENCE AND LITERACY INTEGRATION 45
research study. In total four participants agreed to be a part of this study. How I mitigated this
potential bias is discussed in detail later in this chapter.
Participants. The nature of the research question required the use of purposeful selection
(Maxwell, 2013). The research questions identified a specific sample for the study: high school
science teachers who worked with significant population of ELLs. Participants were selected
based on principals who were willing to provide access to their science teachers. The four
teachers who agreed to participate were Minnie, Marian, Ruth, and Esther, all pseudonyms.
These teachers were selected to be participants due to their qualifications, experience, and
school settings. Each teacher worked in a high school setting with significant populations of
ELLs. Also, due to my past working relationship with these participants, I knew that there was a
large focus on literacy in their courses. We have discussed the importance of blending literacy
instruction with science content. Formally researching the participants allowed me to see how
these teachers carried out their pedagogy in practice. This provided valuable information about
how to integrate scientific content and literacy.
Two of the participants (Minnie and Marian) worked at the same school site, Green High
School. The other two participants Ruth and Esther, worked at the same school site, Royal High
School (a pseudonym). This variation in setting was favorable because it helped to highlight
what individual teachers were doing within a school site. Also, the four participants worked in
the same school district and have received similar professional development in recent years.
Although this was a non-comparative study, gathering data from two different sites was crucial
to gathering and reporting valid data. Due to the setting of this study, common themes from the
data analysis may speak to promising practices that could generalize to other teachers with the
SCIENCE AND LITERACY INTEGRATION 46
same populations of students in similar neighborhoods. The explanation of how data was
collected from these teachers and analyzed will be discussed later in this paper.
Teacher 1.Teacher 1, Minnie, was a female teacher. She taught Advanced Placement
biology and anatomy-physiology at Green High School. She has taught for 18 years and
specifically three at this school site.
Teacher 2. Teacher 2, Marian, was a female teacher. She taught anatomy-physiology at
Green High School. She has taught for eight years, three of which have been at this school site.
Teacher 3.Teacher 3, Ruth, was a female teacher. She taught anatomy-physiology and
chemistry at Royal High School. She has taught for seven years, all of them at this school site.
Teacher 4.Teacher 4, Esther, was a female teacher. She taught biology at Royal High
School. She has taught for four years, two of which have been at this school site.
Role as a researcher. My stance as a researcher was that I wanted to learn from these
teachers in the field. The intent of this study was to identify what these teachers are already
doing well and not to criticize or find errors. Tolman and Brydon-Miller (2001) suggested that
the researcher and participants have an active relationship throughout the study as they generate
knowledge. I anticipated that my history with the participants would foster this active
relationship throughout the study. From the participants’ perspective, there was minimal risk to
them in participating in this study (Bogdan & Biklen, 2003). I had never been in an evaluative
role with any of the participants prior to beginning this study. Although Ruth and Esther worked
at my same school site, I was not in charge of their evaluation. As part of informed consent, all
participants were told that I was studying science pedagogy and not using a teacher rubric to
score them. They were reassured that none of the data collected would be shared with their
SCIENCE AND LITERACY INTEGRATION 47
evaluator for any reason. Our working relationship was not a hindrance to my ability to conduct
interviews and observations using the protocols described later in this chapter.
Additionally, the participants wanted to take part in this study because they desired to
learn from my findings. They asked to know the results of the study after it was completed
(Bogdan & Biklen, 2003). I made it clear to participants that I would provide a summary of
findings and promising practices and provide some level of follow up professional development
if desired. All of this information was discussed during recruitment and the process of gathering
informed consent.
Building rapport. Maxwell (2013) described the importance of building rapport in
qualitative research. Rapport was important because it removed any potential barriers between
participants and me as the researcher. The participants needed to trust that I was capturing their
knowledge through interviews and observations in the most objective manner possible. A lack of
trust could have caused the teachers to be guarded in their interviews and not completely express
their views of the integration of science and literacy. Trust and rapport helped create an
environment where the teachers felt comfortable with me analyzing their classroom practice in
the observations (Bogdan & Biklen, 2003). This trust allowed the participants to teach as they
normally do because they were comfortable with me analyzing their practice in accordance to the
purpose of the study. This helped minimize the concern of me critiquing their practice for the
sole purpose of being critical.
Since I valued rapport as a researcher, I made efforts to build rapport with the teachers
and students at the research settings in order to substantiate the findings of the study. The
participants in this study were other science teachers in my district. Since CSD was a smaller
district of 18 schools and with my past work as a TLF, I had a pre-existing professional
SCIENCE AND LITERACY INTEGRATION 48
relationship with the participants. I built on these pre-existing collegial relationships while
conducting this study. I made it certain to the teachers that I attempted to identify their best
practices in regards to science instruction for ELLs. I ensured the teachers that I was not
evaluating their performance. If I observed any practices that were misaligned with interview
data, then I used the follow-up interviews as a time to discuss the findings with the participants
and seek clarification (Merriam, 2009). This practice showed participants that I had the best
intentions of presenting data in a manner that was fair and consistent with their actual practice.
The participants made a simple request in order to agree to their participation in this
study (Bogdan & Biklen, 2003). The participants asked for me to share findings of the study.
They too wanted to learn from this study and inform their practice. I shared initial findings
during a few member checks (Merriam, 2009). There was a potential bias with reporting the
findings to the participants had the results not been favorable to their practice (Maxwell, 2013).
The bias was inherent because the research questions had an underlying assumption that science
teachers should be incorporating both science and literacy instruction. Findings did emerge that
showed the participants’ practice in a positive light. These findings are presented in chapter four.
As a researcher, I employed “disciplined subjectivity” (Erickson, 1984). I did not ignore
data, either positive or negative, that emerged from data analysis. I wrote the successes and
challenges that were observed. I did write any findings of challenges in a manner that protected
the professional integrity of the participants. In chapter four, I discussed the data that was
gathered in interviews and observations that addressed the research questions. I also reported
findings about how the integration of science and literacy was approached in the classrooms. The
promising practices identified help to fill in the gap in the literature for secondary science
education, but also supported the need for further research (Lee and Fradd, 1998).
SCIENCE AND LITERACY INTEGRATION 49
There were no professional obligations that could be severed through the reading of the
findings. If anything, the pre-existing professional relationships gave an additional insight into
classroom practice and were helpful in sifting through data to answer the research questions.
Data, whether it was favorable or not, that was not connected to the questions was not reported.
Any data not directly needed to support the findings was left out of the final report.
Building rapport with students was important to me as the researcher. I wanted the
students to feel comfortable with my presence in their classrooms. I did not want students to
become so overly nervous by my presence in the back of their classroom that their learning was
affected. To fit into the classroom norms, I matched the dress code of the participants. The
participants at these schools in CSD dressed in business casual. Therefore, I did not overly dress
in a suit and tie that could intimidate students. I did not want my dress to increase student
anxiety. I typically matched the attire of the teaching staff and dressed in khakis and a polo shirt.
I began data collection towards the end of the fall semester. By that point all four
participants had established their classroom culture and routines. A research study at that point in
the year was less intrusive since students were already familiar with their teacher. I wanted to
build off the established classroom culture and build rapport with the students. During the first
observation with each participant I was given the opportunity to introduce myself to the student,
explain my teaching background, and go over the purpose of the study. The participants
welcomed me to the class and encouraged students to do the same. I made it clear to students that
I was enlisting their help to research science education and not evaluate how they learned or
judge their achievement. Sharing this clear goal of the study was used to alleviate any anxiety
students may have had about personally being evaluated.
SCIENCE AND LITERACY INTEGRATION 50
During the first observation in each participant’s classroom, I spent some time just sitting
at the desks and not taking notes. I wanted students (and the participants) to get use to my
presence in the room. After approximately 15 minutes, I began taking formal field notes.
Occasionally I spent a few minutes working with the students during a classroom activity that
involved a discussion or partner activity. I did not use these times to gather data or write field
notes, but just to allow the students to feel more comfortable with an additional adult in their
learning space. This process of building rapport with students allowed them to learn and behave
as they normally would. The closer students were to their typical selves during all the
observations was critical to providing reliable and valid data (Bogdan & Biklen, 2003).
Approach to gathering data. The routine of “disciplined subjectivity,” which was the
practice of using past experiences to guide the interpretation of data in a fair and consistent
manner, was used during data collection (Erickson, 1984). I used this lens as I collected and
analyzed data in this research study. I used disciplined subjectivity because the research
questions had an underlying assumption that science teachers should be integrating the
instruction of science and literacy for ELL students. I looked for signs or trends of this
integration during the observations. This focus made the work somewhat subjective. I was aware
of this bias, but that awareness served as a filter during data collection. I made sure to analyze
any potential disconfirming evidence that was not aligned with my assumption that science and
literacy should be integrated.
The interview and observation protocols described later in this chapter were designed in a
way to mitigate the bias of my underlying assumption. The interview protocol allowed for follow
up and probing questions to explore the research questions, but there were also a few open-ended
questions that allowed teachers to discuss their pedagogy and experience freely. The observation
SCIENCE AND LITERACY INTEGRATION 51
protocol had prompts to gather data that addressed the research questions; however there was an
open ended scripting session to gather data of the experience of the classroom (Bogdan &
Biklen, 2003). I recorded the interviews to ensure that I captured all of the participant’s
comments. I took detailed observation notes, and recorded segments of the observations, to
gather as much data as possible. I analyzed data that related to the research question (see analysis
procedures, below). Data that extended beyond the scope of this study was not included in
reporting of findings. Therefore, the assumptions of the research questions did not serve as a
barrier to collecting or analyzing data that did not agree with my assumptions since all data was
collected and analyzed in the same manner.
Having taught high school science for five years, I was familiar with other pedagogies of
effective instruction that did not fit the assumption of the integration of science content and
literacy that was proposed by second research question. Although I had biases as an educator, I
used my experience as a lens to gather data. I was aware to not let my bias prevent me from
ruling out evidence of promising practices that did not support the idea of science and literacy
integration.
Bogdan and Biklen (2003) described the observer-participant continuum that affects how
a researcher interacts with setting, participants, and collects data. I made efforts to be 80%
observer and 20% participant for this research study, which placed me in the category of
“observer as participant” as described by Merriam (2009). My goals of this study were to
identify teachers’ knowledge and perceptions about science and literacy integration, as well as to
identify how science teachers were integrating their curriculum for ELL students. Too much
participation in the classroom, such as co-teaching or overly assisting students with assignments,
would have alter the learning environment in a way that biased the data, made the study
SCIENCE AND LITERACY INTEGRATION 52
inauthentic, and prevented me from answering the research questions. I observed teacher actions
during instruction to see what was done so I could make a feasible assertion as to what could be
accomplished in a classroom with only one adult in the room. I interacted with students during
group work in the form of walking around and seeing what kind of work they are doing to assess
their level of understanding or comprehension of the activity. I used this information in follow up
interviews with the teachers to understand their perceptions of what was taking place in their
classrooms and to have teachers evaluate their own practices.
Data Sources
This case study gathered data from three distinct data sources: semi-structured interviews,
observations, and documents/artifacts. In addition, transcriptions of the interviews, notes, and
analytic memos (Merriam, 2009) were part of the data collected. All data sources provided
information that was analyzed to triangulate findings that related to the research questions
(Maxwell, 2013). Below is an explanation of the purpose and rationale behind each data source
and how data were analyzed.
Semi-structured interviews. This study incorporated the use of semi-structured
interviews with teachers in order to gain their perspective on how they integrated literacy and
science content in their pedagogy (Merriam, 2009). A copy of the protocol is found in Appendix
A. Each participant was interviewed on three occasions. The first interview for each participant
used the protocol listed in Appendix A and described below. The second and third interviews
were follow up interviews based on observation data and used the protocol included in Appendix
B. The procedures for follow up interviews numbers two and three are described later in this
section.
SCIENCE AND LITERACY INTEGRATION 53
The protocol for the initial interview opened with a brief overview of the study. The
participants were reminded of the purpose of the study so they had a sense of what kinds of
questions they would be asked. I stated the themes of the protocol at the beginning to frontload
participants’ responses. Furthermore, I made a point to clarify to teachers that there were no
intended answers to the questions. I stated that the objective of the interview was to hear their
views and perspectives in an open forum. Clarifying the purpose let teachers know that I wanted
to hear their honest responses. The formal opening of the interview set the tone that this was a
research study and not two colleagues having an informal discussion. The opening was intended
to remove any bias that pre-existing relationships brought into the study. The opening discussion
of the purpose countered the assumption that the participants already understood the purpose of
the study. The opening statement was intended to neutralize any power differentials by showing
the participants that I wanted to hear their thoughts and perspectives, not force my own upon
them. Additionally, I asked the participants if they were comfortable with me recording the
interview for follow up transcription. I gave my focus to the protocol questions and the answers
of the participants, so I only took simple notes during the interviews.
Following the opening script, the participants were asked if they were comfortable having
the interview recorded. I made sure the teachers knew that all findings would include a
pseudonym for themselves and their school site, but the charter company would be named. This
helped to lower any anxiety about being recorded since the participants knew their identities
were protected (Bogdan & Biklen, 2003). This was important because it created an opportunity
for participants to share their true perceptions about the topic. The use of recording allowed me
to transcribe the interviews within a week after the interview. The transcripts became data
sources for analysis. The use of transcribed scripts will be discussed later in this chapter.
SCIENCE AND LITERACY INTEGRATION 54
The first series of questions were purposefully designed to be rather opened ended and
build rapport. The question of “What do you define as effective science teaching?” opened the
door for teachers to share their perceptions about pedagogy. I included opinion and value
questions to show the participants that I valued their expertise and that there were no prescribed
answers to my question (Merriam, 2009). Asking the participants about their opinions allowed
them to disclose what they felt was necessary. Their answers began to show their perceptions
about science and literacy integration. Additionally, the opening questions were non-threatening
in that it enquired a true opinion from the participant; there were no hidden assumptions about
the true definition of effective science teaching.
After the opening questions, the protocol was then divided into three themes, with each
theme addressing a research question. The first theme was centered around science instruction
and this related to the first research question about teacher perceptions of science teaching. The
second theme in the protocol was about literacy and this addressed the aspect of literacy
integration from the first and second research questions. Finally, the third theme about supports
for ELLs was used to answer the third research question about the promising practices for ELLs.
These types of questions were more experience and knowledge related (Merriam, 2009). The
goal of these questions was to gather data that was used to answer all of the research questions.
The protocol included follow-up or probing questions that could be used to further the
discussion as needed. I asked all the main questions of each participant to provide consistency in
data collection. However, the protocol was also designed to be flexible to a certain extent. If a
teacher discussed an inquiry or literacy strategy that they often used and deemed effective, then I
asked follow-up questions to gather more information about this potential promising practice that
addressed the third research question. If a participant revealed a perception about integration that
SCIENCE AND LITERACY INTEGRATION 55
warranted further discussion, I asked follow-up questions accordingly. The tone of the questions
throughout these three main sections was also neutral. The questions were written to not put
participants on the defensive and poorly influence how they responded to the questions. I was
able to ask what the teachers knew about the topics and this was used to answer the research
questions.
I maintained a neutral tone by following the protocol as it was written. The questions
were worded in a non-threatening manner. For example, there was a question that stated: what is
your view of literacy instruction? This question was non-threatening because it asked the teacher
to share her perceptions since there was no one correct answer. The wording of the question was
intended to not upset the teacher if they did not have much experience with literacy. Adhering to
the protocol ensured that I was able to maintain my neutral tone. I remained neutral during
follow up questions by focusing on the themes of inquiry, literacy, and ELL supports. I framed
questions in ways that prevented the discussion from becoming focused on student behavior,
district politics, or teaching strategies beyond the scope of the study. This attempt to maintain my
role as researcher, and not colleague, during the interview assisted the flow of data collection.
However, if the participants brought up information that was beyond the scope of the study, I
still recorded and analyzed it since it may have suggested information about their perceptions or
practices.
The protocol ended with a series of two general questions that were meant to bring
closure to the interview. The questions asked the teachers about how their instruction had
changed over the years and what advice they would give to a new teacher entering the field. In
addition to building rapport, the answers to these questions indicated further perceptions about
literacy and science integration. If for example, if they stated that they have included more
SCIENCE AND LITERACY INTEGRATION 56
literacy instruction throughout the years, this suggested that they valued this pedagogy. The type
of advice the teachers gave to new teachers beginning their career provided insight into the
values of the participants. These questions provided a forum for teachers to think in broad terms
of teaching and identify any salient knowledge or advice they wanted to share. The participants
in this study had at least four years of teaching experience and had a lot of information to share.
The closing questions provided me an opportunity to gather any data about their pedagogy that
was left unsaid throughout the interview. This information proved beneficial for answering the
first question about their perceptions of the integration of science content and literacy instruction.
The protocol ended with providing the participants an opportunity to ask me any questions about
the study or my next steps with their data.
The total protocol was intended to last anywhere between 30 to 45 minutes. The length
was adjusted according to the amount of follow up questions needed for each participant.
Immediately following each interview, I wrote a memo about my impression of the interview
and salient discussion topics. These memos shaped follow up interviews. Within one week of
each interview, I listened to the audio recording and wrote memos on general themes or trends
gathered from the interview. As themes emerged I transcribed relevant sections of the interview.
The transcriptions were then used as evidence during data analysis.
The initial interviews using the protocol in Appendix A took place between December
and January. I interviewed the participants on the same day I conducted a classroom observation.
I interviewed during the time period mentioned above because it was a good time in the school
year for the participants. Schools began in early August. Waiting to begin data collection towards
the end of the semester gave the participants ample time to establish routines, create a classroom
culture, and have the rituals of instruction in place. By this point in the year teachers had a better
SCIENCE AND LITERACY INTEGRATION 57
understanding of their students’ needs and how to support them. Interviewing the participants at
the beginning of the school year could have generated more general answers and not specific
answers to their current caseloads.
I interviewed each participant three times. After the first interview using the protocol
included in Appendix A, I proceeded with two follow up interviews using the protocol in
Appendix B that was influenced by observation data. I conducted the first of three classrooms
observations after I completed the initial interview. The procedures for the observations are
described later in this chapter. The second interview (a follow up interview) took place after the
second observation. The objective of the second interview was to discuss aspects of the
observation or provide clarification to what was observed. A protocol for the follow up
interviews is attached as Appendix B. The second interview was also a time to member check
(Merriam, 2009) initial reflections on the data and follow up with questions from the initial
interview. The goal was to conduct the second interview during the first two weeks of January in
order to not conflict with midterms. The third and final interview was conducted in the same
manner after a third observation. The conducted these interviews between the last two weeks of
January and first two weeks of February, prior to midterms. I did not want to create any
additional burdens to the participants. The participants were always emailed options when
schedule interviews and observations and they made the final selection of dates and times during
the scheduling process.
The process of ongoing data analysis is discussed later in this chapter, however, if the
need for a follow up interviewed arose, I conducted these interviews in the last week of
February, prior to any school vacations.
SCIENCE AND LITERACY INTEGRATION 58
Observations. I conducted a total of three observations for each of the participants.
Multiple observations were beneficial for this research study because I wanted to observe and
record authentic experiences in science classrooms (Bogdan & Biklen, 2003). A single
observation would not provide enough data about how science teachers implemented their
pedagogy. The use of three observations provided more data and made it less likely that the
participants planned a lesson that demonstrated what they thought I would want to see. I
recorded the observations, when given the consent of the participants, so that I could gather
direct quotes from the participants. Furthermore, I was able to refer back to the recording to
support the field notes generated from the observation protocol.
Appendix C is a copy of the observation protocol I used during data collection. The
protocol was designed to capture multiple aspects of a classroom. The protocol began with
general information of location, date, time, etc. There was a section for me to draw a lay out of
the classroom (Merriam, 2009) to capture a more detailed account of the observations I
experienced (Bogdan & Biklen, 2003). The lay out was a useful tool in data analysis. It enabled
me to provide thorough descriptions of the classroom arrangement as they pertained to my
analysis. The visual image showed how students were seated in the classroom. I was able to see
where and with home the ELL students were seated and paired. The lay out of the classroom also
indicated how teachers structured their class in terms of student-to-student interactions as it
related to the conceptual framework of peer mediated learning. Finally, I indicated on the lay out
any posters/visuals that addressed scientific literacy or literacy in general, as well as student
work samples. The information posted throughout the room suggested teacher preferences and
instructional foci.
SCIENCE AND LITERACY INTEGRATION 59
There was also a section for me to record information from the white board and/or LCD
projector. I took pictures sparingly (but with consent) in order to lower any participant anxiety. I
therefore wrote down the class agenda and lesson objective on the protocol in terms of field
notes. It was beneficial to record the lesson objective and agenda so I could analyze the extent to
which science and a literacy instruction were integrated in the lesson. This section also
prompted me to look at student work or posters placed throughout the room that might relate to
my research question and data collection. I wrote field notes about relevant documents posted
throughout the room. I took pictures of those documents when field notes were not sufficient.
The next substantial section of the protocol included a space for me to script what I
observed in the lesson. I used the template of teacher action/student action to record what was
said and done throughout the observation. I used time markers every 10 minutes to ensure that I
captured data consistently throughout each observation, and this strengthened data collection and
analysis (Bogdan & Biklen, 2003). The focus of this study was on teacher actions so that was the
majority of the data collected using the protocol. I observed and collected some data on student
actions in terms to how they respond to literacy instruction. I mostly focused on their level of
engagement, ability to complete the academic tasks, and interactions with text. I did include
direct quotes from students because that was beyond the limits of the IRB. However, I wrote
memos about my general perceptions of how ELL students responded to the instruction that was
observed.
I used the last section of the protocol to gather data that directly related to my research
question. I included a series of questions that sparked reflective field notes during the
observation. I reflected on the rapport between teacher and students in the classroom and the
amount of scientific content and literacy integration throughout the lesson. Immediately
SCIENCE AND LITERACY INTEGRATION 60
following the observation I wrote reflective memos about my impressions of the visit and the
answers to the ending questions of the protocol. These memos shaped the questions used for
post-observation interviews with the participants.
The first series of observations took place during the last weeks of December and first
two weeks of January, in conjunction with the initial interview. The second observation took
place in mid-January in conjunction with a second interview. The third observation took place in
late-January and early February, prior to midterms and spring vacation, in conjunction with the
third interview. I did not need to add an additional observation in late-February when I
concluded the data analysis phase of the research study.
The timing and scheduling of the observations was a logistical choice because it provided
me the opportunity to conduct interviews after observations. The spacing of the observations in
two-week periods was needed due to employment constraints and professional obligations; I
could not take off more than one day a week during data collection. Each of the three
observations lasted between 30 minutes and an entire class period. This amount of time provided
the opportunity to observe multiple activities and gave a feel for how the participants structured
their class on a day-to-day basis. In total, I spent between 90 minutes and two hours in each of
the participant’s classrooms.
Documents and artifacts. The use of documents and artifacts was another data source
for this study (Merriam, 2009). Documents were a valuable sourced because they were collected
and analyzed throughout all parts of the data collection time frame (Merriam, 2009). There were
fewer logistical restraints to obtaining documents, whereas interviews and observations required
more coordination of schedules and time. Maxwell (2013) discusses how documents are an
advantageous data source because they can be used to triangulate data to either support or refute
SCIENCE AND LITERACY INTEGRATION 61
findings taken from interviews and observations. I used documents to triangulate with how
teachers discussed pedagogy during the interviews. The documents also provided more
information about what was seen during the observations.
I collected as many documents and artifacts as possible from the participants, such as: lab
guidelines, teacher-generated assignments, homework handouts, articles read in class, lecture
slides from PowerPoint, project guidelines, photos of images displayed throughout the
classroom, and school site professional development handouts. These artifacts were a valuable
data source because they provided information as to how science content and literacy were
integrated in the class. Lab guidelines showed how inquiry was implemented in the classroom
and whether it fit the model of scientific habits of mind described in the literature (Westby,
Dezale, Fradd & Lee, 1999). Assignment handouts showed how literacy was integrated in the
classroom and the level of accommodation for ELLs, if any. School site professional
development handouts were important documents because they indicated the frequency of
discussion or professional development on the topics of literacy and/or ELL supports. Finally,
photos of posters or other visual aids posted throughout the classrooms indicated teacher values
and perceptions. Word walls, posters on the scientific method or literacy in general suggested
teacher pedagogy and what they valued in their instruction. I discussed documents gathered with
the participants during follow up interviews. I asked the participants to describe how they used
the documents and/or explain why they used the documents in their classroom. The triangulation
of the collected documents and artifacts corroborated with data generated from interviews and
observations to provide a detailed account about how secondary science teachers integrated the
instruction of scientific contend and literacy for ELLs (Maxwell, 2013).
Data Analysis
SCIENCE AND LITERACY INTEGRATION 62
This case study used qualitative methods with constant comparative method (Glaser &
Strauss, 1967). The research questions had an underlying assumption that science teachers
should be integrating science content literacy, but there were no pre-existing answers to the
question. This approach to data collection and analysis permitted themes to emerge that were
specific to this case study. Below is an explanation of how I analyzed the data to generate themes
and findings. I implemented simultaneous data collection and analysis as described by Merriam
(2009) and Maxwell (2013) that was broken down into purposeful steps.
Step 1. I spaced out the interviews and observations in two-week cycles during the
months of December through February. I conducted the initial interview (Appendix A) with each
participant and first observation (Appendix C) in December. Following this first cycle of data
collection, I transcribed the interviews and typed up my observation field notes. I then read
through the transcriptions and field notes to become familiar with the data. I wrote down my
impressions of the data in the margins and wrote research memos after the reading to record my
thoughts on the data (Taylor-Powel & Renner, 2003).
Step 2. The next step was to narrow the focus of the analysis (Taylor-Powel & Renner,
2003). I copied all of the participants’ answers to each question into one document so I could
read all four answers to a single question. I re-read this combined transcript by question to look
for common ideas in the responses. I took notes in the margins of common responses between
the participants. I used an open coding system to create codes as described by Strauss and Corbin
(1980). I read through the data to identify how often the participants made reference to one of
these codes. I noticed that common codes emerged that related to each research question.
The following codes were noted for the first research question: teacher perceptions, examples of
inquiry, examples of literacy, and challenges. For the second research question the following
SCIENCE AND LITERACY INTEGRATION 63
codes emerged: examples of inquiry implementation, examples of literacy implementation,
strategies to overcome challenges, and frequency of implementation. For the third research
question the following codes were used: ELL teaching strategies, approach to teaching ELLs,
and use of peer activities. The codes shaped follow up questions for the second and third
interviews.
Step 3. The third step was to categorize the information (Taylor-Powell & Renner, 2003).
I re-read the codes for each research question and looked for themes in the data (Merriam, 2009;
Maxwell, 2013). For the first research question the themes of the value of inquiry and literacy
were recurrent, as well as the challenges in implementation. For the second research question the
theme of using literacy, at the expense of conducting an inquiry lesson to teach science content
was common across the participants. However, there was a theme for implementing aspects of
inquiry in literacy-rich lessons. For the third research question the theme of instructional
scaffolds to support ELL students was apparent.
Step 4. The fourth step was to review the observation field notes and documents
collected in light of the themes to verify if these data supported the further use of the themes in
data analysis. The observational and document data reinforced the used of these themes because
there were data to support what the participants had stated in the interviews. This form of
triangulation (Merriam, 2009) supported the later use of follow-up interviews and observations
to gather data to see if these emergent themes were findings for the research questions. This
process was aligned to the constant comparative method put forth by Glaser and Strauss (1967).
Follow-up analysis. After this initial data collection and analysis, I proceeded with the
second and third round of data collection. I used the time in between each cycle to analyze the
transcriptions, reflect on observation field notes and memos, write follow up questions for
SCIENCE AND LITERACY INTEGRATION 64
subsequent interviews, and review documents collected. As themes gathered more data during
the second and third rounds of collection, I adjusted follow up interviews, observations, and
document collection to look to for both confirming and disconfirming evidence of these initial
findings (Merrim, 2009). Themes that were tested and withstood each cycle of interview and
observation, in line with constant comparative method (Glaser & Strauss, 1967), became the
research findings discussed in Chapters 4 and 5.
In order to substantiate research findings, I analyzed data from all sources: interviews,
observations, and documents. This process of triangulation was crucial to validating my claims
(Merriam, 2009). In order to have a finding, I incorporated data from interviews, observations,
and documents. For example, a participant might have given an example of how they integrated
literacy into their curriculum, but I needed to support this statement with evidence from an
observation and document. Claims that were supported from multiple data sources were more
valid and aligned with qualitative research. As described earlier, I formulated a coding system
after the first round of interviews and observations (Merriam, 2009; Maxwell, 2013). As
common themes emerged amongst the codes, I formulated working hypotheses (in line with
deductive reasoning) that were tested in follow up interviews and observations (Merriam, 2009).
Findings that were supported by data from multiple rounds of analysis became the answers to the
research questions.
Time Line
The school settings and participants were selected in October after IRB approval was
received. I emailed each participant in November to set the schedule for the interviews and
observations. For their convenience, I wanted the participants to be comfortable with the dates
and times of the interviews and observations.
SCIENCE AND LITERACY INTEGRATION 65
I conducted the first interview, using the protocol included in Appendix A, and first
observation between mid-December and early January. Transcription and initial data reflection
took place the week after the interviews and observations. Beginning this study at that time
period gave teachers more time to establish and maintain their classroom culture. Teachers had
almost an entire semester to establish classroom culture and routines of instruction. I was able to
observe the authentic instruction of each teacher. Observing classrooms with established routines
provided reliable data because the established classroom culture showed what students
experienced on a daily basis. This time of the year was not disruptive to instruction as well since
the interviews and observations were not scheduled around any examinations.
The second observation and follow up interview (the second of three interviews) took
place during the middle to end of January. The spacing between the first and second interviews
was strategic. I used that time to transcribe and analyze initial data. The third observation and
final interview (third of three interviews) took place during the first two weeks of February. This
time period was before midterms and did not conflict with instruction. From my own experience
as an educator, the days before midterms were hectic and students were anxious. I did not think it
would be beneficial to the study to observe during that time. This was the last scheduled
interview so I made sure to ask any follow up questions that still need to be addressed. The
objective of the final interview was to capture any last evidence that supported the research
findings and substantiates any of the comments given by the participants during the interview
process. This final observation was a final opportunity to gather any outstanding documents or
artifacts that proved beneficial in the triangulation process (Merriam, 2009).
I used the time in between each round of interviews and observations to prepare to ask
follow up questions about the information gathered during the interviews and observations. I
SCIENCE AND LITERACY INTEGRATION 66
formulated these questions as I reflected on the data in between observations and interviews. The
follow up interviews were also a time to member check (Merriam, 2009) any of my initial
findings to see if the participants could clarify any information or reconcile any misconceptions.
I analyzed all the data during the month of February and began to write drafts of chapters
four and five. I set aside time in beginning of March to follow up with the participants if there
was a need for a further interview or observation. I did member check the findings with the
participants during a visit in March. There were not any observations during this visit, it was just
a time to discuss findings and let the participants review the findings to see if they were
comfortable with how their perceptions and pedagogy were being portrayed in the study. The
data was analyzed and chapter four was completed by the end of March. I have included a
timeline summary of this study in Appendix E.
I collected documents and artifacts during each round of interviews and observations.
During the first interview, I asked each participant if they would be willing to share any of the
documents they used in that lesson and in future observations. All participants gave their consent
for me to collect any documents they used in their class. The participants shared all documents
from the observations observed and even provided documents of past and upcoming lessons that
they referenced during some of the interviews. I also brought my camera to each observation to
take pictures of classroom visuals that were useful in data analysis. I requested electronic copies
of some documents in between observations if the participants did not have an extra copy to
provide me during the observation.
When I had established a rapport with the participants, I asked for some copies of
handouts from their professional development. I waited to ask for these documents until that time
because I want to have an established rapport with each participant and establish myself as a
SCIENCE AND LITERACY INTEGRATION 67
researcher. Asking for those documents up front could have put the participants on the defensive
and hinder data collection. I only asked for these documents once I thought it was a necessary
tool. One of the participants provided copies of a reading strategy used at their school site. I
continued to ask the participants for other documents as the need arose for additional evidence.
I analyzed all documents to find supporting evidence for the themes derived from the
interviews and observations. The documents were helpful to substantiate what the participants
claimed they did (in interviews) and what they actually did (as seen in observation). Taken
together, the three data sources were used to triangulate findings and answer the research
questions.
Reliability
Golafshani (2003) describes how reliability in qualitative research is a different construct
than quantitative research. For qualitative research, reliability relates to the concepts of
consistency, dependability, and applicability (the ability to generalize). The terms are used to
describe how a qualitative study helps explain a setting or phenomenon in an in-depth manner
(Golafshani, 2003; Bogdan & Biklen, 2003). The goal of this study was to describe how various
science teachers integrated the teaching of science content and literacy. I carefully selected
research methods that allowed for reliable data that were consistent and dependable. The data
collected were consistent because I used the same interview and observation protocols for each
of the four participants. All four participants had the same ability to discuss their perceptions and
demonstrate their pedagogy by the use of the same research tools. The research methods were
dependable due to the fact that interviews, observations, and documents worked together to
describe a phenomenon that was supported from multiple angles (Merriam, 2009; Maxwell,
2013).
SCIENCE AND LITERACY INTEGRATION 68
The implementation of the same interview and observation protocols increased the
reliability of the study (Merriam, 2009; Maxwell, 2013). Although the follow up questions varied
slightly for each participant, all the participants were asked the same initial questions. The
answers to these initial questions allowed me to make comparisons across all the participants and
generate common themes. I observed teachers using the same observation protocol. This was
important because it ensured that I captured the classroom lay out, agenda, lesson objective,
teacher actions, lesson reflection in the same manner for all four participants during all the
observations. The rationale for the observation protocol was provided earlier in this chapter.
Using that rationale, it was important that I captured the same aspects of each classroom equally.
The use of the same protocol helped generate trends that led to research findings. The data
collected contributes to the reliability because it was collected using the same mechanisms, thus
allowing each participant to be represented fairly (Bogdan & Biklen, 2003).
I formally observed each participant a total of three times, with each observation lasting
approximately 30 minutes to an entire class period. Each participant was observed between 90
minutes to two hours. The amount of time spent observing the classrooms gave me a better sense
of their instructional style. The use of several observations was beneficial to the participants
because it prevented me from making claims based on only one observation. Multiple
observations prevented the scenario if I had observed a participant on a day when something did
not go accordingly to plan or there was some extenuating circumstance that affected their
classroom. This would not have been a fair representation of the teacher. The additional
observations helped show what was true to their practice. Claims generated from several
observations helped build consistent data that reflected a more accurate account of teacher
practice (Merriam, 2009; Maxwell, 2013).
SCIENCE AND LITERACY INTEGRATION 69
Validity
Golafshani (2003) proposed that for data to be considered valid and trustworthy that
readers must be assured that the researcher mitigated any biases, assumptions, or threats to their
data. The qualitative design of the current study had some inherit threats to validity. Below I
explained each threat and then discussed the steps I took to ensure these threats did not
jeopardize the data.
As stated earlier, I worked with four teachers from my district. The threat was my pre-
existing professional relationship with the potential participants of the study (Erickson, 1984;
Maxwell, 2013. I was a professional development provider when I taught in the district used in
this study. I provided five professional development sessions (approximately two and a half
hours each) to the participants during the three years prior to beginning this study. The
professional development was planned with a committee of other teachers so I was not solely
responsible for the information being provided to the teachers. These relationships were
professional and collegial, that were not based on evaluation, but on sharing a desire to grow
expertise as science educators. Our work together was non-confrontational and positive. Also,
during the time of this study, I no longer was on this professional development committee. I
removed myself from this committee in order to assume the role of researcher and not influence
their professional development.
Out of the four participants selected to be in the study, Minnie and Marian worked at the
same school site that was different from the school site I worked at. I had no day-to-day
interactions with their campus. I have never worked at the same school site with either Minnie or
Marian. There was no evaluative relationship with either of them. The data were not shared with
SCIENCE AND LITERACY INTEGRATION 70
their administrators. This prevented any anxiety about having to guard their answers and not
share true perceptions. This lack of anxiety helped gather valid data.
The other two participants, Ruth and Esther, were teachers at the school site I worked at.
We had been department colleagues, but during the dissertation proposal process I was promoted
to assistant principal. There were reasons why this could become a conflict of interest, but listed
below are the measures I took to mitigate any potential biases that would make data invalid.
Since transitioning out of the classroom I directly worked with the history and math
departments. I no longer attended science department meetings and became removed from the
day-to-day operations of their department and classrooms. I did not evaluate or supervise either
Ruth or Esther. The data gathered from the study were strictly confidential and not shared with
their evaluator. My colleagues and I went through many peer observations over the years. They
were already accustomed to my presence in the classroom. I knew their teaching practice and
could decipher between a “dog and pony show” and the reality.
The use of member checks supported the validity of the data (Merriam, 2009). If I
discovered any findings that were unfavorable to the teacher or confusing in nature, then I
discussed these preliminary findings or themes with the participants to receive clarification. Any
discrepancies were corrected. The member checks happened in person during follow up
interviews to help build and maintain rapport. The use of e-mail was insufficient in gathering
clarification since tone could often be misconstrued. I valued the use of member checks because
it allowed the participants the ability to ensure their thoughts and actions were being captured in
a fair manner. This process allowed me to report information as intended by the participants
(Bogdan & Biklen, 2003). The additional set of eyes was helpful to not overlook a finding.
SCIENCE AND LITERACY INTEGRATION 71
To increase the validity of these data and minimize any bias, I triangulated between
interviews, observations, and documents from both school sites. Findings that were salient
between both school sites proved more beneficial in answering my research questions. These
findings pointed to teaching practices that could be more generalizable, and not just the practices
of a single setting. I also eliminated a potential bias in working with my colleagues by the use of
member checking. I gave all the participants the opportunity to examine scripts and field
observations to see if I was representing their classroom in a fair and consistent manner. Taking
all four participants together, analyzing data from four teachers across two different school sites
provided an opportunity to compare more data. Findings that emerged between all four
participants could be taken as promising practices that could possibly be generalized to others,
and not just the findings of one school site.
Time constraints were another potential threat to the current study (Weiss, 1994). I was
not able to select school settings and participants until I received IRB approval. I estimated this
would happen sometime in late September due to the date of my proposal defense. The
participants could have been overwhelmed during this time period (approaching midterms) and
this might have hindered their willingness to participate. I made sure to clearly lay out the plan of
interviews and observations upfront so teachers could expect the frequency of my visits and how
much time they would take. The spacing of the interviews and observations in two-week cycles
helped ease the burden on participants. I conducted the interviews and observations with enough
time in between each one to ensure that there was ample time for data analysis and member
checks as needed. Time was set aside in early March for follow up interviews in case there were
not enough data collected to support findings. This plan ensured that I would be able to collect
enough data over an extended period of time that could be used to answer my research question.
SCIENCE AND LITERACY INTEGRATION 72
The applicability or generalizability of the findings was an additional threat to the
validity of this study (Maxwell, 2013). This study examined four teachers at two different school
sites, within the same district. Although other teachers may not fit the paradigm of this district or
there school sites, secondary teachers with ELL populations would benefit from the findings of
this study. Effective teaching pedagogy around the integration of scientific content and literacy
could potentially be implemented at various school sites beyond this district with similar student
populations (Lee & Fradd, 1998). The participants of this study had at least four years of
teaching experience. Readers of this study who were not as experienced may not be in the place
of their career where they could implement all of the promising practices of these educators.
However, more novice educators could look to these findings as models of what to do
incorporate into their classroom as they gain more teaching experience. Furthermore, the results
of this study in terms of teacher perceptions and pedagogy indicated a direction for further
research. This research could examine the student perspective or include a larger sample size that
would allow for more generalizable findings. Chapter five provides more detailed areas of future
research based on the results of this study.
The use of data triangulation was the primary mechanism to establish the validity of this
study and counter the threats to validity listed above (Merriam, 2009). I triangulated in a
systematic way. The interview transcriptions and memos were the primary data sources that
explained how teachers integrated science content and literacy instruction. As I read through the
transcriptions and memos I found common themes (as described above in this chapter) amongst
the participants and the school sites. I shared initial findings with my faculty adviser to get
feedback on the data.
SCIENCE AND LITERACY INTEGRATION 73
After this process, I turned to the observation field notes and memos to look for
confirming or disconfirming evidence. The observations showed if the teachers were able to
implement what they described in the interviews. The next step in triangulation was looking to
documents that supported the thoughts and actions of the teachers as gathered through interviews
and observations (Maxwell, 2013). I used these data from each interview and observation cycle
to formulate the follow up questions for subsequent interviews and observations. The focus of
the second and third round of data collection was to gather more evidence that supported the
themes that emerged. This process of triangulation mitigated validity threats because it provided
a procedure to ensure that data were thoroughly examined and that findings were substantiated
with evidence. Looking ahead, chapters four and five will discuss the data collected and findings.
The findings that emerged from this study were the result of common themes between the
interviews, observations, and documents across all four participants and the two different school
sites. All findings were reported using data from all three sources. Patterns that emerged from all
three sources substantiated the data and established validity.
Chapter Summary
I examined the role of teacher pedagogy in science instruction for ELL students. The goal
of this study was to identify how science teachers integrated science content and literacy
instruction for ELLs. This chapter provided an overview of the methodology of this study that
was used to address the research question. The methods used to collect data, namely interviews,
observations, and documents, provided evidence of how teachers were approaching this
integration in their classrooms. The methods for data analysis showed how data were analyzed
and reported in chapters four and five of this dissertation. The end result of this study was to
generate a list of promising practices that other science educators could use in their classes as
SCIENCE AND LITERACY INTEGRATION 74
they work with ELLs. The next chapter provides a summary of the data that were collected as a
result of the methodology described in this chapter.
SCIENCE AND LITERACY INTEGRATION 75
Chapter 4
Results
Chapter 1 identified the changing context of science education standards: Common Core
State Standards (National Governors Association for Best Practices, 2010) and Next Generation
Science Standards (Achieve, 2013) and the current achievement of students from the United
States compared to students from other countries (U.S. Department of Education, 2013b). More
specifically, English Language Learners (ELLs) have difficulty achieving in science due to the
language restraints presented by the curriculum (Guglielmi, 2012). Furthermore, Santau,
Maerten-Rivera, and Huggins (2011) identified that ELL students are not making the same
academic gains in science achievement as their native speaking peers. Data from the National
Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) substantiated the opportunity gap for ELLs in
science courses (U.S. Department of Education, 2013c).
Chapter 2 reviewed literature about pedagogical frameworks for teaching science to ELL
students (Stoddart, Solis, Tolbert, & Bravo, 2010; Beltran, Sarmiento & Mora-Flores, 2013). An
integral component of these frameworks included the integration of literacy alongside the
teaching of science content through inquiry. However, Huggins (2011) discussed that although
science teachers may feel comfortable teaching their content, they may be unsure of how to
integrate literacy into their pedagogy. A goal of this study was to identify what science teachers
at the secondary level (defined as grades six through twelve) believe and understand about the
integration of science and literacy. Additionally, this study aimed to uncover evidence of how
teachers integrated science content and literacy and supported ELL students.
The following questions guided the data collection process:
a) What are secondary-science teachers’ perceptions of the integration of science
content and academic literacy instruction?
SCIENCE AND LITERACY INTEGRATION 76
b) How do secondary-science teachers integrate science content and academic literacy
instruction as part of their pedagogy?
c) How do secondary-science teachers support the content and literacy needs for ELL
students at the secondary level?
Qualitative methods were used to collect data and answer the questions above. Multiple
interviews (three per participant) and observations (three per participant) generated data related
to teacher perceptions about the integration of science content and literacy and supports for ELL
students. Data from interviews, observations, and documents were triangulated to yield findings
that addressed the research questions (Merriam, 2009). The answers to the research questions
attempted to close the knowledge gap of how secondary science teachers perceived the
integration of science content and literacy, and to highlight pedagogical practices secondary
teachers can use to support the learning needs of their ELL students in science. A brief summary
of the findings were that the participants valued the use of inquiry and literacy as pedagogical
tools to teach science concepts and build scientific habits of mind. However, there were
disconfirming data presented about the actual implementation of inquiry-based instruction. The
data showed that the participants had a strong focus on using literacy to teach scientific concepts
and made explicit efforts to scaffold instruction for ELL students. The implications of the
findings will be discussed in the following chapter.
Four participants (all known by their pseudonyms) were interviewed and observed to
gather data. Information about Participant A, known as Minnie, Participant B, known as Marian,
Participant C, known as Ruth, and Participant D, known as Esther is summarized in the table
below. The table provides a summary of each participant’s background and teaching experience.

SCIENCE AND LITERACY INTEGRATION 77
Table 1
Summary of Participant Demographics
Participant Name Total Years of
Teaching Experience
Years of Teaching
Experience at Current
Site
Course(s) Observed
(Grade of Class)
Participant A: Minnie 18 years 3 years -AP Biology (12
th
)
-Anatomy-Physiology
(12
th
)

Participant B: Marian 7 years 3 years Anatomy-Physiology
(12
th
grade)

Participant C: Ruth 7 years 7 years Anatomy-Physiology
(12
th
grade)

Participant D: Esther 4 years 2 years Biology (10
th
grade)

Vignettes of Teacher Pedagogy
Research question one asked about teacher perceptions about the integration of literacy
and science content as a means to develop scientific content knowledge. The second research
question aimed to identify how teachers implemented a pedagogy that integrates literacy and
science. The final research question further intended to define and delineate specific scaffolds
that are used to support ELLs have access to a literacy integrated science classroom. The
vignettes presented below provide an overall view of how the participants approached teaching
science to ELLs. Specific data related to the research questions are presented after the vignettes.
Definitions for the terms pedagogy and literacy are required to frame data reporting. As
stated in Chapter 1, pedagogy is the set of teacher beliefs and values that affect their choices in
instructional strategies and teaching methods. Literacy was defined as the skills required to read,
comprehend, discuss orally, and respond in writing to academic texts presented in the context of
schools.
SCIENCE AND LITERACY INTEGRATION 78
Minnie
Minnie’s classroom was literacy rich in that she provided opportunities for reading,
writing, and discussion in her classes. All three classes observed began with a warm up activity
that consisted of an “AMPed” article. AMP stood for: anticipation, marginalia, and post-reading.
Prior to reading the article students began the anticipation section of the assignment. This section
asked students to either predict what the article was about or provide a preliminary answer to a
question about the topic prior to reading the article. The students continued with reading the
article. During the reading students were encouraged to make use of marginalia, writing notes or
questions in the margins. Minnie circulated to tell students comments such as, “Write in the
margins” or “Don’t forget your marginalia.” Students were able to do this since Minnie had
enlarged the margins of the articles to provide room for students to mark the text by writing
questions or connections about the reading. There was an expectation that students write
something in the margins on every warm up activity that was observed.
Students had approximately 10-15 minutes to complete this part of the assignment. After
completing the reading, Minnie engaged the class in a whole group discussion. Minnie began
each discussion by asking students to identify the tier one, tier two, and tier three vocabulary
words. The tiers of vocabulary were based on the work Beck, McKeown, and Kucan (2002) and
presented to Minnie’s school district through the adapted work of Kate Kinsella (2012). Tier one
was for words that were common to everyday language. Tier two words were academic language
that was not necessarily content specific, such as analyze or interpret. Tier three words were
words that related to the language of the discipline and were content specific. An example for
biology would be mitosis and an example for anatomy-physiology may be femur. Minnie spent
time at the beginning of the year teaching her students the differences between the tiers of
SCIENCE AND LITERACY INTEGRATION 79
vocabulary. During the whole group discussion Minnie called on various students to identify
examples of each tier of vocabulary that was found in the lesson. Minnie asked the students to
justify their answer if it was unclear or reaffirm if the words identified were appropriate to the
tier. This process created an avenue for a rich discussion based in academic language. Students
were able to practice using the language of the discipline through their participation in the
discussion, which included speaking, listening, and writing about the academic terms.
Following the discussion of the tiers of vocabulary Minnie would extend the conversation
to discuss the content of the article. For example, in one observation students read an article
about sickle cell anemia. Minnie led a discussion about the health effects of this genetic
condition. Minnie related the discussion to the topic of dominant and recessive alleles, the
content students were learning. Students were required to use academic vocabulary in their
answers. For example, they had to say “dominant” instead of “strong” when referring to a trait.
Minnie modeled how to say responses in academic language if students struggled. The students
had to repeat the answer back to the class. The process was observed on all three observations.
Students would proceed to the post-reading activity either later in the period or for homework.
Examples included completing a Punnett Square based on Mendelian genetics or researching the
effects of drinking too much caffeine.
Minnie implemented pedagogy of integrated literacy within the science lesson. Each
observation had some example of reading, discussion, and writing. The literacy-based activities
were used as tools to teach and review the science content. They ease at which students met the
expectations for reading, discussing, and writing suggested that literacy teaching was common
practice in this classroom.
Marian
SCIENCE AND LITERACY INTEGRATION 80
The students were observed using project based learning. During one observation
students worked in collaborative groups on a project about the anatomy of a long bone. Students
were required to draw, label, define, and identify the functions of various parts of the long bone
on their poster. Students reviewed their notes and previous readings to the find the definitions of
the terms. Marian circulated and helped students identify and label the parts of the bone if they
struggled. She referenced various Greek and Latin word parts, such as epi-, endo-, and peri- to
guide students to the definition of the term. For example, she asked one group to use their
knowledge of the word part peri-. She helped students connect how peri- stands for “around”
which relates to the periosteum, which is the membrane that surrounds long bones. The students
used their knowledge of other word parts during this activity as well. This suggested that
students had had repeated and ongoing instruction to this material throughout the school year.
In another observation Marian’s students worked on a project related to the digestive
system. Students were again placed in collaborative groups designing a poster that traced the
path of food through the digestive tract. Students not only made the poster, but they also
responded in writing to questions about the digestive system. For example, the assignment
required students to select one of the organs in the digestive system and describe the mechanical
and chemical digestive properties of said organ. Additionally, the students were required to write
about a disease or condition associated with that organ. This part of the writing assignment was
more rigorous and required additional research and the inclusion of other literacy practices
(reading and writing from sources).
Marian assisted students by discussing their answers to the questions prior to having them
write them down. One student asked a question about the esophagus but struggled to find a way
to communicate his idea. The student wanted to say that food traveled down to the stomach, but
SCIENCE AND LITERACY INTEGRATION 81
Marian helped the student find the academic language of “food travels through the esophagus” to
correctly state the idea, by saying, “Look at your notes. What connects the mouth and stomach?”
Once the student identified the esophagus Marian then had the student repeat the entire comment
in a complete sentence. This process of modeling academic language was observed in multiple
groups throughout the classroom. This reinforced the expectation that students must speak in
academic language.
On the third observation Marian’s students began to work on a cross-curricular
assignment between their anatomy-physiology and economic classes. Students were assigned to
research a health issue, such as the access to healthy foods in their community, and design a
business plan to solve the problem. Marian was observed showing her students how to gather
qualitative and quantitative data. These data would be used to research their issue and aid in the
development of their business plan. Students read and analyzed charts and diagrams, and worked
in pairs to write hypothesis and research questions. Students were also assigned some readings to
do for homework to further research the background of their issue. This project was intended to
be an avenue for scientific inquiry and literacy to be fused together in the building of scientific
knowledge. This project was a prime example of how literacy could be infused into a science
classroom to aid the learning of scientific knowledge. The project involved many aspects of
literacy (reading, discussing, and writing) as well as required students to work through the
scientific method by asking a question and conducting a mini-research study.
Ruth
During one observation Ruth’s class studied the central nervous system. More
specifically, students examined how various forms of narcotics negatively impacted the
functioning of the nervous system. Ruth assigned students a “Thought Lab” that was taken from
SCIENCE AND LITERACY INTEGRATION 82
a text book. Students had to read a short text describing the procedures for the lab with their
partner. Ruth instructed the students to use the reading strategy CATCH: circle unknown words,
ask questions, talk to the text, capture main idea, and highlight evidence (see Appendix F for a
more detailed description of this strategy). This reading strategy had been implemented across
the district (and is described in detail later in this chapter and in Appendix F). The students in
Ruth’s class had been taught to use this strategy in all of their core classes. Ruth read the first
paragraph of the assignment using the CATCH strategy. Students then continued by reading the
remainder of the passage with a partner. After students completed the reading the students
discussed the requirements of the “Thought Lab.” The assignment called for students to select
one narcotic and select a question and design lab procedures for an imaginary lab if they could
test the negative effects of that drug on the nervous system. The students worked in groups to
begin the steps of the scientific method to think through how they would design their imaginary
lab. This process allowed students to use their literacy skills (reading various texts, discussing
with a partner, and writing procedures) as a tool to learn new science knowledge.
At the end of the class period Ruth described an extension assignment based on the
“Thought Lab” that students worked on in following lessons. She assigned students to further
research a narcotic and its effects on the nervous system. Students had to create a pamphlet about
the narcotic and present to the class. Literacy was integrated into this project to support the
building of scientific knowledge about the nervous system. The project was also an example of
how literacy could be integrated to complete scientific research.
On a second observation, students engaged in a sheep brain dissection as part of a
culminating task on their study of the brain. Students worked in groups to complete the
dissection protocols at their own pace. A part of the protocol required students to read passages
SCIENCE AND LITERACY INTEGRATION 83
from the text-book to either label sections of the brain or answer questions about the anatomy.
Additionally, one of the questions asked students to think about the potential effects that would
result from bumping their head. Students had to read the text and discuss with partners to gather
information as they formulated their opinions. The addition of reading text during a lab protocol
goes beyond the standard inquiry lab format most students encounter (Tweed, 2009). This
assignment showed a model of how literacy (more specifically, reading and speaking about text)
could be used as a tool to enrich science content during a lab activity. Ruth chose to have
students not only do science, but engage in text as a way to support knowledge construction. This
instructional approach showed how literacy could be authentically integrated into an inquiry
activity, and not seen as an add-on activity to fill time.
Furthermore, in a third observation the students engaged in reading a text about the male
reproductive system. Students read the text with their peers and answered various text-based
questions that had been created by the teacher. Students were required to use evidence from the
text to justify their answers. After some work time, Ruth facilitated a class discussion about the
text that generated multiple questions from the students the spurred the conversation in many
productive directions, such as the role of hormones and differences between men and women. In
this instance, literacy helped students critically think about a topic and construct their
knowledge. Ruth used the text and follow up discussion as a way to obtain her objective of
teaching the students about the structure of the male reproductive system. The collective data
from the three observations indicated that the use of literacy, through reading, writing, and
discussion about science text could be used as a tool to develop scientific content knowledge.
Esther
SCIENCE AND LITERACY INTEGRATION 84
Esther’s class had a focus on writing and speaking like a scientist. There were multiple examples
of activities in two different observations that required students to participate in think-pair-shares
about the content being delivered. Students were prompted to use the academic vocabulary and
help their partner infuse more academic language when necessary. On one occasion, Esther’s
students reviewed Mendelian genetics and predicted the outcomes of various genetic crosses.
The students were given a guiding question: Why do you think some people look more like one
parent than the other parent? Students were given time to write their answer in their notes,
however they were required to use the academic vocabulary that was taught in prior lessons.
Some of the words in the academic vocabulary word box were: genes, chromosomes, trait,
dominant, recessive, allele, etc. All of these words had been taught at the beginning of this unit
and students were continuing to become familiar with the words during subsequent lessons. After
a period of silent writing, Esther instructed the students to discuss their answer with their partner
and record their partner’s answer in their own notebooks. Esther then called on students to report
their answers to the class. Esther required students to restate their answers using academic
language in complete sentences. This process allowed students to hear multiple model responses
using academic language as they explained the scientific concepts.
During another observation students were learning about the physical characteristics of a
DNA molecule and the history on the discovery of the model. Students viewed multi-media
clips, read excerpts of historical speeches about the topic, and constructed their own models of
the molecules. Throughout this series of activities students were exposed to academic vocabulary
and Esther modeled how to use these terms appropriately. The structure of the learning activities
provided examples of how literacy could be authentically infused while teaching science content.
SCIENCE AND LITERACY INTEGRATION 85
Summary of findings from vignettes. The vignettes provided an overview of how the
participants approached the integration of literacy in their science classrooms. A common thread
between the classroom observations was that the participants displayed pedagogy that
incorporated multiple opportunities to read, discuss, and write about science content during their
lessons. Literacy based activities, such as reading an article or researching a topic were used to
teach the science content. The fact that participants used multiple literacy strategies in each
observation suggested that literacy was an important component of their pedagogy. The first
research question was directed at understanding what the participants perceived to be a literacy-
integrated pedagogy.
Research Question One: What are secondary-science teachers’ perceptions of the
integration of science content and academic literacy instruction?
Chapter 2 presented literature about using scientific habits of mind as a way to teach
science concepts (Westby et al., 1999) and described strategies teachers use to build these skills
or thought patterns in students. The participants were asked a series of questions to identify their
perceptions and experiences on building these habits of mind in their classrooms and then using
this type of pedagogy to teach science content. This information was necessary in order to
determine if and how they integrated habits of mind with literacy.
Habits of Mind
The participants were asked to describe how they defined scientific habits of mind as it
pertained to their pedagogy. The answers to the questions revealed what the participants already
knew about this concept. Minnie commented that:
Habits of mind is… not rote memorization, it is not just gathering of facts, but having a
mind of scientific thinking, critically thinking, gathering up data, critically looking at data
SCIENCE AND LITERACY INTEGRATION 86
to make informed decisions. You need to gather data, critically think, it’s like the
scientific method. You need to apply it to everything.
In classroom observations, Minnie encouraged scientific thinking by asking many “why?”
questions to students. This type of questioning encouraged critical thinking because students had
to think deeper about the material and make connections between their past and current
knowledge. By thinking about the “why” of a scientific concept, the students were learning more
than just factual knowledge. Students would also write questions during an AMPed article
reading. Students would ask Minnie these questions during the follow-up discussion. Minnie
would not just give students a direct answer. Instead she would ask students to go back to the
reading to find evidence or connect the question to a previous learning experience. Minnie was
quoted saying, “What do you think?” in response to students’ questions. This practice supported
her earlier comment about stressing the need to think critically in her classroom. For example,
one student asked a question about why sickle cell anemia is more common in African American
populations. Minnie guided the student (and the remainder of the class) to the understanding that
sickle cell anemia is caused by a recessive gene that is more common in African American
populations. Minnie then encouraged critical thinking by asking students to discuss this
implication on the health of African Americans and their access to health care. The students used
their knowledge of science to then discuss an important health issue in the community.
Ruth described habits of mind as, “I think of the line of thinking like a scientist, really
inquiring about their own questions, and going about it, can they create their own protocols?”
Ruth’s comment emphasized that she perceived habits of mind to be based on students asking
questions about the material and then designing their own procedure to gather and collect data.
Her response implied that she viewed habits of mind as having students experience the scientific
SCIENCE AND LITERACY INTEGRATION 87
method in their learning process. During one observation, Ruth’s students were learning about
the nervous system. They were assigned a Thought Lab project where they had to come up with
a question about the nervous system. For example, one group asked, “What are the effects of
caffeine on the nervous system?” while another group asked, “What are the consequences of lack
of sleep on the nervous system?” The students then had to plan out a theoretical design to test
their question, since these questions could be ethically tested in a high school setting. This
assignment suggested that Ruth valued building habits of mind in her classroom because she
allotted time for students to ask questions and work on designing an experiment.
Esther defined habits of mind as, “Definitely, inquiry based. How do you take something
that’s going on in the environment or in your community and using investigation and the
communication of your results to answer that question?” Esther’s response indicated a perception
that using habits of mind is an important aspect of science teaching and learning. During
observations, Esther encouraged students to ask questions about the material, although no formal
investigation was observed during the timeframe of the study.
The participants were then asked to describe how they instructed students to build these
scientific habits of mind in their classrooms. Minnie stated, “For habits of mind, I like giving less
details.” This response indicated a deliberate teaching choice in giving students less information
in order to create a situation where they would need to investigate on their own and fill in the
details. On one observation, Minnie’s students were learning the differences between translation
and transcription. Instead of providing a traditional lecture on the material, Minnie displayed a
visual representation of these processes. She asked students to observe the picture and describe
what they noticed was happening in each part of the cell and to describe the function of mRNA.
Minnie probed with questions to have students uncover the depth of this concept. Students had to
SCIENCE AND LITERACY INTEGRATION 88
then compare and contrast what was happening in each of these stages and come up with their
own understanding of the processes. Although this learning activity was more student-centered
than a traditional lecture, it offered some disconfirming evidence about building habits of mind.
The students were thinking and speaking like a scientist, but they were not fully participating in
working like a scientist. The learning focused on attainment of factual knowledge that was not
extended to conceptual knowledge, nor did it incorporate critical thinking. However, this was an
introduction to the topic and the objective was to introduce students to the factual knowledge.
Marian discussed a project she had assigned in her class to build habits of mind. She
described it as, “an ongoing project…We are starting to develop the questions and we will
continue in semester two…I added the data report and this experiment thing.” The project she
mentioned was going to be a student project on sexually transmitted diseases and the level of
student knowledge and awareness of the issue. Marian showed work samples where students had
written a question and working hypothesis during the first quarter of the school year. Students
would go back to this project at the beginning of second semester and design survey questions
before collecting and analyzing their data and sharing their findings with the class. This project
was intended to have students build habits of mind by asking questions, collecting data,
analyzing it to form conceptual understanding, and presenting results. The follow-up data
collection was not observed due to the scheduling of the observations, but Marian did comment
that she would return to this ongoing project later in the school year.
Ruth described how she encouraged habits of mind in her classroom:
I try to do it once in a while. I do it more with anatomy. I did it when we did that project
where kids had to choose a topic and they had to come up with a question and actually
research the information. The idea was that they chose a problem, had to research it, and
SCIENCE AND LITERACY INTEGRATION 89
tell us what they learned about it. I did it last time with this paper we did. I tried to have
them apply what they learned in the classroom to outside content. I gave them
parameters, but they had to come up with their own questions, working on the claim,
evidence, reasoning because that’s what we’ve been working on. So it’s connecting it to
that itself.
Ruth’s response showed how she intentionally created an assignment where students would need
to conduct an investigation in order to build their scientific habits of mind. The process did not
happen on its own; it had to be a deliberate pedagogical choice. Additionally, the Thought Lab
assignment that was observed early in the data collection phase was aligned to this type of
thinking. Ruth assigned this task to students in order to encourage them to think like a scientist
and plan out an experiment to test their question. This type of assignment showed how Ruth
valued the development of habits of mind in her classroom.
Esther also described how she purposefully built scientific habits of mind:
Oh from the very first day. You have to teach them to read, write, and think like
scientists. You have to build that expectation on the very first day. It starts off small and
then of course builds when it comes to projects. These are skills that need to be cultivated
and maintained on a daily basis.
Esther’s response indicated that building scientific habits of mind is a well-thought out process
that takes up instructional time. Although her students were not observed conducting a formal
inquiry lesson (due to scheduling difficulties during data collection), Esther did require students
to ask questions or to speak and write about her questions during every observation. The use of
speaking and writing about questions encouraged the development of habits of mind and the
learning of scientific concepts. This use of literacy, in the form of speaking and writing about
SCIENCE AND LITERACY INTEGRATION 90
science, was used to help build scientific habits of mind. These data showed that literacy was
used as a tool to build scientific habits of mind.
Role of Inquiry
The participants were then asked to explain the role of inquiry in science learning as it
applied to their classroom. Minnie responded:
I feel like inquiry is very student centered, little to no at the end teacher input and let’s
see what happens. The kids don’t like that. That’s not their normal way of instruction…
You have knowledge and questions. I don’t have to always do it for you. Let’s come up
with some questions together. This is something we have to do across the board in all
grade levels: the inquiry and student-led classroom…..They just want a worksheet…
They want to identify all the time. This is like a struggle for me that comes from other
places. Get on board with me not telling you everything. As teachers we need to figure
out that gradual release…We have to all work together so they feel comfy. If they have
barriers they begin to shut down. If they have a language barrier they shut down.
Minnie’s response indicated her perception that inquiry is an important tool to teach scientific
concepts because it moves away from teacher-centered transmission pedagogy and requires
students to construct their own knowledge. However, Minnie expressed that inquiry can make
students uncomfortable because a majority of the cognitive load is placed on them. Her
comments suggested that teachers need experience in designing appropriate paced inquiry
lessons that teach students how to design and conduct an experiment. Minnie also brought up the
potential struggle for students who have language barriers. As noted earlier in this section,
Minnie used a diagram to teach about the differences between translation and transcription.
Although she intended this activity to spark constructivist learning, the transmission of
SCIENCE AND LITERACY INTEGRATION 91
knowledge was still from teacher to student. Here we see that although Minnie identified the
value of inquiry-based instruction, she did not implement it in this case. The barriers she
identified, such as student comfort level and language issues, could be roadblocks in
implementing inquiry-based instruction.
Marian described the role of inquiry in her class. She stated:
I think we have the privilege of having labs. Labs are really hands on and you have a
question, and we have the steps on how you’re going to answer it. Like, what does this
result mean? And what I think is embedded in all of that are critical thinking skills and
they are masked by this fun lab. So I think that is a great part of teaching science.
Marian’s comment suggested that labs are a tool to teach scientific concepts because they are
both engaging and allow students to learn the material in a hands-on experience. Students
working through a lab protocol are given the opportunity to build habits of mind and develop
critically thinking skills as they analyze their data. During the final observation, Marian had her
students writing survey questions for their joint science and economics project about the access
to healthy foods in the local community. Marian had her students ask each other their questions
to gather data that would be analyzed in follow-up lessons. Marian was using this project as a
way to teach the scientific method and give students the opportunity to analyze data that were
relevant to them.
Ruth also remarked about she used inquiry to teach science concepts in her class. She
stated:
Inquiry is giving them a chance to explore in a topic, you can give them a topic and they
can go into certain areas of their interest. And they’re the ones given the opportunity to
actually build the experiment and they can pose the question and do the experiment to see
SCIENCE AND LITERACY INTEGRATION 92
what they find, and that opportunity again to be that scientist and implement the scientific
method. And so they can see that it’s not a recipe because those steps can be in different
orders….you’re giving them that space to apply what they’re actually learning. It’s kind
of training them.
This description of the role of inquiry indicated Ruth’s perception that investigation and
experimentation was an important aspect of teaching students how to use the scientific method to
apply the knowledge covered in the classroom. The Thought Lab assignment was Ruth’s way of
having students experience inquiry in her anatomy class. This assignment required students to
investigate the effects of various narcotics or other conditions (such as lack of sleep) on the
nervous system and left room for students to ask questions and design an experiment that was
relevant to their interests.
Esther added about inquiry:
It should be the foundation. The problem is that many times students don’t come with the
language to be able to communicate what it is they are trying to say to each other. And
some of them don’t come in with the skills to be able to build the investigation in order to
actually carry out the inquiry. So many times we are actually attacking that problem from
different fronts. So that’s why some days seem less inquiry base than others, but in a true
scientific classroom on a regular basis inquiry is the foundation.
Esther’s comment acknowledged the importance of inquiry in the classroom, but also laid forth
the many challenges inquiry presented. Students with language barriers or a lack of inquiry
experience may have difficulty designing and conducting their own experiments when they begin
a high school class. Esther’s comment about “attacking that problem from different fronts”
SCIENCE AND LITERACY INTEGRATION 93
suggested the need for scaffolds and differentiated instruction to provide struggling students
access to inquiry instruction.
Frequency of Inquiry
The participants were asked how often the incorporated inquiry into their classroom.
Ruth commented:
I’m not that consistent with it. I try to do it at least for sure around twice per semester,
some kind of inquiry activity where the students are doing the learning. I’m aware that
sometimes I don’t hit everything I want to, so I remind myself to bring it back and hit
those points.
Ruth’s response showed that although she valued inquiry as an important tool to teach science,
she had yet to implement it on a routine basis in her classroom. Observational data indicated that
there were aspects of inquiry implemented in the classroom, such as the Thought Lab and the
research project she described earlier, but it was not a component of every observation the
occurred.
Esther described her frequency of implementing inquiry as:
Nearly every day. Even if it’s something, you give them a question and they turn to their
neighbor and figure it out. Or sometimes I give them a prediction and I ask them how we
could test that out. What would you do if someone asked you that question? On some
level they do some sort of inquiry even if it doesn’t turn into a big experiment. But I like
to use questions to help them uncover more questions.
Observational data yielded some evidence to support this statement. Esther did pose questions to
students about the material, such as asking students to predict the effects of certain gene
SCIENCE AND LITERACY INTEGRATION 94
combinations during reproduction. Esther did encourage students to speak with their partner and
attempt to answer her questions.
Success of Inquiry
The participants’ perceptions of the success of inquiry were the next line of questioning.
Ruth stated:
I think what they learn and get out of it. Because it’s not me constructing this knowledge.
And that’s what the big thing now. It’s getting them to construct it. If you can construct
an inquiry activity and structure it so you’re just guiding them I think you get what you’re
looking for and they will improve what they learn.
Ruth further added, “I like their level of engagement and buy-in.” These comments taken
together implied Ruth’s perception that inquiry was a beneficial tool to teach science because the
emphasis was placed on students building their own knowledge through experiential learning.
Esther too mentioned that inquiry instruction was more engaging for students. She
observed:
They’re much more excited about their science instruction than they have been before.
Many of my kids come from a middle school where there wasn’t a lot of strong science
instruction. So 9
th
grade was such a transition that I don’t think they gave their science
instruction a whole lot of, I don’t think they were as fair to it. But in my class, because
I’m so excited about it, I’m running around, high-fiving, jumping, singing songs, I think
they see that it’s something enjoyable they allow themselves to enjoy it. They give
themselves permissions to be nerds for lack of a better term. So they trust me and they’re
willing to do it. Of course it doesn’t always look the way I want it to. But I explain that
with errors that’s where science has come from as well.
SCIENCE AND LITERACY INTEGRATION 95
This teaching style was observed during data collection. On one observation Esther used a song
to review the history behind the discovery of DNA. Esther used the song to capture student
interest and review an important topic. After the school she transitioned to having students build
and construct DNA models using paper cut-outs. Although the lesson was not a full inquiry-
based experiment, there were elements of posing questions and reviewing historic data about the
development of DNA theory.
Pitfalls of Inquiry
Pitfalls of inquiry were also discussed during interviews. Ruth remarked that sometimes
the:
Knowledge won’t be there or they won’t see those connections they are supposed to see
or at least you were hoping they’d see. That they might get stuck in terms of how to get to
the end piece or going back to how can we re-evaluate this because this isn’t what I was
looking for. Or sometimes you might get stuck as a teacher actually helping them do the
project so they’re not doing it by themselves anymore. These are some of the issues.
Ruth’s comment suggested that although she valued inquiry as a teaching tool, she
acknowledged that it presented difficulties in implementation. Her response indicated that
students may encounter difficulties during inquiry that require teacher intervention, or that
students may not learn the scientific concept that was the objective of the inquiry assignment.
These two facts presented disconfirming evidence between Ruth’s intention and implementation
of inquiry. The goal of inquiry is to have students explore a topic to build scientific conceptual
knowledge. Too much teacher intervention in the form of helping students complete a project
may prevent students from developing the scientific concepts on their own. The fact that students
SCIENCE AND LITERACY INTEGRATION 96
were not able to complete an inquiry task could be evidence of a lack of previous inquiry
instruction or scaffolds.
Esther shared similar views about the difficulties of inquiry implementation:
In the nature of pacing and having to keep up and benchmarks and those sorts of things
you can’t get too far off track, but in a perfect world you’d say “Hey, run with it.” But
that’s the biggest problem. That sometimes it may take too long because there are so
many things they’re interested in. And you’re trying to, you don’t want to squash their
spirit or creativity but, it’s like, “I want you to talk about photosynthesis.” I balance
between how much teacher-centered and student-centered their inquiry is going to be.
But that’s the biggest issue when they veer off track or take a long time to answer it.
This comment expressed Esther’s frustration with her perceived lack of time to conduct more
inquiry in her classroom. Esther’s comment showed that she wished she could have students
explore all of their questions, but that she needed to follow the curriculum pacing plan set forth
by her district.
Esther further clarified another pitfall of inquiry that, “Many times they don’t have the
language to be able to discuss the concept. And lack of equipment. Many times they will have
this great experimental design but we don’t have what they need to carry it out.” This statement
showed how literacy can be a barrier to conducting inquiry. Although Esther would like her
students to conduct inquiry investigations, the students are hindered in their expression of their
ideas due to their vocabulary. This suggests a need to scaffold vocabulary as students are taught
how to conduct an inquiry experiment.
Esther’s comments suggested that although she valued inquiry, there were practical
challenges to implementation, such as following the pacing plan, student knowledge of academic
SCIENCE AND LITERACY INTEGRATION 97
vocabulary, and lack of equipment. Her comments suggested that inquiry can be a way for
students to explore their interests, but it needs to still be structured in a way so that students learn
the required scientific concepts. Esther’s acknowledged challenges to implementing inquiry in
her own classroom suggested that she would benefit from professional development that taught
her how to scaffold inquiry for struggling students so that they could learn conceptual knowledge
while building scientific habits of mind.
Summary of Findings-Inquiry. The participants viewed inquiry as an important tool for
teaching both scientific habits of mind and conceptual knowledge. Challenges and limitations
with inquiry implementation were identified, such as student experience with inquiry, language
barriers, following pacing plans, and lack of resources.
Literacy
The participants were asked to define literacy in their own classrooms. Minnie stated,
“Literacy is reading, discussing, and writing about science content.” Marian defined literacy as
the “Communication and development of foundational knowledge of scientific concepts through
reading, writing, and discussion.” Ruth said that literacy “is a way to access the content and
material and be able to access it. One thing is being able to read…and understand and explain it
back in their own words. Can they make sense of it on their own? I think it helps them connect
ideas.” Finally, Esther’s definition of literacy was “the ability to read and write and then
articulate what you think based on what you’ve read and written.” Although the participants
varied in their responses, a common theme emerged: literacy was defined as reading, writing,
and discussing science content. This definition of literacy was aligned to the definition of
academic literacy presented in chapter one: the skills required to read, comprehend, discuss
orally, and respond in writing to academic texts presented in the context of schools.
SCIENCE AND LITERACY INTEGRATION 98
Minnie. After a definition of literacy was established, each participant was asked to
describe how they integrated literacy into their classrooms and how often. Minnie extended her
definition of literacy by saying that:
Literacy instruction is reading and writing. Reading, I want to say interpreting and then
writing, in science class is critical. The reading strategies are very, very important, like
annotating. You have to do something when you read. That could simply mean that you
write a word that’s already there again in the marginalia. Draw an arrow from one thing
to the other thing. You will not internalize unless you do something with the thing you
are reading in preparation for the big thing you’ll do which could be a test or an essay,
and in our class an exam and essay. We got to hit everything. So I think the annotating
and reading strategies are very, very important. Understanding like connections with the
content it helps you be able to synthesize information. You can read about two things but
you need to be able to compare and contrast them, which is a higher order skill. But when
you read you need to be prepping your mind.
This statement showed how Minnie viewed literacy as an important pedagogical tool in her
classroom that she has integrated by having the students annotate as they read. When asked about
how often she integrated literacy in her classroom she responded:
I want to say every day….text, every day. Annotating, every day…It’s so goofy, but the
marginalia is very important. We talk about in class that you can’t lose weight if you just
watch those [P90X] videos…literacy for our class is annotating, the marginalia. I tell the
kids you’re exercising your brain, like you can’t lost weight if you watch Zumba….you
actually have to do something when you read.
SCIENCE AND LITERACY INTEGRATION 99
Furthermore, Minnie stated that literacy was part of her class on a daily basis. In all three
classroom observations, each of at least 30 minutes, students engaged with reading a short text as
part of their warm up activity. Minnie’s students read and annotated text, identified vocabulary
words, participated in a class discussion, and responded in writing to questions in all three
observations. Minnie indicated that this type of warm up is a daily routine. These comments,
supported by observational data, demonstrated that Minnie placed great value in integrating
literacy into her teaching practices.
Marian. Marian stated that she integrated literacy in her curriculum through close
reading of diagrams and articles:
So we read from the text out loud. I will start reading and then choose a person. And they
choose the next person. We’ve done CATCH. I think all of [the district] has used
CATCH as a tool. And then, in the beginning of the year CATCH was more explicitly
taught using a think aloud. And then now, for diagram, let’s look at this diagram. What
are all the parts? And that’s actually a think aloud too. And the same for graphs.
The way Marian described how she integrated literacy into her classroom suggested that literacy
was used as a tool to close read texts and help students access diagrams, graphs, and texts.
Marian further stated “Literacy is the framework for [science]. It’s the beams that holds it
together.” Marian stated that her students read and discussed texts on a weekly basis, either
during the warm up or during class activities. During each observation she provided a copy of
the text that students were working on. The amount of articles that students read in class showed
that literacy was integrated in her class on a frequent basis. This suggested that Marian perceived
literacy as a tool to either introduce or extend on science content.
SCIENCE AND LITERACY INTEGRATION 100
Ruth. Ruth commented that it has been one of her goals this year to incorporate more
literacy into her classroom. She stated:
The goal is to get the kids to use literacy to draw the knowledge from it and then create a
discussion. And that’s what I want to do and I’m working on it... I’ll give the kids articles
and we’ll discuss. I think it’s to engage them more, you get the learning from what’s out
there and let’s look if it’s right or not and let’s check with each other. It’s also to expose
them to different literature that’s out there as well…I’ve seen with the readings you can
have good engagement and interest.
Ruth commented that she incorporated some sort of literacy activity, whether it was reading,
discussing, or writing “at least once per class period.” This type of literacy instruction was
observed in Ruth’s class on multiple occasions. During one observation she had the students read
a short text about synapses and their function in the nervous system. After the reading activity
Ruth facilitated a discussion about the article. Students asked questions about disorders of the
nervous system, such as cerebral palsy and epilepsy. The article provided an avenue for students
to learn the material by asking their own follow up questions during the discussion. During
another observation, students studied the reproductive system by reading an article and designing
a visual representation with a partner. Each of these lessons observed could have been taught in
the traditional lecture format with students engaged in note taking (Tweed, 2009). However,
Ruth’s choice to use literacy as a tool to teach the content indicated her belief that literacy was a
powerful tool to teach science. Her use of literacy involved students through questioning and
discussion. This pedagogical approach placed more emphasis on students to use literacy to build
their knowledge compared to more traditional lecture formats where knowledge was transmitted
SCIENCE AND LITERACY INTEGRATION 101
to students. Ruth’s choice of pedagogy indicated that she viewed literacy as a valuable teaching
tool.
Esther. Esther indicated that literacy was a valuable piece of her teaching practice by
explaining why she incorporated literacy in her classroom:
Ensure that you are giving them readings. You need to anchor whatever it is they are
experiencing. Give them different types of reading. They aren’t just supposed to take my
word for it. Real scientists have done real research in order to get them to that place. And
writing. When I was in school scientific writings wasn’t a big deal so it was blood, sweat,
and tears just to learn it in college. So I try to infuse this into my instruction at the 10
th

grade level. So at 11
th
they can practice more and in 12
th
grade they become semi-experts
so at least when they get to college there’s a little less culture shock.
Evidence of writing in science was present during two of the observations in Esther’s
classrooms. At one point students formed a claim about why some children look more like one
parent than another. Esther provided a word bank of useful academic vocabulary (see Appendix
G) and required students to use the words, applying the scientific language to their written
responses. After writing a response to the prompt students pair shared their answer with a partner
to further practice using the academic vocabulary. Following the discussion Esther called on a
few students to share their answer to the entire class. Esther helped students fill in the missing
academic vocabulary if necessary. This process included writing and speaking using academic
language. The time devoted to this activity suggested a high value on literacy instruction since
there was a focus on writing and discussion that replaced the traditional lecture format in science
classrooms.
SCIENCE AND LITERACY INTEGRATION 102
Esther also commented on the importance of literacy fitting into her classroom. She
confirmed:
Oh, it’s absolutely necessary. Biology, and science in general, are a whole other language
anyway, so you need strong language skills in order to be able to understand it. So that
you can tack on these really big concepts, these big science vocabulary words.
The process of building literacy skills, through teacher modeling (re-stating student answers in
complete sentences), sentence frames (providing students with frames to speak during pair
discussions), word banks (providing terms for students to use-see Appendix G for a sample), and
short readings (during an introduction to a new concept) were observed in Esther’s class
throughout the three observations. This observational data supported Esther’s claim that she
integrated literacy “every 20 to 25 minutes in a class period.” These instructional practices were
not add-ons to the lessons. The literacy components were integrated throughout the lessons,
indicated by students’ ease in transitioning between activities, indicating that literacy in the
classroom was an established routine.
Esther further emphasized the importance of integrating literacy into her classroom
practice:
A big part of my teaching practice is that I’m preparing my students for 21
st
century
society. In that society, it’s global. You not only need to be able to communicate with
your neighbors, but also with someone who’s thousands of miles away. So literacy is
even more important, that’s sort of, that’s the level playing field. They have to be able to
read. They have to be able to communicate their thoughts. They have to be able to write
them down because that’s the only way you interface when you have these other barriers
SCIENCE AND LITERACY INTEGRATION 103
like language. So if everybody is speaking English, correct English, academic English
then we all can understand each other.
This statement from the interview further defined Esther’s perception that literacy
empowered students. Esther’s comments indicated that she felt that students need to be prepared
as global citizens. The preparation was multi-faceted. First, students needed to know the science
content, and second, students needed to be able to clearly communicate this knowledge with
others on a global scale. Literacy (reading, writing, and speaking science) was seen as a way to
equip students with the necessary skills to be successful in this kind of world. This type of
teaching was observed in her classroom. Esther was observed implementing a structured partner
dialogue about genetics. Students first had to write their response to a prompt about genetic
crosses using academic language. Students then had to share their responses with a partner and
write their partner’s response. Esther then facilitated a group share out of the information, adding
academic language and having students restate their responses in academic language. The time
invested in this activity of having students correctly write and communicate their knowledge of
genetics indicated the belief that literacy should be integrated in science classrooms.
Challenge of Literacy and Instructional Time
A theme emerged from the analysis of the participants’ comments and their observed
instructional practices. All four participants stated that literacy was reading, discussing, and
writing. These aspects of literacy were clearly visible in their classrooms. All four participants
also stated in very similar fashions that they have increased the amount of literacy, especially
reading, since they received district-wide professional development in the previous school year
in the CATCH strategy (see Appendix F for a description of CATCH). The professional
development on CATCH was pitched as an instructional strategy that could benefit students.
SCIENCE AND LITERACY INTEGRATION 104
There was not an explicit mandate from the district to implement the strategy. However, the
participants decided to make the use of CATCH part of their pedagogy. The increased infusion
of literacy in their classrooms (through CATCH) indicated that they must value this pedagogy
and it justified their instructional time (Fleckenstein, 2003).
After discussing why literacy has been incorporated in their classrooms, the participants
were asked to comment on how the implementation has gone. Although the theme of literacy as
a crucial part of their teaching practice was established, the data indicated that there were
challenges to integrating more literacy into science classes.
Minnie. Minnie expressed feelings of being overwhelmed by all of the tasks that are
asked of science teachers:
We don’t have enough time. The cognitive load we put on the kids is a lot. We need to do
the vocab. We need to do the lab. We need to make the connections. Current events, all
modalities, teach them to read and write.
Minnie’s list of activities that must be covered in science courses expressed the pressure that was
put on science teachers to integrate literacy into their curriculum (Donnelly & Sadler, 2009).
Minnie’s comment conveyed a feeling that she was not only a teacher of science content, but
also literacy. However, in a follow up comment Minnie stated that the extra time to teach literacy
was worthwhile:
I think our approach with the learning of the words of science and connecting those
words to the definitions, I think the time we have spent on that has really helped our
lower students. I think the time invested on teaching the words is worth it. Now that
sometimes puts us off our pacing. It forces us to be creative about what the power
standards really are and you really got to have a high level of differentiation.
SCIENCE AND LITERACY INTEGRATION 105
This comment implied that Minnie recognized the value of taking the time to teach vocabulary,
although it created stress in having to adjust the pacing plan. Furthermore, taking the time to
teach and support literacy has been crucial to providing lower achieving students access to the
science curriculum.
The struggle of allotting time to integrate literacy was observed in Minnie’s classroom on
all three observations. As stated earlier, each class began with a short reading article that was
followed by a discussion. The entire process was set for 20 minutes on the class agenda. Minnie
had to monitor the time for the reading and discussion to ensure that she would be able to
complete all the learning tasks for that lesson. Minnie had to set time limits for the discussions
because students wanted to keep talking. She also had to ensure that the discussion was on-topic.
For example, during one observation students took the post-reading discussion about sickle cell
anemia into a direction about the frequency of the genetic condition with certain racial groups.
Minnie encouraged the discussion (even allowing it to continue an additional five minutes), but
had to use the discussion to transition into her instruction on genetics. Minnie used literacy (in
the form of reading and discussion) to review science content, although it took additional time
from the class agenda.
Marian. Marian too discussed the time constraints of integrating literacy into her
classroom. She commented:
It’s more about making the texts student friendly since they’re usually dense. It takes
time making it a tool and more interactive, choosing the right reading, teasing out the
things you know they will struggle with, and not tripping them out on tier two words; we
want them to focus on tier three.
SCIENCE AND LITERACY INTEGRATION 106
Tier three words could also be thought of as the language of the discipline. Comprehension of
both tier two and tier three words were required to access and comprehend text. Marian’s
comment indicated that it takes her additional time to select an appropriate text (at the
appropriate tier of vocabulary) and adapt it to be student friendly. She too implemented AMPed
articles like Minnie and it did take additional time to add the scaffolds (the pre-reading questions,
marginalia, and post-reading discussion questions) for these readings. However, as mentioned
earlier, Marian valued literacy since she viewed “Literacy… [as] the beams that holds [science]
together.”
Ruth. Ruth described the issue of depth versus breadth when integrating literacy into her
classroom. Ruth focused on incorporating more literacy in her classroom this past school year.
She stated:
I’m not covering two systems (such as the digestive or excretory system) because I’ve
had the kids do more reading, but it’s not as much as I wanted them to do. I’m trying to
have them do more reading outside on their own or in groups. I’ve been trying to have
them do that and have them get the content through the reading. That’s helped out to
speed up certain things but sometimes it will slow down depending on the complexity of
the vocabulary.
This comment alluded to the trade-offs she made when integrating more literacy into the
classroom. Ruth adjusted her pacing plans to cover less topics, but with more detail to address
the issue of depth versus breadth. This instructional choice supported a value placed on literacy
to be used as a tool to cover fewer topics, but in greater detail (Wiggins & McTighe, 2005).
Ruth attempted to mitigate the time constraints by assigning more reading at home, but
instructional time was needed in class to help students further develop their comprehension of
SCIENCE AND LITERACY INTEGRATION 107
the text. This was observed in Ruth’s classroom on the third observation. She assigned a reading
on the male reproductive system, required students to use the CATCH method. Ruth did not pre-
teach all of the vocabulary because part of the CATCH strategy was to have students circle
unknown words and try to use context clues from the reading to learn the meaning of the word.
Ruth scaffolded the activity by allowing students to read and answer questions with their partner
prior to a whole class discussion. Ruth circulated during this time to help certain students read
through portions of the text and answer questions.
When it came to the discussion, some of the students had difficulty contributing to the
class discussion because they did not fully comprehend all of the content or vocabulary of the
text. Ruth had to adjust her pacing of the lesson to fill in gaps in knowledge and help students
make meaning of the text. For example, Ruth intended for the students to do a close reading of
the text and then draw a diagram that included labeling the pathway of the hormones in the
reproductive system. Ruth noticed that students struggled to create the diagram due to the
complexity of the vocabulary. She adjusted her instructional plan by re-reading a portion of the
text with the students and identified the main idea and broke down the vocabulary terms. She
then drew the first part of the diagram on the board. Ruth asked specific text-based questions,
such as “What is the function of the follicle-stimulating hormone?” that helped students use the
text to fill in the diagram. Ruth used literacy strategies, through reading and discussion, to build
science content knowledge, even though it took more time than initially allotted and that students
struggled with the learning tasks. The time spent in using the literacy strategies supported her
belief that literary should be integrated into the classroom. In this case, literacy was used as the
first step to build student understanding.
SCIENCE AND LITERACY INTEGRATION 108
Esther. Esther commented that a challenge of integrating literacy into the classroom was
the instructional time taken away from her by additional district-mandated assessments and other
school related activities. When asked what was difficult about integrating more literacy, she
stated:
Many times…with different pacing and assessments that are imposed, and all of the other
stuff outside of the classroom that affects my instruction, that’s the only down side. Of
course we make it work.
Esther’s concern was mainly in the amount of time various assessments took away from
implementing a literacy-infused curriculum instruction. She would prefer to have more time to
teach the reading and writing in science, but she was required to stay within reason to the district
pacing plan, mainly due to the federally mandated assessment each year. This implied that she
needed support from her district in using more time to integrate literacy. This implication will be
further discussed in the following chapter.
Challenges of Language Complexity
Participants were asked to further comment on what challenges a literacy integrated
curriculum presented to students. A common theme amongst the participants was that the
complex vocabulary (the language of the discipline) required to access science texts and
complete writing assignments posed a challenge for students.
Minnie. Minnie stated that she observed how students with language barriers
respond in class:
I think this makes them feel like “ahh.” They literally want you to tell them. As teachers
we need to figure out that gradual release... We have to all work together so they feel
SCIENCE AND LITERACY INTEGRATION 109
comfy. If they have barriers they begin to shut down. If they have a language barrier they
shut down.
During one observation students wrote a response to a prompt explaining a genetic combination
involving a dihybrid cross of BbEe with BeEe. Students had to first solve the problem (identify
all the possible combinations) and then justify their answer in writing, using the language of the
discipline, with words such as heterozygote, dominant, phenotype, and genotype. This writing
task was beyond the expectation of the standard because it required students to not only solve the
problem, but explain and justify their reasoning in writing. This instance showed how the
integration of literacy (in this case providing a written response) could present some challenges.
However, Minnie used this assignment as an opportunity to support students’ deeper
understanding of science by using writing as a way to further process their learning and
application of the material.
Marian. Marian added that teaching anatomy-physiology presented many challenges due
to the complex academic language required to obtain mastery of the material. She stated:
What’s difficult on the student side, anatomy-physiology is all language. It is all a new
language...but because they are bombarded with English as a language, and then science
as a third language, that has been difficult. And then reading scientific text.
On the first observation, Marian’s students were preparing for a quiz about the anatomy
of long bones by finishing up a poster project. It was observed that students had difficulty
differentiating the components of the bone, such as periosteum, medullary cavity,
epiphysis, and diaphysis. Marian circulated to each group to check on their progress and
check their understanding by asking questions. Marian had to model using the vocabulary
terms and break down the meaning for students. Marian would engage in short
SCIENCE AND LITERACY INTEGRATION 110
discussions with the students during this time to allow them further practice using the
terms in context. This observation showed how students could struggle with the language
of science, but that teacher support and prompting helped to provide access to the
content.
Ruth. When Ruth was asked about how the complexity of language affected
students in her classroom, she stated:
What makes it complex are the different levels of those who actually know the content or
have grasped it. Some kids read and understand what’s there, but do they get what it’s
talking about, in terms of the depth of it….or make meaning of it? Some have difficulty
pronouncing the words so I have to remind myself what I’m giving them to read. I try to
change up the reading. With this last one, it was straight forward and explains what is
going on and is a review, but there were difficulties that I noticed. For example, when
[that student] was trying to explain it I could tell already…there’s certain content he’s
missing and vocabulary. I will notice that with the kids when they are explaining. I need
to make sure I anticipate better where kids are going to get stuck with the literacy piece.
If I haven’t scaffolded it….then I will see it when they read out loud or try to explain the
topics. When I do it goes pretty good.
Ruth’s comment suggested that complex language in a text can cause increased difficulty for
students to learn new concepts, especially if the text lacked scaffolding. Ruth recognized that
reading text would not be beneficial to her students if it was just an add-on activity without
scaffolds. However, students could make meaning of the complex language in the text when
provided scaffolds and supports for the language, such as the CATCH reading strategy and
teacher-facilitated discussion. This type of scaffolding was observed during the third observation
SCIENCE AND LITERACY INTEGRATION 111
with the reproductive system article. Ruth’s comment confirmed that there was value in using
literacy as a way to foster student learning, but this statement also supported the earlier theme
that integrating literacy presented challenges with time and complexity.
Esther. Esther expressed the same concerns about students struggling with the
language of science:
An added challenge for our students is that English is a second language for them. So we
are basically teaching the basic English word and then the biology or science word on
top. We have an even bigger problem, or bigger challenge I think with those students.
Even with English as native speakers, they are ELLs as well. So the same strategies I use
with native speakers are the same I’d use with ELLs because science is a completely
different language. Nobody walks around talking about osmosis but us.
The activity described earlier about Esther’s students writing a prediction about genetic crosses
presented challenges for students. A few students would use everyday language instead of
academic language in their initial response. For example, one student said “strong gene” instead
of “dominant.” Although Esther provided a word bank (see Appendix G) and explicitly stated to
use academic language in their responses prior to starting the assignment, some students
struggled with using the language. Although they knew the concept, they were not comfortable
with the complex language. Esther remediated this during the share-out by assisting with the
language, but it nevertheless affirmed that the complex language of science created an additional
challenge for students. However, since science and literacy were integrated together this
provided students an opportunity to apply the vocabulary as they discussed scientific concepts.
Summary of Findings-Literacy
SCIENCE AND LITERACY INTEGRATION 112
The themes presented so far have been that all participants emphasized their perception
that literacy was a crucial component in helping students learn scientific concepts. Interview and
observational data were presented to show that the participants implemented a literacy-integrated
pedagogy to help students learn scientific concepts. A further theme emerged about the
perception that integrating literacy took additional time in planning and implementing into
practice. However, data were presented to show that the participants took this extra time to use
literacy to support student learning of science concepts. Furthermore, a theme emerged that
integrating literacy into science courses presented challenges due to the complex nature of text.
Even though the participants expressed this concern, data indicated that the participants used
literacy as tool to support students’ construction of science knowledge.
Summary of findings for research question one. The overall finding for research
question one was that science teachers viewed both inquiry and literacy as fundamental tools in
teaching science. The participants expressed a belief that inquiry was a mechanism to teach
scientific habits of mind and conceptual knowledge. However, the participants acknowledged
difficulties in implementing inquiry mainly due to students’ background experiences with
inquiry and language barriers. These challenges suggest an explicit need for professional
development in this area that will be discussed in the following chapter.
The participants also acknowledged the challenges literacy presented, mainly in the
complexity of language and the planning time required to integrate more literacy into the
curriculum. However, the participants were willing to address the challenges in order to support
student learning, and therefore literacy was an integral part of their pedagogy.

SCIENCE AND LITERACY INTEGRATION 113
Research Question Two: How do secondary-science teachers integrate science content and
academic literacy instruction as part of their pedagogy?
The first research question addressed teacher perceptions on the integration of science
content (through inquiry instruction) and literacy. The finding from the first research question
was that science teachers viewed inquiry and literacy as integral tools for teaching science
content. The second research question intended to gather data about instructional practices to
support the findings of teacher perceptions on the integration of inquiry and literacy. The goal of
this question was to identify how teachers at the secondary level integrated science content
(through inquiry) and literacy as part of their pedagogy. In the context of this study, pedagogy
was defined as the set of teacher beliefs and values that affected their choices in instructional
strategies and teaching methods. The participants shared much information about their
pedagogical views and practices related to the integration of science content and literacy. This
information was supported through classroom observations (three for each participant) and a
review of documents.
Implementation of Inquiry
As summarized above, the participants stated the importance of using inquiry as a tool to
teach scientific concepts and build scientific habits of mind. Their comments suggested that they
knew the use of inquiry was an important aspect of science teaching pedagogy. The participants
explained how they attempted to infuse inquiry-based elements into their instruction to build
scientific habits of mind, mainly through the form of questioning. However, some of the
comments by the participants showed that they did not implement that much inquiry due to the
perceived challenges. These data were disconfirming since the participants acknowledged the
value of inquiry, but stated that the barriers prevented them from implementing this kind of
SCIENCE AND LITERACY INTEGRATION 114
teaching. Furthermore, the observational data yielded some inconsistencies between the
participants’ perceptions of how they implemented inquiry in their classrooms and how it was
actually implemented. These inconsistencies suggested that there were missed opportunities to
use inquiry as a tool to teach scientific concepts.
As discussed earlier in this chapter, the participants viewed inquiry as an important
teaching tool; however observations of inquiry-based lessons where students were conducting
their own experiments could not be scheduled and observed for all participants during data
collection. The following data of inquiry implementation were based on what could be observed
during the data collection phase of this study.
Although there were discrepancies between what the participants stated was inquiry and
what they implemented in practice, elements of inquiry were still observed in the classrooms.
Data from multiple observations were analyzed to identify the types of inquiry-based instruction
implemented in the classrooms. The data from the observations were analyzed using the lens of
an instructional model described in Chapter 2. The model described earlier was the 5E
instructional model that is an inquiry based approach to teaching and learning science (Bybee et
al., 1989). In summary, the components of the model are: engage, explore, explain, elaborate,
and evaluate. The participants demonstrated varying degrees of implementation of the different
components of this model. Below is a summary of how each participant demonstrated elements
of the 5E model that were integrated with literacy teaching practices.
Minnie. Minnie’s students participated in inquiry through discussion that was aligned to
the engage and explain stages of the 5E model. This was observed in the form of questions
during the class discussion after the warm up reading activity of the AMPed article. Minnie had
her students complete the reading and then she led a follow up discussion. Students posed
SCIENCE AND LITERACY INTEGRATION 115
questions about the reading and that spurred an academic discussion about the text. Minnie
would not just give the answers to the students. She would ask them “why?” or “what do you
think?” questions to have students go back to the text to find evidence or make a connection to a
prior learning experience. Minnie facilitated the discussion as an effort to have students generate
scientific knowledge.
Minnie would then continue with her lesson and present new material. She continued to
pose questions to students and require them to discuss the material with their partners. This
practice was aligned to the explain phase of the instructional cycle because students were gaining
more conceptual knowledge about the topic as the discussion progressed.
Marian. Marian’s students were observed working on an inter-disciplinary project
between their anatomy-physiology and economics classes. Students selected a health related
topic that affected their community. Some topics included access to healthy foods and number of
fast food restaurants. Students were required to research this topic and gather data. Marian
instructed her students on the differences between quantitative and qualitative data. Students
designed a survey in the form of interview questions to collect data from their classmates. One
student for example was investigating why people chose fast food restaurants over cooking
healthy food. Marian explained how students would use this data in follow up lessons, in
conjunction with their economics teacher, to design a business plan for the community that
would address the issue. The students were not designing and conducting their own experiment
during this observation, but they were involved with the initial steps of the inquiry process of
collecting data. The use of a peer survey encouraged academic discussion between the students.
This part of the assignment was mostly aligned with the explore phase of the 5E model. Students
had received some background knowledge when Marian had presented data about the number of
SCIENCE AND LITERACY INTEGRATION 116
fast food restaurants surrounding their school. This was intended to engage students in the topic.
The activity of students designing survey questions to gather data was meant to build off of this
engagement. The assignment allowed students to explore the topic further as they learned why
people chose fast food over healthier options.
Ruth. Ruth’s students participated in inquiry through creating an experimental design to
test their hypothesis about the effects of various narcotics on the nervous system. Students had
already completed a reading and discussion about the nervous system. This project was intended
to build on that knowledge and provide students the opportunity to apply their knowledge
through designing an experiment. Students were not going to conduct their experiment due to the
nature of the topic, but Ruth still provided them an opportunity to think of an experiment that
could test their hypothesis. This assignment was most clearly aligned to the elaborate phase of
the 5E model because the intention of the assignment was to have students deepen their
understanding of the nervous system through designing a theoretical experiment. The assignment
included literacy practices of reading articles and academic discussion with partners.
In a follow-up interview Ruth described another assignment she had given students that
was inquiry-based. She discussed:
So the big project I just did with the kids was trying to do that. It’s giving them more or
less, we’re talking about the body and here are some errors we could go. So giving them
the space to pose a question of their interest in terms of health and then how are you
going to find the answers. They had to find the research but at the same time giving
feedback checking in to see where they were and see the right track…I was just fact
checking to see if the science piece was correct. That’s how I’ve done it with them. I’m
going to try to do that with a diabetes lab.
SCIENCE AND LITERACY INTEGRATION 117
This assignment was not directly observed due to the time constraints in data collection; however
Ruth was able to show some of the student projects. The assignment did require students to think
of a question related to health, and then design and conduct an experiment. This process would
encourage building scientific habits of mind. Ruth also pointed out that students had to present
their findings to the class. This project was used to foster scientific habits of mind through the
inquiry process.
In a second observation in Ruth’s classroom the students were observed conducting a
sheep brain dissection. Students were following along the lab procedures and making the
appropriate cuts and identifications of brain features during the class period. The lab protocol did
include questions that required students to predict the effects of damage to various regions of the
brain. Students had to consult the text book and other sources during the lab to find these
answers. Discussion with partners and probing questions by Ruth were also used to help students
complete this part of the assignment. These aspects of inquiry were embedded in to the
assignment and were more closely aligned with the evaluate phase of the 5E model since
students had to demonstrate their understanding of the brain anatomy.
Esther. Esther implemented inquiry-type pedagogy that was most closely related to the
explain phase of the 5E model. Students were required to think critically about the scientific
concepts through her questions and structured pair discussions when she was reviewing the
material. Esther, similar to Minnie mentioned above, would ask “why?” or “what do you think?”
questions back to her students during discussion. She probed students to explain the concepts in
greater detail using academic language. This type of instruction encouraged students to think and
speak like a scientist as they were exposed to new material.
SCIENCE AND LITERACY INTEGRATION 118
Summary of Finding-Inquiry Implementation. Data from the interviews put forth that
the participants viewed inquiry as a necessary component for teaching both scientific habits of
mind and conceptual knowledge, although challenges of pacing, student skill, language, and
resources were identified. These perceived barriers could be the reasons why the participants did
not conduct a full inquiry-based lesson during the data collection phase of this study.
The observational data indicated each participant demonstrated elements of inquiry
instruction through the implementation of various components of the 5E model. The most
enacted phase of the 5E model was the explain phase where the students and participants
discussed the concepts through probing questions. The data did reveal that the participants used
elements of inquiry that were integrated with literacy practices of reading and discussion.
However, there were missed opportunities to use an inquiry-based approach to teaching the
scientific concepts. Observational data of students designing and conducting their own
experiment or experiencing all phases of the 5E model were not collected. The data
demonstrated how the participants used aspects of literacy (reading and discussion) to blend with
inquiry-based components. The data supported the finding that integrating literacy (through
reading and discussion) was an important aspect of the participants’ pedagogy; however it was at
the expense of inquiry because it was possible that the scientific knowledge could have been
generated using a more inquiry-based approach. The participants’ enacted pedagogy was more
focused on using literacy to teach the scientific concepts. The following section of this chapter
will present data that showed how the participants implemented the use of literacy to teach
science.
Literacy Through Close Reading
SCIENCE AND LITERACY INTEGRATION 119
One of the primary methods with which literacy was integrated in all four participants’
classrooms was through the use of close reading. As reported earlier in this chapter, the
participants stated that they chose to implement close reading strategies they learned in
professional development over the past two years. Close reading involved a structured time of
reading, re-reading, discussion, and writing about text guided by the teacher. The participants
implemented close reading based on their own teaching styles. Regardless of how, the practice of
close reading was observed in various forms throughout data collection.
Minnie. Minnie stated that her department had “been true to all the strategies: close
reading, AMP reading, CATCH, everything” that was covered throughout professional
development. Minnie began each of the three classroom observations with a text reading activity.
Students had approximately 10-15 minutes to read through an AMP-ed article. During this time
students were engaged in close reading by using three literacy strategies implemented by Minnie:
answering guiding questions that were written by the teacher, identifying academic vocabulary,
and using marginalia. Marginalia was a strategy where students write questions or comments in
the margins of the text as they read. Minnie commented why she had students use marginalia,
“The reading strategies are very, very important, like annotating. It’s so goofy, but the marginalia
is very important.” Minnie stated at the beginning of the reading, “Don’t forget your marginalia.”
This reminder occurred during every observation. The comments or questions in the margins
fueled the post-reading discussion. Minnie’s students were able to complete the directions of the
assigned reading task without much prompting or monitoring. This implied that the use of
AMPed articles was a common practice in the classroom. Her implementation of close reading
supported her perception that literacy was a valuable tool.
SCIENCE AND LITERACY INTEGRATION 120
Marian. Since Marian and Minnie worked at the same school site, the two of them
collaborated on many projects and assignments. Marian stated that:
[Minnie]…has AMPed up our articles. She uses little text boxes…It’s really, it helps out
a lot. Already having the marginalia already shoved to the side for the student, and the
pre-questions and obviously the post questions and extensions. Even without true explicit
direction students are able to access it. And so I think we went through one article
together about the cell...and what they were doing with it [was] more deep analysis of it.
Marian provided samples of some of the AMPed articles she used during the unit on the
digestive system (see Appendix H for a sample). All of the articles had the similar format of pre-
reading questions, space for marginalia, and some form of post-reading activity. The format of
the articles and the requirements for the post-reading activities encouraged re-reading of the text
to fully comprehend the material. Some of the post-reading questions required students to cite
evidence from the text as justification. Requiring students to cite evidence from the text was also
a strategy to encourage scientific writing. These skills were used in conjunction to build reading
comprehension. Marian and Minnie’s use of AMPed articles supported the requirements of the
Common Core standards (National Governors Association for Best Practices, 2010).
Another close reading strategy was observed as part of the participants’ instructional
practices. Beyond AMPed articles, the use of the CATCH reading strategy was observed on
multiple observations (see Appendix F for a summary of the CATCH reading strategy). In short,
the C stood for circle unknown words. The A stood for ask questions. The T indicated talk to the
text. The second C was for capture the main idea. The H stood for highlight evidence. Taken
together, CATCH was a close reading strategy that provided students with a structure to access,
re-read, and comprehend text.
SCIENCE AND LITERACY INTEGRATION 121
Marian also stated that her department had used the CATCH strategy:
We’ve done CATCH. I think all of [the district] has used CATCH as a tool. And then, in
the beginning of the year CATCH was more explicitly taught using a think aloud. And
now for a diagram. Let’s look at this diagram. What are all the parts? And that’s actually
a think aloud too. And the same for graphs.
Marian wanted to show student work samples of various articles and diagrams that had been
read/analyzed using the CATCH strategy. Marian explained that the work samples demonstrated
deeper analysis and that this strategy improved the quality of class discussions. The use of a
close reading strategy gave the students a structure to approach reading in their science course.
Marian commented that students were more comfortable with reading as the year progressed due
to the routine of using close reading.
Ruth. Furthermore, Ruth and Esther reported that their school formally adopted CATCH
as a school-wide literacy strategy. Their department spent time discussing ways to implement
and differentiae the CATCH strategy according to their content class. When asked how she
implemented CATCH, Ruth stated that she used a variety of texts:
Well I use some information text. I use articles…from our own text book and I also take
excerpts from other text books. I usually look online. I have readings of summaries from
other text books. I’ll usually use that with the kids for the content. Or I’ll have them use
on-line sources. That’s usually what I’ve been doing for some activities…Since we do the
CATCH method…I’ve done the read aloud. I’ll read one paragraph out loud and model
CATCH. And I’ve done it where the kids read a paragraph in pairs, that’s the one they
showed us in our PDs, where number one is reads out loud and number two is marking it
and then they’ll switch off and share what it is they’ve jotted down. Also….look at what
SCIENCE AND LITERACY INTEGRATION 122
you circled and what does it mean? I’ve done that with the kids as whole class. I also then
ask them what questions they have. I was also told to make sure they’re asking questions.
They use to mark it up…but I told them I need to see at least two questions on the
reading, what is it saying? So I’ve done that.
This practice of using CATCH while reading a text was observed in Ruth’s classroom. During
one observation Ruth’s students were working through a “Thought Lab.” She first modeled the
CATCH strategy by annotating one of the paragraphs and students had to record what was
projected on the board. Following the teacher modeling the students read through the remainder
of the text with a partner. After sufficient work time Ruth reviewed through a discussion some of
the questions and main ideas that were generated by students. This was also a time to go over the
key academic vocabulary. This same cycle of reading with CATCH, followed by a discussion,
was observed during a reading about the male reproductive system. The ease at which the
students were able to use the CATCH strategy during these observations suggested that this was
a practice that they routinely implemented in class. A routine use of CATCH supported the
perception that literacy was an important tool to teach science.
Esther. Esther stated that she introduced new topics through articles about science. Her
students had been trained to use the CATCH reading strategy and this helped the students have a
way to approach reading the text. Esther explained:
CATCH is a big thing because we are trying to teach them to annotate and how to derive
more meaning from what it is that they’re reading. That’s one of the big ones. There’s
always a post reading activity. Well we always lead with an essential question. So they
are reading with this filter. It bookends with a writing product. They are predicting what
this reading is about using the essential questions, then they do the actual reading or we
SCIENCE AND LITERACY INTEGRATION 123
mark up the text, and then they do this written product to prove actual mastery of the
assignment.
Esther also commented on the variety of ways CATCH had been implemented in her classroom:
Magazines...I like them to see real world context with some of the content we’re learning
about in class. Sometimes they will get cartoons. So we talk about the myths of the
cartoons or what real science the newspaper is explaining. As much newspapers as I can.
I try to give them many types of text so we can talk about credible sources and when you
should believe something and those kinds of things. Even if it’s a diagram. Sometimes we
are just reading a diagram or a figure. So it may not necessarily be words, but they still
need to know how to read those things as well.
A common thread in the implementation of close reading across the participants was the
ease at which students understood the expectations for using AMPed articles or reading with
CATCH. Students easily transitioned between the reading, discussing, and writing activities. The
participants created a culture where literacy was used to learn and discuss new knowledge.
Reading did not feel like an add-on activity with less importance. Another commonality was that
students were able to ask questions about the text, such as, “What does this mean? Why does this
matter?” or more specific questions about the content of the article. Since asking questions was a
requirement for both AMPed articles and the CATCH reading strategy, students were
accustomed to acknowledging their own confusion or curiosity and willingly shared that with the
class. This reinforced the observation of literacy as routine, implemented in the classroom on a
continual basis.
Literacy Through Discussion
SCIENCE AND LITERACY INTEGRATION 124
Literacy was integrated in other ways beyond reading. Literacy, as defined in this study,
encompassed not only reading, but also writing, listening, and speaking (discourse). Academic
discussion as a pedagogical tool was evident in all participants’ classrooms.
Minnie. Minnie infused academic discussion during all three classroom observations.
Each lesson began with a warm-up activity that asked students to read an AMPed article related
to the topic of study. As part of the assignment students identified tier one, tier two, and tier three
vocabulary words (Beck, McKeown, and Kucan, 2002). Following the reading time Minnie
facilitated a whole class discussion about the reading. Students asked questions about the text or
shared their views about the text. Students were expected to speak using academic language, in
this case the language of the discipline. Minnie would have students repeat their comments in
academic language if they were not in the language of the discipline. Minnie then called on
students to share their tier one, two, or three words to the class. She asked students to justify their
selected tier. This sparked discussion about the vocabulary. Minnie then asked students if they
agreed or disagreed with each other’s suggestions. She gave examples of how some words were
used in different contents, such as analyze or interpret. Documents gathered (samples of the
warm up activities) from the class showed that the discussion of tiered vocabulary was a daily
practice in each warm up.
Minnie also set an expectation for academic discussion in her class. Students received
“Scholar Dollar” tickets for every time they contributed a comment to the class discussion using
academic language. Minnie set daily goals for this academic discourse, depending on the type of
lesson. One observed lesson had a learning outcome which required each student speaking to the
entire class at least two to three times in academic language. The daily use of academic language
was used to prepare students for an upcoming assignment. Minnie told the students about her
SCIENCE AND LITERACY INTEGRATION 125
plans for them to participate in a Socratic Seminar about the pros and cons of genetic engineering
later in the semester. Students would not only read various texts, but they would be expected to
discuss academic ideas using the language of the discipline they were exposed to through the
AMPed articles.
Marian. Marian’s students were observed completing a review project on the content
they learned. For example, during one observation students made a three dimensional
representation of the digestive tract on a poster. The project was infused with academic
discourse. Students discussed the pathway of food through the digestive system using academic
language, such as esophagus, small intestine, and large intestine. They asked each other
questions about the organs and even quizzed each other on the vocabulary terms. Marian
circulated during the allotted work time to check in with groups, monitor their progress, and
ensure they were quizzing each other correctly. Students used this time to ask Marian questions
about the assignment. If the question was in everyday language, students were required to restate
their question using academic language in complete sentences. Marian provided a sentence
starter and helped with the words and this practice allowed students to practice using the
academic language. When asked why she had students repeat, Marian stated:
I think we definitely need more practice talking about it. If they aren’t going to talk about
it…I want them to articulate. I want them to sound like a scientist. …we will need a lot
more practice with that. What I do need is a more defined way on how it sounds, like
sentence frames would be an example.
The digestive system project had an additional component of a class presentation. Marian
required students to practice their presentation to their group members. She circulated and
worked with students on academic vocabulary. Marian was able to support most, if not all of the
SCIENCE AND LITERACY INTEGRATION 126
groups, because the assignment itself was allotted 25 minutes of the class period. As students
were busy working on the project, Marian provided the additional instructional time to students
who struggled with the academic vocabulary. Marian asked a series of questions, referred to the
poster, or directed student attention to the PowerPoint slide as a way to engage in academic
discourse. She modeled how to say the words or helped students identify the proper word to say.
The additional practice was intended to help practice using the vocabulary words in the
appropriate context. Marian’s support provided an avenue to rehearse speaking like a scientist.
This routine of helping students speak in academic language was observed in all three
observations. She set a norm in the classroom of using academic language consistently and
frequently.
Ruth. Ruth stated that the implementation of more reading into her classroom sparked
more opportunities for discussion. She commented:
Because I just am starting to put more literacy, the goal is to use that to get the kids to use
that to draw the knowledge from it and then create a discussion. And that’s what I want to
do and I’m working on it... I’ll give the kids articles and we’ll discuss. I think it’s to
engage them more, you get the learning from what’s out there and let’s look if it’s right
or not and let’s check with each other. It’s also to expose them to different literature
that’s out there as well.
This practice of using text to spark discussion was observed in Ruth’s class on two different
observations. During one observation students read a “Thought Lab” excerpt from the text book
about the effects of narcotics on the nervous system. Ruth used this activity before a discussion
about neural communication, synapses, and the various effects drugs have on the body. Students
SCIENCE AND LITERACY INTEGRATION 127
used the academic vocabulary from the text as they contributed to the discussion with words
such as, nervous system and neurotransmitter.
On a second observation students continued their investigation of the nervous system by
dissecting sheep brains. Students worked through the lab protocol with their group members.
Ruth circulated to assist as needed and encouraged discussion between group members. She
asked probing questions to get the students thinking about what they were studying, such as,
“What is the function of that lobe?” Ruth listened to the beginning of their answers and helped
students find the academic vocabulary. As Ruth circulated to another group the original group of
students discussed the question some more and brainstormed their answers. This practice showed
how she integrated literacy, in the form of discussion, during a hands-on science activity to teach
scientific knowledge.
During a third observation students began class by reading an article about the hormones
involved in the male reproductive system. Ruth presented a few text-based questions with the
article for students to answer in pairs. Students engaged in peer to peer discourse as they re-read
portions of the article and discussed the questions. Students compared and contrasted primary
and secondary sex characteristics, identified the role of the hypothalamus in releasing hormones,
and discussed the overall change during puberty. Students referenced the text during their
discussions, asked Ruth for assistance, and debated information with each other. The structure of
this discussion provided an opportunity for students to learn science content through the vehicle
of literacy. Additionally, the learning activity provided an opportunity for students to become
more familiar with the language of the discipline. Ruth helped students find the words as they
struggled to communicate their thoughts in academic language. This learning activity showed
SCIENCE AND LITERACY INTEGRATION 128
how literacy was integrated with science content to develop students’ understanding of scientific
concepts.
Esther. Esther too had evidence of academic discussion in her classroom. When asked
about the benefits of academic discussion, Esther commented:
They learn new words. Even in their writing. When they are talking to each other they
use more words in their answer. In the beginning it was simple sentences, and they were
getting used to each other and building confidence, but because I ask why, why, why so
many times they will look at me and begin to explain why. And I just feel that it’s
because of talking, the routine of sharing with your neighbor and then the whole class,
and that is built into the culture so it’s not a shock when it happens.
The routine of discussing ideas with a partner prior to a whole class discussion was evident
during multiple observations. During one activity students were given time to think and write
about their opinions on genetic crosses. Students then discussed their responses with their
partners to practice using the vocabulary or gather additional information for their answer.
Students then participated in a whole class discussion about the material. Students either shared
their personal or their partner’s response. Students were expected to speak in complete sentences,
using academic language, with words such as homozygous dominant, heterozygous, and
genotype. The discussion provided an opportunity for students to practice using these scientific
concepts in context beyond isolated definitions on flash cards.
During another observation students learned about Punnett squares and how genes
combine. Esther assigned a think-write-pair-share activity to have students consider the
following question: Why do you think some people look more like one parent than the other
parent? Esther provided a word bank of academic vocabulary for students to use with words such
SCIENCE AND LITERACY INTEGRATION 129
as genes, chromosomes, and traits. After some individual writing time students discussed their
answers with a partner, giving them the opportunity to practice their response. Esther then
facilitated a whole class discussion of their answers. Esther had students re-state their responses
in academic language as needed. The student responses shifted to more academic language (for
example, moving from saying “strong” to “dominant” trait) as the class progressed. This could
be attributed to students hearing Esther infuse the academic language in earlier responses. The
students were able to engage in academic discussion because they were exposed to academic
language during that segment of the lesson. The discussion provided an opportunity to learn the
material that was based in literacy and strayed away from traditional lecture format.
The integration of discussion from all the participants, not only Esther, supported the
finding of question one that literacy was perceived as important tool to teach science. The
instructional time devoted to discussion in all four classrooms supported the earlier finding that
teachers justified the use of this time since they valued literacy in their classroom.
Summary of finding-literacy implementation. One of the benefits of the integrated
literacy in the classroom, through both reading and discussion, was that it supported the process
of learning science. As reviewed in Chapter 2, the practice of scientists required extensive
proficiency in literacy (Fang & Schleppegrell, 2008; Huerta & Jackson, 2010; Fensham, 2011).
The participants supported their students’ development of scientific knowledge by having
students read text, ask questions, and discuss information with peers. The described pedagogy of
the teachers showed how literacy was a tool to teach science content, but also was a way to train
students in the scientific process of asking questions and consulting text and peers to help find
answers to said questions. Furthermore, the common threads that emerged across the
participants’ pedagogies supported the finding of research question one that the participants
SCIENCE AND LITERACY INTEGRATION 130
viewed literacy as a mechanism to teach science content and justified the additional planning
time that was required. The observational data supported the perception that a literacy integrated
science curriculum was necessary and therefore implemented in the classrooms.
Summary of findings for research question two. The findings from the first research
question put forth that the participants valued the use of inquiry and literacy as tools to teach
scientific concepts and build habits of mind. The data from research question two identified
disconfirming evidence with the first aspect of inquiry. Although the participants valued inquiry
teaching and could describe how it was used in their classroom, insufficient data were collected
to show that the use of inquiry was used on a routine basis to teach concepts and encourage
habits of mind. The data did support that the participants enacted elements of inquiry using the
lens of the 5E model (Bybee et al., 1989). The data did show that the participants were able to
integrate elements of inquiry during various phases of the 5E model with elements of literacy,
through the reading and discussion, however not all elements of the 5E model were observed by
a single teacher in a classroom observation.
Research Question Three: How do secondary-science teachers support the content
and literacy needs for ELL students at the secondary level?
The findings for the first two research questions established a teacher perception that
literacy was a crucial component in science courses, and that literacy integrated curriculum was
implemented through pedagogy that emphasized reading, writing, and academic discourse.
However, chapter one identified that there was an opportunity gap for ELL students learning
science (U.S. Department of Education, 2013c) and that much of the research on teaching
science to ELL students was based on the primary grades (Lee, 2005). The third question of this
SCIENCE AND LITERACY INTEGRATION 131
study sought to close this gap in knowledge by identifying any promising practices for teaching
science to ELL students at the secondary level.
All the participants worked in the inner-city of a large urban area. The demographics of
the schools consisted of students who were either Latino/Hispanic or African American. Each
participant was asked about the number of ELL students on their case load. Minnie stated that
“There are about 30, so out of 150, about 20%.” Marian commented that “Everyone really is an
academic language learner that’s for sure.” She further clarified that approximately 60% of her
students are ELL or re-designated students. Ruth stated that her class consisted of “About 80%
ELs [and] RFEPs. There’s a good combination of all of those.” Esther reported that:
It wouldn’t surprise me if 30% of them are [ELL]. Every single period there’s a large
group of them. In every period I have them sprinkled throughout the room with their
strategic groupings so that they are around people that they have to communicate with.
Some are more confident than others.
The table below summarized the participants’ self-reported perception of the percentage of ELL
students on each participant’s caseload.
Table 2
Summary of ELL Students per Participant
Participant Percentage of ELL Students on Caseload
(Self-reported by participant)

Minnie

20%
Marian

60% (including Re-designated students)
Ruth

80% (including Re-designated students)
Esther 30%

SCIENCE AND LITERACY INTEGRATION 132
Approach to Teaching ELL Students
Throughout the interviews the participants identified how they supported their ELL
students through a variety of strategies. Observational data were gathered to view how the
participants implemented these identified ELL supports. The intention was to examine how the
participants were able execute these supports to classes that had relatively large numbers of ELL
students.
Minnie. Minnie was asked if she had a specific approach to teaching ELL students. She
commented:
I need to enact all vocabulary strategies for this unit, because the work depends on the
vocabulary. For example, on the exam they might say two heterozygotes are crossed,
you’re supposed to know what those genes look like based on the description of the
genes. And so, it’s more like a word problem in math class versus an equation. Most kids
can solve an equation…..put when you pop that same information into a word problem it
takes on a different level of difficulty. So like in genetics we might say two
heterozygotes, but you need to know that’s Bb crossed with Bb and so there’s a lot of
translating from words to pictures and symbols.
The process of translating words to pictures and symbols that Minnie mentioned above was a
teaching strategy that was observed during all three classroom visits. Minnie called this process a
type of annotation.
Annotation was a common teaching practice observed in Minnie’s classroom. When
asked why she used this strategy, Minnie stated:
SCIENCE AND LITERACY INTEGRATION 133
Literacy for our class is annotating, the marginalia. I tell the kids you’re exercising your
brain, like you can’t lost weight if you watch Zumba….you actually have to do
something when you read.
Minnie’s comment suggested the repetition of this routine was important to build skill for
students and provide them with a way to do something while they read, thus giving them access
to the text.
Minnie created this opportunity to access the material when she would project a
PowerPoint slide to review a vocabulary term or discuss a scientific concept. For example, in one
observation she discussed the concept of epistasis (the process of one gene determining the
expression of another gene). She used examples of alleles relating to dog fur that were either
expressed or not due to the combination of multiple alleles. She taught this through modeling by
standing at the board and annotating the vocabulary concepts. The annotation included adding a
visual, writing the word in common language, and breaking down the word into word parts or
root words (see Appendix I for an example). Minnie elicited student participation by asking them
to apply their knowledge of word parts, synonyms, and previous content to help make sense of
the new term, asking questions like: “Where did we read something similar to this earlier in the
year?” and “What does ‘scribe’ mean?” The students entered the information into their
notebooks as Minnie explained the term/concept, building on their understandings of the
previously learned roots, prefixes, and suffixes, and then the students discussed the annotated
definition with their peer partner. Minnie referred to her annotated definition to reinforce the
concept as she continued teaching the concept and assigned guided practice problems. The use of
annotation was also observed during a lesson on bone fractures and another lesson on DNA
transcription and translation. The annotation process helped break down the academic
SCIENCE AND LITERACY INTEGRATION 134
vocabulary or challenging concept into more student friendly language that could be rehearsed
and processed. ELL students participated equally in the class discussion since Minnie made an
effort to call on each student at least once per class. The ELL students answered Minnie’s
questions after she used annotation to describe the concept in simpler parts. This suggested that
annotation helped make the material accessible to ELL students (Leier & Fregeau, 2010) and
was used as support for their learning of science.
Minnie was asked if these strategies helped ELL students in the science classroom.
Minnie replied:
I think so…they need it a lot. It’s something that needs to be done throughout their day,
consistently across all teachers. So when they come to one teacher it’s not new and
they’re use to taking words and making pictures and taking pictures and making words. It
needs to be common practice for them. I think it is working, not just the ELLs, all the
students need a lot of translating... Using the synonyms helps. I know the next time I use
the word if they are ready for it. We’ve done the official definition, synonyms, and
examples.
This response indicated Minnie’s view of the importance of the annotation strategy used in her
classroom. Minnie felt that the time spent annotating vocabulary terms and concepts had a
positive impact on ELL students learning science. Minnie’s ELL students were observed
participating in the class discussion and completing the assignments. This suggested that this
strategy helped students access the material.
Marian. Marian stated that she provided various types of scaffolds to ELL students,
depending on the type of lesson. She described her scaffolds for ELL students:
SCIENCE AND LITERACY INTEGRATION 135
We do a lot of color coding... of the definitions…Also, a lot of manipulatives. So right
now today they are working on drawing the bone out and without looking at their notes,
they have a cut out word and cut out definition. They need to just match the word with
the part and clue it on…And we are going to start again in semester two, they have to
break down word parts and then read a text and then for any medical terminology they
have to highlight it and then look it up in the medical terminology dictionary and figure
out what it means
The scaffold described above with learning the terminology with the drawing of the bone and
matching the terms was observed during the first observation. The amount of words to process
during this time period was eleven and some of the students were having difficultly completing
the task. Marian helped her ELL students match the definitions of the terms to their picture. The
activity helped ELL students make meaning of words such as, medullary cavity, endosteum,
diaphysis, articular cartilage which was needed to learn about the overall concept of the anatomy
of long bones. Marian circulated and checked the groups and congratulated them once they were
able to correctly complete the task.
Another scaffold used to support ELL students was observed when Marian conducted a
review lecture on the digestive system. She made copies of the PowerPoint slides that allowed
students to add additional notes on the handouts. Marian had students label diagrams of the
digestive tract as part of their note taking. She used a story telling format as she described the
process of food entering the mouth and traveling through the digestive system. She showed
visuals of digestive systems of various species, such as worms, birds, and humans, and had
students discuss the similarities and differences. The use of visuals during this activity provided
context for students that was not dependent solely on language proficiency. The ELLs had access
SCIENCE AND LITERACY INTEGRATION 136
to the pictures, even if they struggled with the language. Students were observed using the
pictures to have a discussion about the content. The visuals served as a scaffold to allow for a
discussion about science, thus showing how literacy and science could be integrated to build
science content knowledge.
Ruth. Ruth described that her approach to teaching ELLs was based in using the CATCH
reading strategy described earlier in this chapter. She commented:
Since we do the CATCH method…I’ve done the read aloud. I’ll read one paragraph out
loud and model CATCH. And I’ve done it where the kids read a paragraph in pairs, that’s
the one they showed us in our PDs, where number one reads out loud and number two is
marking it and then they’ll switch off and share what it is they’ve jotted down… I’ve
done that with the kids as whole class. I also then ask them what questions they have...
They use to mark it up…but I told them I need to see at least two questions on the
reading, what is it saying. So I’ve done that. I’ve also done with jigsaw the reading and
I’ll have them kind of summarize what it is that they’ve read instead of giving them a
whole big article to read. Those are some of the things I try to do with big articles.
Ruth used the method described above as way to introduce content about the nervous system
during one of the observations. She instructed students to read a short passage with their partner
using the CATCH reading strategy. She circulated to remind students to write their questions as
they read. Ruth also mentioned that students were strategically partnered by their skill level. ELL
students sat next to students who had more English proficiency. Sitting next to students with
greater language proficiency provided ELLs an additional support person. ELLs could ask their
partners questions during the activity. This seating arrangement was intended to help ELL
students complete the CATCH activity and comprehend the text. Ruth facilitated a class
SCIENCE AND LITERACY INTEGRATION 137
discussion after the reading to ensure students gleaned the important information. Students were
instructed to add any additional information they had been missing to their reading handout. By
using this strategy, the ELL students had additional time to process the information through
reading, writing, and speaking. As cited in the research literature, additional processing time was
used as a strategy to support ELL learning (Leier & Fregeau, 2010).
Esther. Esther commented that her approach to teaching science to ELLs was based
largely on a personal observation she made of ELL students over the years.
It’s a lack of confidence across the board. So I spend a lot of time trying to show them
how cool science is. And my biggest thing is that I want to show them that science
instruction happens everywhere. Just because you close the book doesn’t mean you close
off the science instruction. If you look outside, read the newspaper, watch television,
you’re still learning things about science; you’re just not actively doing school stuff. I try
to use real life, every day…materials and experiments and stuff to show them that you
don’t need this great chemical in order to do some pretty simple science
Esther’s comment suggested that ELL students that have a lack of confidence may have road
blocks to their learning. Their affective filters could be engaged to potentially have a negative
affect toward learning science. To overcome this mindset Esther implemented a strategy in her
classes in order to build confidence within ELL students.
Esther built this confidence around the use of “quick checks” during the second
observation. A quick check was a strategy used to check for understanding while delivering
content information. Esther displayed a PowerPoint slide of a review question and gave students
a few moments to write down their response. This process required students to evaluate their
own level of understanding and write down only the most important information. Students could
SCIENCE AND LITERACY INTEGRATION 138
use their notes as they responded. This time allotted for quick checks allowed students to process
the information. Once students had their answers, Esther would call on students and review the
answers. She encouraged participation and congratulated students on answering correctly, thus
building confidence. ELL students were observed fully participating in the activity as they
attempted to provide the correct answer. If a student answered incorrectly, she guided them to
the correct answer. This strategy supported ELL students because it provided them the extra
processing time to review the material while it was being presented to them. The quick checks
allowed students the opportunity to review the material and get feedback in a non-evaluative
manner. This could potentially help students feel more confident about their level of learning
before proving that learning on a formal assessment.
ELL Scaffolds Through Vocabulary Instruction
The common pattern that emerged from all four participants was the integration of a
scaffold that was appropriate to the content and student learning needs. The scaffolds were pre-
planned into the agenda so they could be integrated into the instruction. The annotation,
vocabulary matching, CATCH, and quick checks did not appear to be imposed supports that
were disjointed. These scaffolds were woven into the fabric of the class. The fact that the
participants implemented these strategies throughout multiple observations suggested that these
scaffolds were a part of their regular teaching pedagogy.
Minnie. An additional scaffold that supported ELL students was the teaching of Greek
and Latin roots. Minnie described how she supported ELL students through the direct instruction
of Greek and Latin roots. She commented:
We are so fortunate because have so many connections with Greek and Latin
roots, prefixes, suffixes. So it’s absolutely critical to make those connections
SCIENCE AND LITERACY INTEGRATION 139
because there is so much content. You need a way to anchor the content to your
brain because there is so much detail… When we don’t use Greek or Latin, then
[we use] word association… So I know that even for the students who are native
English language, just changing words can be confusing…You have to take the
words, the academic vocabulary, and you have to make a connection and use both
words interchangeably and then go back to the academic vocabulary in hopes that
they have made the connection.
Minnie’s comment indicated that she viewed teaching roots or word association as a vital way to
teach the terminology to students, especially ELL students.
Minnie described how she implemented the teaching Greek and Latin roots to the
students. Each week the students received a list of approximately 15-20 Greek or Latin roots.
The students made flashcards for these words. Minnie reviewed these words in class and
facilitated various activities that helped students learn these words. There was a weekly quiz of
the root words and a summative exam twice a year. Students were given the opportunity to re-
take the quiz if they did not reach mastery of the words. Minnie was observed referencing the
word parts during close reading and class discussion. When encountering a new word, Minnie
would model to students how to take the word and break it down into its root terms and derive
the meaning. For example, in one observation Minnie broke down homeostasis into
homeo=same and stasis=remain. This strategy supported the ELL students because it gave them
the ability to derive meaning from unknown words by applying their knowledge of the root
words. In another observation Minnie’s students were studying for their cumulative exam of 20
lists of Greek and Latin roots which showed that was a routine practice in her classroom.
SCIENCE AND LITERACY INTEGRATION 140
Marian. Marian too used the same weekly Greek and Latin root words and quizzes as
Minnie. Marian was observed using prefixes to teach concepts to ELL students. During one
observation she used the prefixes peri-, epi-, and endo- to describe the anatomy of the bone and
relate it to the definition. Students then had to write the definitions, draw, and label the bone.
This process was used to reinforce the academic vocabulary of the lesson. The vocabulary
instruction offered by Minnie and Marian was infused into the classroom on a weekly basis and
students were accustomed to the routine. The instruction did not feel like a last minute add-on. It
was deliberately planned out week by week. All students, especially the ELLs, were observed
using their knowledge of word parts to help them on assignments. This suggested that the
instructional practice of using word parts benefitted ELLs, as supported in the research literature.
(Leier & Fregeau, 2010).
ELL Scaffolds Through Peer Learning
Another common thread through the participants’ enacted pedagogies was the strategic
use of peer to peer learning. Chapter two presented a sociocultural conceptual framework rooted
in Vygotsky’s theory of education (Vygotsky, 1978). To review, Vygotsky articulated that
learning was mediated by interactions with peers. Vygotsky argued that children benefit from
working with more capable peers on activities that are strategically aligned to their zone of
proximal development. The implementation of peer activities was clearly identified and observed
as a pedagogical tool in each of the participants’ teaching tool kit.
Minnie. Minnie described one of her favorite group strategies she used in her class,
jigsaw reading:
I love jigsaw reading. I have a jigsaw for every unit now…. You have one group that is
your high performing group….so it’s a super precision partnering. Within the jigsaw
SCIENCE AND LITERACY INTEGRATION 141
structure…I always start off with everyone reading the same thing, like a Do Now,
accessible to everyone. We got four [in each group], so I have four articles. I purposefully
give my lower levels the same numbers. I [have] my two middle, and then one high. So
we’re getting ready to do a jigsaw for the digestive system. Our low level reading is
about a healthy digestive system. The high level reading is about Pavlov’s dog and
amylase, so that with saliva is our connection. The high level learners are going to get in
a group together. They will talk about salivation and Pavlov, which is a new scientist for
them…then each person has to come back to their table and teach what they learned. It
gives everyone a chance to access a reading. The other groups get a chance to be
comfortable too. I love it… It’s super group strategies, it’s differentiation, it’s rigor, it’s
everything.
Minnie’s students were scheduled to experience this group jigsaw activity about the digestive
system in a subsequent lesson. However, the use of other peer activities was observed in
Minnie’s classroom. During one observation students solved an epistasis Punnett square ratio
problems involving a complicated dihybrid cross of bbee vs. bbEe. Minnie modeled the process
on the board. Minnie then assigned a problem to compete in pairs. Students had to use their
notes, sample problems, and each other’s knowledge to solve the problem. ELL students
benefitted from their partner’s support and persisted at completing the learning task. All students
were observed completing the exit slip at the end of class.
Marian. Marian described how group learning was an important component of her
classroom. She provided an example of how she had implemented a group analysis activity of
disease prevalence in the past:
SCIENCE AND LITERACY INTEGRATION 142
The questions go: What is the title of the graph? What is the x-axis? Y-axis? Choose five
highlights of the graph. So the questions sort of scaffold how to do the analysis. Another
one is: What does this graph not say? Who is the target population? Why did they create
it? What’s the purpose?... So just, what are five things that pop out to you? And they
work in groups. And just talk about what are five things. And for this particular one we
did posters. Each person got a different graph. I think there were three that rotated. And
each group got a graph and they answered the questions. And it took a long time just on
this one for their analysis. Like I see this at literacy in science. Specially, how are we
analyzing data.
To support this statement, Marian’s students were observed participating in multiple peer
activities to promote their learning. At various moments in the observations Marian’s students
were in groups either creating a poster about the anatomy of the bone, reviewing for a
vocabulary quiz, preparing for a presentation on the digestive system, or surveying each other for
a cross-curricular project the students were assigned in conjunction with their economics class.
Marian monitored these activities and provided re-direction when needed. For the cross-
curricular project, she put structures in place, such as clear project guidelines, that kept the
students focused on the learning task. For example, Marian checked to ensure that all students
had asked their survey questions to at least half of the other students in the room. Marian
encouraged students to speak to each other and even directed students to move to other tables if
they needed to have more peer interaction. The students had to show how much data were
gathered. This pedagogical approach likely supported ELLs and gave them opportunities to
process content in a lower risk environment of peers in small groups before presenting in front of
the entire class or taking a formal assessment (Leier & Fregeau, 2010).
SCIENCE AND LITERACY INTEGRATION 143
Ruth. Ruth incorporated group activities in her classroom to support the ELL students.
The following peer based work activities were observed: think-pair-share, CATCH reading,
dissection, and diagram drawing. All of these activities were structured in a way so that ELL
students had the opportunity to interact with the content in a low-risk atmosphere with their
peers. Students were able to correct each other during peer interactions. On one occasion a young
man was explaining the directions about the dissection to his partner in Spanish. The young lady
knew what to do next in the dissection protocol and continued working after her partner provided
that explanation. During another observation students worked in pairs to answer text based
questions about an article they had read which had complex vocabulary about the hormones
involved in the male reproductive system. This provided opportunities to support ELLs because
their partners could provide support in completing the assignment.
Esther. Esther too implemented peer based learning to support ELL students. During one
observation students were reviewing material about genetics by completing a worksheet with
their partner. Students referred to their notes and asked their partners to help them answer the
questions. Esther also used the strategy of think-pair-share on multiple occasions to review
content. She would pose a question and give students time to think and write. The next step was
for students to share their answer and then record their partner’s answer in their notes. The peer
exchange was a beneficial scaffold that helped all students process the information and become
confident with their response. Finally, Esther had students construct DNA models in a peer
setting. Students were given the photocopies of the components that constituted DNA. Students
had to arrange the papers in the correct order and show the proper base pairing for a strand of
DNA. This strategy was intended to provide an avenue for ELLs to check their work with peers
and compare answers. Discrepancies led to questions that could be answered by either peers or
SCIENCE AND LITERACY INTEGRATION 144
by Esther. This activity was structured in a way to involve peers in the learning of a science
topic.
Summary of findings for research question three. The interview and observational data
revealed common themes amongst the participants. In all cases, thoughtful planning of
instructional scaffolds was observed by each participant. These scaffolds included various types
of vocabulary instruction and strategic use of peer learning activities. The time it took to plan for
these scaffolds and integrate them into the classroom supported the finding for research question
one that teachers view literacy as an important tool to teach science and were willing to
overcome the challenge of time.
An important aspect of all the scaffolds for ELL students was that they were fully
integrated into the class to give the feeling of “instruction as normal.” The scaffolds did appear
as add-on activities that did not fit into the flow of instruction. The frequency of scaffolds across
the observations suggested they had been integrated into the classrooms as routines. Not only did
all students benefit from this integrated instruction, but the ELLs experienced a learning
environment that was designed for their success.
Summary of Findings
This chapter detailed the participants’ thoughts and actions in the areas of how they
approached the integration of science content (through inquiry) and literacy, and furthermore
how they supported this integration for ELL students. Answers to the research questions emerged
from the analysis of the transcripts from multiple interviews (three per participants), field notes
from the observations (three per participant), and course documents from with the participants in
this study. The figure below summarized the findings of this study as they related to the research
questions.
SCIENCE AND LITERACY INTEGRATION 145
Table 3
Summary of Findings by Research Question
Research Question Finding
1. What are secondary-science teachers’
perceptions of the integration of
science content and academic literacy
instruction?

Inquiry was viewed as an important tool
for teaching both scientific habits of mind
and conceptual knowledge. Challenges and
limitations with inquiry implementation
were identified, such as student experience
with inquiry, language barriers, following
pacing plans, and lack of resources.

Literacy was perceived to be a valuable
tool to teach science content. Although
participants acknowledged challenges to
integrating literacy, they were willing to
tackle these challenges due to the benefits
literacy presented.

2. How do secondary-science teachers
integrate science content and academic
literacy instruction as part of their
pedagogy?

Aspects of inquiry were observed under
the lens of the 5E model. Inquiry was
integrated with literacy through reading
and discussion. However, there were
missed opportunities to use an inquiry-
based approach to teaching the scientific
concepts. The use of literacy to teach
science overtook inquiry as a method to
teach science.

Literacy was integrated into the science
curriculum through close reading and
academic discussion. This type of
pedagogy could be used to encourage
scientific thinking and processes.

3. How do secondary-science teachers
support the content and literacy needs
for ELL students at the secondary
level?

ELLs were supported through instructional
scaffolds that were deliberately planned to
be part of the curriculum. The scaffolds of
vocabulary instruction and peer learning
activities were used to provide ELLs
access to the curriculum.

SCIENCE AND LITERACY INTEGRATION 146
The results from this study indicated that the participants (four secondary science
teachers) valued inquiry and literacy integration in their science courses, even though it
presented some challenges. However, literacy teaching practices appeared to take precedence
over inquiry-based teaching due to the perceived barriers of implementing inquiry teaching.
Additionally, in response to the language demands of science, the participants in this study found
multiple ways to authentically integrate literacy into their science curriculum through multiple
iterations of close reading and academic discussion. As stated in Chapter 1, data from
international science achievement tests showed that ELL students were not achieving at the same
rates of their native English speaking peers (U.S Department of Education, 2013b). The
participants in this study worked with large populations of ELL students and thus the learning of
ELL students was of primary concern to them. This study found that ELL students were
supported in the literacy integrated curriculum through intentional instructional scaffolds of
vocabulary instruction and peer based learning. A key commonality of these scaffolds was that
they were fully integrated into the curriculum and not viewed as add-ons that received less
importance or instructional planning. The scaffolds were implemented with the intention of
supporting ELL students as they learned science. However, the ELL students did not have as
much exposure to inquiry teaching because their teachers focused on supporting their language
needs. The next chapter will discuss the implications these findings have on current teaching
practice and how they can inform future research in this field.
SCIENCE AND LITERACY INTEGRATION 147
Chapter 5
Discussion
Summary of Findings
Chapter 1 identified an opportunity gap in the lower achievement in science for English
Language Learners (ELLs) when they were compared to their native-English speaking peers
(U.S. Department of Education, 2013b). This problem was further complicated by the national
change in science education through the adoption of the Common Core State Standards (National
Governors Association for Best Practices, 2010) and Next Generation Science Standards
(Achieve, 2013) which created an additional emphasis on language skills as part of science
teaching. Teachers were required to find a way to infuse more literacy into their classrooms,
while taking into account the learning needs of ELL students. This study aimed to gather
information about how science teachers viewed the integration of literacy into their courses and
to identify any promising practices of how to incorporate more literacy for ELL students.
Findings emerged after data from interviews, observations, and documents were analyzed. The
findings of this study were:
a) What are secondary-science teachers’ perceptions of the integration of science
content and academic literacy instruction?
a. Inquiry was viewed as an important tool for teaching both scientific habits of
mind and conceptual knowledge. Challenges and limitations with inquiry
implementation were identified, such as student experience with inquiry,
language barriers, following pacing plans, and lack of resources.
b. Literacy was perceived to be a valuable tool to teach science content.
Although participants acknowledged challenges to integrating literacy, they
were willing to tackle these challenges due to the benefits literacy presented.
SCIENCE AND LITERACY INTEGRATION 148
b) How do secondary-science teachers integrate science content and academic literacy
instruction as part of their pedagogy?
a. Aspects of inquiry were observed under the lens of the 5E model. Inquiry was
integrated with literacy through reading and discussion. However, there were
missed opportunities to use an inquiry-based approach to teaching the
scientific concepts. The use of literacy to teach science overtook inquiry as a
method to teach science.
b. Literacy was integrated into the science curriculum through close reading and
academic discussion. This type of pedagogy could be used to encourage
scientific thinking and processes.
c) How do secondary-science teachers support the content and literacy needs for ELL
students at the secondary level?
a. ELLs were supported through instructional scaffolds that were deliberately
planned to be part of the curriculum. The scaffolds of vocabulary instruction
and peer learning activities were used to provide ELLs access to the
curriculum.
The following section will describe the implications of these findings as they relate to science
instruction and policy design and implementation at school sites.
Implications

Finding One: Inquiry Viewed as a Tool to Teach Science that Presented Challenges
The literature in Chapter 2 stated that “[u]sing inquiry instruction rather than telling
students about science discoveries allows students to think about, reason, discuss, and make
sense of science concepts,” (Tweed, 2009, p.78). Inquiry instruction is also an opportunity for
SCIENCE AND LITERACY INTEGRATION 149
students to build scientific habits of mind (Tweed, 2009). The participants defined inquiry as
having students ask questions and then have them conduct an experiment to gather data for
analysis. The participants’ definition of inquiry was similar to the definition presented in the
literature. The participants also agreed with the literature that inquiry was a valuable tool to teach
science. However, although the participants valued inquiry, they did mention numerous
challenges of implementation: instructional time, student skill, and resources. These barriers
hindered their actual implementation of inquiry.
The acknowledgment of these barriers to inquiry instruction could be the reason why the
participants avoided using inquiry instruction. It is possible that they made this decision because
they did not feel inquiry would be the most effective method to teach the concepts they were
covering in their classes. This finding has significant implications for students. Students will not
be exposed to inquiry instruction if teachers limit their use of inquiry to a few occasions
throughout the semester. The Next Generation Science Standards (Achieve, 2013) require more
inquiry-based instruction. Students need this exposure to inquiry instruction if they are to be able
to achieve in college level courses that assume certain background knowledge in inquiry skills.
Teachers need to adjust their curriculum programs to include more inquiry instruction. Teachers
are not preparing their students for success in college if they are not teaching their students how
to design and conduct experiments. The challenges the participants stated may be barriers to
inquiry instruction, but they should not prevent teachers from exposing their students to
opportunities to build habits of mind.
Finding Two: Literacy Was a Valuable Tool to Teach Science
The comments of the participants indicated that literacy was a valuable component of
their teaching practice. The amount of literacy observed during data collection, in the form of
reading, speaking, and writing supported these statements. These data indicated that the
SCIENCE AND LITERACY INTEGRATION 150
participants viewed literacy as an important component of their science classroom. Although the
teachers’ words and actions demonstrated a value on literacy, they also indicated a request for
continued professional development and collaboration on how to make use of literacy as a tool to
teach their content, especially with new standards affecting science education. For example,
Marian stated it best when asked how she felt with all of the changes to science education:
I do need support. I need time to collaborate with my peers. I think that I’m probably
doing things I don’t realize will lead me there already. But I need time to work things out
with my peers…When is there time to collaborate together and get this stuff into
practice? It’s difficult.
Marian expressed a desire to have time to learn the new standards with other science teacher
colleagues and plan instruction accordingly. Any of Marian’s hesitations about literacy were
related more to a lack of time to implement and not a resistance to changing pedagogy.
Minnie also voiced a desire to learn more about the changes the Common Core and Next
Generation standards would have on her teaching:
I think for Next Gen that Common Core has taken the front seat. We have been really,
really stuck on Common Core lately, mostly because we are trying to develop these
literacy strategies with the students: how to read, how to annotate, how to respond to a
writing prompt. So I feel at this moment that I’m more proficient with Common Core
than Next Gen. I’m hoping our time spent in Common Core is time spent in Next Gen,
but I don’t know that for sure. So Next Gen is on my to-do list for the science
department. We’ve spent so much time on AMP and close reading…[that] I need to get
on board with Next Gen. I don’t know how it changes things. I know the writing changes
SCIENCE AND LITERACY INTEGRATION 151
everything. So we’ve focused on the sentence frames, the sentence starters, and gradual
release. We’re very focused on that.
This comment from Minnie could explain why the participants in this study focused more on
literacy than inquiry. Minnie’s comment suggested that much of her professional development
this year has been on the Common Core literacy standards. Minnie also suggested that increasing
the amount of literacy in the classroom has been a focus this year. This could explain the reason
why she, and the other participants who experienced the same professional development, had
such a focus on literacy. Minnie’s statement expressed her desire to receive professional
development on how to use more inquiry in her classroom that is aligned to the expectations of
the Next Generation Science Standards. The data showed that the participants wanted to integrate
inquiry and literacy, but this can only happen if there is appropriate time allotted to science
teachers to learn how the Next Generation Science Standards can be implemented with the
Common Core literacy standards. These teachers need time in professional development to
become familiar with the new standards and to learn ways to adapt their curriculum and make
this kind of integrated teaching part of their pedagogy.
Finding two also indicated that although teachers valued more literacy in their classroom,
they recognized that additional literacy instruction presented a few challenges: time constraints
and complexity of science texts. Teachers used instructional time to teach literacy in science by
modeling how to read, discuss, and write about science related texts. The complexity of the
vocabulary in science text posed additional challenges to ELL students and required additional
time to be taught. Teachers had to make choices about what they will cover in class as a result of
the time they have.
SCIENCE AND LITERACY INTEGRATION 152
This finding has many implications for teachers as they begin to design and implement
new curriculum. The new standards, Next Generation Science Standards and Common Core,
require teachers to infuse inquiry and literacy as they present concepts and teach students to have
scientific habits of mind. Current pacing plans will benefit from being altered to incorporate
teaching to both sets of standards in an integrated format. Furthermore, the time it takes to
implement a literacy infused science curriculum will require teachers to make difficult choices
about what to cover and what can be omitted, the on-going debate of breadth versus depth.
School administrators and district leaders can act on this finding by setting aside time in
the professional development calendars of schools and districts to allow science teachers time to
meet together to collaborate as they implement both sets of standards. Science teachers would
profit from additional time to plan ways to continue to build off their current practices and
implement more literacy practices in their classrooms.
Additionally, I recommend that school leaders and district curriculum developers invite
teachers to be a part of this important discussion about what the new science curriculum will
look like. Teachers may value a place to express their ideological beliefs about what should be
covered in each class and how much time should be allotted to each topic. As a former chemistry
teacher, I have strong feelings about how the conservation of matter unit should be taught and for
how long. I would want my voice to be heard in how to infuse literacy into this unit. Those
responsible for planning curriculum and assessments can use the teacher input to create
appropriately paced curriculum plans that allow sufficient time to incorporate more literacy into
the science curriculum.
Finding Three: Missed Opportunities for Inquiry Instruction
Although the participants identified the importance and value of using inquiry to teach
scientific habits of mind, there was disconfirming evidence presented about how the participants
SCIENCE AND LITERACY INTEGRATION 153
actually implemented inquiry instruction in their classrooms. The participants stated that they
used inquiry practices to encourage critical thinking, but in practice the participants maintained
control over much of the transmission of knowledge. The participants also identified numerous
challenges to implementing inquiry, such as student skill and lack of instructional time. This has
significant implications for student learning. Students are expected to know how to use the
scientific method to design and conduct an experiment. This type of learning builds habits of
mind as students think, read, write, and speak like scientists (Westby et al., 1999). The Next
Generation Science Standards expect students to have these skills. College-level science courses
also require students to be proficient in these skills. K-12 education needs to be the place to build
these skills over time, not just with one science teacher in one school year. The barriers the
participants identified are real; inquiry instruction is difficult and time consuming. However, not
implementing inquiry due to these barriers is doing students a disservice in their preparation for
college and careers in science. This study showed that science teachers need continued support in
how to plan and implement inquiry lessons that have the appropriate scaffolds for all students,
including ELLs. Furthermore, science teachers need access to the appropriate resources that
would allow students to conduct an inquiry investigation to build their habits of mind. Finally,
district leaders should make this kind of inquiry instruction a priority and allocate the appropriate
resources and professional development mentioned above. Literacy will continue to overtake
inquiry in the science classroom if it is seen as the tool to teach science over inquiry. Literacy
could be viewed as a support to teaching science.
Finding Four: Literacy Was Infused Through Close Reading and Discussion
Evidence of close reading through AMPed articles and the CATCH reading strategy were
observed throughout multiple observations across the participants. The participants indicated that
SCIENCE AND LITERACY INTEGRATION 154
they felt these strategies were successful. I recommend that teachers have continued time to
engage in peer collaboration to monitor their implementation of close reading and gather input
from each other. Teachers could take advantage of this ongoing collaboration time to ensure they
are implementing the strategy correctly.
A general summary from the participants was the desire to continue infusing more
literacy in their classroom as the new standards are implemented. This indicated that teachers
will continue to need time to refine their current teaching practices and develop new practices
through coaching provided by administrators and other instructional coaches. Increased
professional development, especially around the topic of literacy in science, would be an
appropriate next step for teachers. The learning of new strategies will assist teachers as they
explore various ways to integrate more literacy into their classrooms.
Additionally, I recommend administrators work alongside teachers as increased literacy
continues to be implemented in classrooms. Teachers and administrators taking joint ownership
over the design and roll-out of literacy-infused curriculum will be a critical component to its
success. Teachers may be more likely to work on a literacy-infused curriculum if they feel
supported in their efforts by their administrators.
Furthermore, evidence of academic discussion was clearly present in all four classrooms
on multiple observations. The expectation for the use of academic language, along with the
supports to help struggling students meet the expectation, was established in all of the classes.
What this implied was that teachers could continue to implement this high level of academic
discussion throughout all of their classes. I recommend that teachers continue to provide models
of academic discussion using the language of the discipline. The models help students internalize
the norms for academic discussion.
SCIENCE AND LITERACY INTEGRATION 155
The practice of academic discussion could be pushed even further in each of these
classrooms. Teachers would benefit from learning additional strategies on how to implement
academic discussion. I recommend school leaders and district leaders allocate resources to
professional development that would provide teachers with new strategies on how to enhance
academic discussion.
Finding Five: ELLs Were Supported Through Instructional Scaffolds
The observations yielded examples of scaffolds that were used to support ELL students.
The primary scaffolds identified in Chapter 4 included the teaching of academic vocabulary and
peer learning activities. Various degrees of implementation were observed based on the lesson
topic or amount of ELLs in the class, however, the use scaffolds for ELLs was clearly an
observed pedagogical choice. What would be beneficial to teachers is continued collaboration
with colleagues to learn new scaffolds for ELLs and to get feedback on the implementation of
their own scaffolds. Teachers have much expertise to offer each other. I recommend school and
district leaders set aside time for teachers to come together in professional development where
they can meet to discuss and learn ELL strategies. And as mentioned earlier, professional
development (workshops on teaching ELLs science) could be a justified use of school funding to
support teachers as they teach their ELL students.
The use of structured peer activities was evident as a part of each participant’s pedagogy.
Examples of peer activities included: reading and discussion about articles, poster projects,
presentations, think-pair-shares, and a dissection. Chapter 4 provided an analysis of how these
strategies supported ELL students, but in summary, the peer activities were beneficial because
they provided an opportunity for ELLs to process the content in a less-stressful environment with
their peers prior to interacting with the class-at-large.
SCIENCE AND LITERACY INTEGRATION 156
The implementation of peer activities in the classroom indicated that the teachers saw a
value in peer based learning activities. I would recommend that teachers continue this practice
and seek ways to maximize the learning potential of peer based learning. Teachers could profit
from the extra allotment of time in professional development to check in with their colleagues
about their successful and not-so-successful attempts to use peer learning activities. Additional
professional development on new strategies for carrying out peer learning activities would be an
asset to teachers’ tool kits. Furthermore, I recommend teachers look for ways to incorporate
inquiry-based learning, in addition to literacy activities, to enrich all aspects of science
curriculum.
Professional Development
A recurrent implication of this study was that science teachers need more professional
development on how to integrate inquiry and literacy in science. However, this professional
development needs to be carefully designed to meet the needs of science teachers in this
changing world of educational standards. I would recommend the following type of professional
development that would support science educators adjust their pedagogy to include integrated
inquiry and literacy teaching practices.
I would begin the professional development by having the teachers assume the role of
students and participate as learners. I would have the teachers experience the full 5E model
(Bybee et al., 1989) on a scientific concept. Teachers need to know what it feels like to grapple
with a concept from the engage to evaluate stages. The next step would be to debrief the 5E
experience by having teachers learn each part of the 5E model and break down the components.
This would be considered the input phase of the professional development. The professional
development would continue with the opportunity for the teachers to select a concept to be
SCIENCE AND LITERACY INTEGRATION 157
taught using this model. My goal would be to have the teachers apply this knowledge
immediately so it is important that they select a concept they are planning to teach in the near
future.
The following phase of the professional development is to have science teachers work in
in collaborative groups to design a 5E model lesson around the concept they selected. The use of
peer feedback would be a critical component since teachers could share ideas and gather insight
from each other. The teachers could also receive input from the presenters about the potential
challenges they might encounter with the lesson they are designing.
The next phase of the professional development would be to extend the planning on the
5E model and to integrate literacy. At this point the teachers would be exposed to the ESTELL
model (Stoddart et al., 2010) as a way to incorporate more literacy into their planning. The
teachers would need to learn all of the components (another round of input) prior to adjusting
their inquiry lesson plan. Following this information the teachers would then revise their inquiry
lesson plan and infuse literacy by selecting appropriate text, identifying vocabulary, preparing
discussion topics, and structuring peer activities. This intentional planning would ensure that
inquiry and literacy are used in conjunction to teach a scientific concept.
The final stage of the professional development would then be to revisit the inquiry plan
and explicitly scaffold for ELL students. The teachers could work through the texts they selected
and decide how they will teach academic vocabulary or create the sentence starters they will give
their students. They can also use this time to look at their instructional groupings during the
lesson to ensure the effective use of peer learning activities. This pre-planning would help to
ensure that ELL scaffolds are intentional and purposeful, not last-minute additions.
SCIENCE AND LITERACY INTEGRATION 158
This experiential professional development just described would take considerable
amount of time to plan and implement, but the potential benefits are significant. Science teachers
should experience this model and then have the processing time to build a lesson using this
knowledge. Meer explanation of the model is not sufficient to affect teacher practice. I
recommend that teachers are given the time to plan using the model so they learn how long it
takes. Also, working with other science teachers, who experience the same challenges of
integrating inquiry and literacy, on planning with this model would be a benefit because it would
help teachers learn from the expertise of others. It is also unlikely to expect that teachers would
plan every lesson with this amount of detail that is presented in the professional development.
However, the practice of planning with this model should help influence teachers to implement
aspects of this pedagogy on a more continual basis. This increase of inquiry and literacy
pedagogy is what is needed to prepare students for the rigors of college and careers in science.
Summary of implications. The common thread throughout the implications has been the
following: school and district leaders could set aside time for teacher collaboration, as well as set
aside resources for professional development to allow teachers to learn new strategies as they
move forward with a literacy integrated science curriculum. Teachers would benefit, and this in
turn would benefit students, if they were given the time required to learn how to fuse the new
sets of standards together in their classes. Teachers would profit from the time spent learning
from each other’s expertise with each other and getting feedback on their implementation. I
strongly recommend that school and district leaders make this collaboration time and
professional development a budgetary priority. Providing teachers with more support during this
time of new standards helps to set them up for successful teaching, which in turn encourages
positive student outcomes.
SCIENCE AND LITERACY INTEGRATION 159
Limitations
Chapter 1 identified a few limitations of the study that were related to the research
design. The primary limitation of this study was a small sample size of four participants
(Maxwell, 2013). However, as Maxwell (2013) described, an in depth study of a sample
provided rich data about their experience. The methodology described in this chapter provided an
opportunity to share the experiences of the participants and to highlight promising practices in
the area of science integration with literacy and how ELL students were supported in this
curriculum. If time permitted, I would have included a larger sample of secondary teachers to
generate more data. A larger sample would make the data more applicable to other teachers.
However, the methods for data collection and analysis described in previous sections showed
how the use of three interviews and three observations for each participant was sufficient to
gather data and generate findings.
Another limitation was that this study was conducted in one district. The district
observed was a charter school district that had its own set of values, norms, and procedures that
may have applied only to this setting (Erickson, 1984). Including secondary teachers from the
local public district, as well as a private school setting, would help to show if there were
promising practices that emerged throughout multiple educational settings. However, the charter
district contained the same population of students as the local public district (Herman, Wang,
Rickles et al., 2012). The district had no academic requirements for admissions and did not
exclude ELLs or students with special needs. Serving the same population as the local district
justified conducting this study at the charter district.
An additional limitation of this study was that I studied more experienced teachers with at
least four years of experience and this could have hindered the applicability to other less
experienced teachers (Maxwell, 2013). Novice teachers with less years of experience may or
SCIENCE AND LITERACY INTEGRATION 160
may not have been able to implement some of the promising practices that were identified in this
study. However, the purpose of the study was to identify these promising practices and novice
teachers could implement these practices as they gain more experience.
A further potential limitation of this study was the lack of student perspective. Students
were e a major constituent group of a school and contributed to the learning culture of the
institution (Erickson, 1984). Student interviews or focus groups were not conducted due to time
restraints and feasibility. Student actions were observed in the classrooms to get a general sense
of how they responded to the pedagogy enacted by their teacher. However, any student responses
or comments were not reported due to not having the informed consent of the students. This
study still had merit because the goal of this study was to identify aspects of teacher pedagogy
and practice. The focus was not on how this pedagogy affected student achievement. Follow up
studies can be conducted that investigate the effects of teacher pedagogy on student achievement.
I attempted to limit the impact of these limitations during the data collection process,
mainly through three interviews and observations per participant. The process of data
triangulation through interviews, observations, and documents was used to pull out findings that
would limit any discrepancies in self-reporting. The lack of student perspective will be discussed
in the following section as an area of future research.
Another limitation emerged during data collection related to researcher bias. I had
professional relationships with all four of the participants prior to conducting this study. The
extent of these relationships was described in detail in chapter three, but a brief summary here is
beneficial to substantiating my findings. Two of the participants worked at another school in my
school district and the other two participants worked at my school site. I took explicit precautions
to mitigate this potential bias. For example, I kept a list of follow up questions to ask the
SCIENCE AND LITERACY INTEGRATION 161
participants as I transcribed their initial interviews. I wrote down what specific questions to ask
to ensure that all four were asked the same questions, and thus given the opportunity to have an
equal representation of their pedagogy and teaching practices. I also used member checks
(Merriam, 2009) with the data to allow the participants the opportunity to review findings and
provide feedback. I also analyzed the data looking for disconfirming evidence of my findings.
This process served as a way to ensure that I was not overlooking findings or other important
data. Finally, I made intentional efforts to not discuss teacher evaluation or any school business
during the interviews. This effort delineated the research study from any pre-existing relationship
and allowed the participants to teach in their normal style.
Even though the potential bias of knowing the participants needed to be addressed, the
pre-existing relationship with the participants allowed me to collect rich data. Both Bogdan and
Biklen (2003) and Erickson (1984) describe a requirement for researchers to become immersed
in the environment, learn as much as possible, and use that to provide thick description of the
data. My knowledge of the participant’s school district and their general pedagogy assisted in my
ability to provide a thick description of their perceptions and teaching practices. For the two
teachers at my school site I already had some baseline knowledge of their pedagogy that dated
back years before I began this research study. I was able to use this knowledge to verify that
what I heard in the interviews and saw in the observations was a true representation of their
pedagogy. My experience with these participants allowed me to assert that the data that were
collected was authentic and not embellished due to participation in this study. Finally, the pre-
existing professional relationship helped to create a sense of comfortably between the
participants and myself. The participants had little reason to be defensive and guard their
perceptions during the interviews. Their trust in me allowed them to be honest in their responses
SCIENCE AND LITERACY INTEGRATION 162
and helped me collect rich data. The established rapport alleviated any anxiety about being
observed. The participants taught as normal since they were comfortable with my presence in the
room, and this was crucial to gathering reliable data.
Next Steps for Educators: Promising Practices
Multiple times throughout these chapters I have stated that one of goals of this study was
to identify promising practices for integrating literacy and science for ELL students. The
participants identified multiple strategies and instructional activities they used to scaffold
learning for ELL students. The implementation of these strategies was observed across multiple
observations. The findings of this study suggest the following as promising practices:
1. Integrate multiple opportunities for literacy (through reading, writing, and discussing
science content) throughout daily lessons.
2. Teach and model a close reading strategy that provides students with a routine to
approach text and access the meaning.
3. Provide multiple opportunities in each lesson for ELLs to have meaningful dialogue with
their peers and/or the class at large about science context.
4. Emphasize academic vocabulary in daily lessons. Teach, model, and reinforce the use of
the language of discipline in all components of the lesson.
5. Design and implement appropriate peer based learning activities that provide ELL
students an opportunity to work through science content in a more comfortable setting.
These promising practices support the literature referenced in Chapter 2 that discussed how
literacy and science have a synergetic relationship and should be integrated in classrooms
(Stoddart, Solis, Tolbert, & Bravo, 2010). Literacy and supports for ELL students cannot be
thrown into classrooms as add-on activities. A promising practice is to take the additional
planning time and carefully think through how to authentically integrate literacy and these
SCIENCE AND LITERACY INTEGRATION 163
supports into the classroom. Literacy instruction and supports for ELL students could become
ritualized in classrooms if they become part of the daily learning routine.
Areas for Future Research
Chapter 1 acknowledged the following delimitations of this study: this study took place
in one charter school district, the participants of this study had at least five years of teaching
experience, and the focus was on life science teachers. These delimitations suggest potential
areas of future research.
This study was conducted at two charter high schools within the same district. This
district was mostly comprised of Hispanic or African American students. Approximately 25% of
the student population was ELL students, who grew up speaking Spanish. Some of the
vocabulary teaching strategies identified (word parts and connections to cognates) were built on
students’ ability to comprehend Spanish. The findings from this study may possibly not
generalize to other non-English speaking students that are not familiar with Spanish. Future
research for identifying promising practices for other language groups is warranted.
The amount of teaching experience for each participant could have been a factor that
affected data collection. Minnie was an outlier with 18 years of experience, while Marian, Ruth,
and Esther had between four and seven years of experience. In general, four to seven years is a
sufficient amount of time to develop a repertoire of strategies. The participants demonstrated
varied instructional strategies to teach science throughout the observations. The promising
practices identified from their pedagogy have taken this long to develop. More novice teachers
cannot rely on their experience in the same way when they attempt to support ELL students.
Further research on effective strategies that could be implemented by novice teachers would help
to build teaching tool kits at quicker rates.
SCIENCE AND LITERACY INTEGRATION 164
The data collected from this study were in life science classes. The biology and anatomy-
physiology classes observed placed strong vocabulary demands on students. Students were
required to learn and use new vocabulary terms throughout each observation. The topics
observed in this study, such as genetics, reproduction, digestion, and the skeletal system, were
topics that students could easily relate to. The participants could build on their prior knowledge
with life science to help teach and reinforce these words. The physical sciences, such as
chemistry and physics, may not have the same ability to do the same. Although chemistry and
physics have real world connections, students can struggle to find this information relevant as
they learn. The promising practices identified to support ELL students may not have the same
ability to support ELL students in physical sciences. Specific research on how to support ELL
students in physical science courses could be beneficial to these science educators.
One of the limitations of this study identified in chapter one was that this study lacked
student perspective and study achievement data. Students in the classes observed, both native
speakers and ELLs, could have much to say about how they learn science. The student voice
would be a beneficial data source to add to this conversation about literacy and science
integration. Research on student perceptions of literacy and science integration would let the
research community know if students notice any differences in this kind of curriculum, or if they
have any preferences in how they learn science. Also, research to evaluate the effectives of
literacy and science integration, as well as evaluation for the identified promising practices,
would be crucial next steps in this research. Although it is important to understand why and how
teachers integrate literacy and support ELL students, we would benefit from measuring if this
type of pedagogy has any impact on student achievement. A question that emerges from this
study is: Do students (both ELLs and non-ELLs) who receive a literacy and science integrated
SCIENCE AND LITERACY INTEGRATION 165
curriculum learn differently and have greater achievement when compared to students who
receive traditional instruction?
The ESTELL framework (Stoddart, Solis, Tolbert & Bravo, 2010) and 5E instructional
model adapted for ELLs (Beltran, Sarmiento & Mora-Flores, 2013) described in Chapter 2 were
pedagogical approaches to teaching science to ELL students. These models have showed success
in pilot studies at the primary level. These models were used as proxy to help establish promising
practices for secondary ELL students. Two aspects of both ESTELL frameworks that were found
to be in place in the participant’s’ classrooms were promoting science talk (academic discussion)
and the use of peer based learning activities. The participants integrated these instructional
approaches in their pedagogy to support the learning of ELL students. Future research on how to
fully implement these frameworks at the secondary level would be advantageous to expanding
the knowledge in this field. Studies could be conducted with secondary science teachers to
design and implement lessons based on these frameworks. Evaluative research to compare the
learning achievement of control and treatment groups could substantiate earlier assumptions that
these frameworks would be beneficial for secondary students.
Conclusion
This study set out to identify promising practices to support ELL students learning
science. The data reviewed in Chapter 1 indicated that ELL students are at a disadvantage in
their science achievement (U.S. Department of Education, 2013b). The latest data from PISA
was published during the data collection portion of this study (U.S. Department of Education,
2014). These recent data confirm that the opportunity gap in science still exists. Also during data
collection, the state of California adopted the Next Generation Science Standards. More rigorous
science curriculum based on the integrated Common Core and Next Generation standards is on
SCIENCE AND LITERACY INTEGRATION 166
the horizon. Science educators have the opportunity to work on the forefront of this change.
They will have time to revamp their curriculum as the standards change. The confirmation of the
opportunity gap for ELLs in science may encourage science educators and policy makers to
include pedagogy that supports ELL students. Planning curriculum and instruction with ELLs in
mind should be highly considered.
This study did identify some practices that suggest that they are beneficial to ELL
students. These practices are just a drop in the bucket; there is still much work to do. Science
educators could benefit from additional time and professional development to investigate other
promising practices that would be beneficial to their students. This focus on ELL students is not
only justified but necessary because the President Obama’s call to action to improve science
education is for all students, regardless of langue proficiency. Science education must be
accessible and understandable to all students, not just the ones who are proficient in English.

SCIENCE AND LITERACY INTEGRATION 167
References
Achieve, Inc. (2013). Next Generation Science Standards. Achieve, Inc. on behalf of the twenty-
six states and partners that collaborated on the NGSS.
Amaral, O.M., Garrison, L, & Klentschy, M. (2002). Helping English language learners increase
achievement through inquiry-based science instruction. Bilingual Research Journal,
26(2), 213-239.
American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). (1993). Benchmarks for science
literacy. New York: Oxford University Press.
Ballantyne, K.G., Sanderman, A.R., Levy, J. (2008). Educating English language learners:
Building teacher capacity. Washington, DC: National Clearinghouse for English
Language Acquisition. Available at
http://www.ncela.gwu.edu/practice/mainstream_teachers.htm.
Beck, I., McKeown, M. G., & Kucan, L. (2002). Bringing words to life: Robust vocabulary
instruction. Chapter 2: Choosing Words to Teach, pp. 15-30.
Beltran, D., Sarmiento, L.E., & More-Flores, E. (2013). Science for English language learners:
Developing academic language through inquiry-based instruction. Huntington Beach,
CA: Shell Education.
Blanchard, M.R., Southerland, S.A., Osborne J.W., Sampson, V.D., Annetta, L.A., & Granger,
E.M. (2010) Is inquiry possible in light of accountability?: A quantitative comparison of
the relative effectiveness of guided inquiry and verification laboratory instruction.
Science Education, 94(4), 577-616.
Block, D. (2003). The social turn in second language acquisition. Washington, DC: Georgetown
University Press.
SCIENCE AND LITERACY INTEGRATION 168
Bogdan, R. C., & Biklen, S. K. (2003). Chapter 3: Fieldwork. Qualitative research for
education: An introduction to theory and methods (pp. 73-108).
Bybee, R., Buchwald, C., Crissman, S., Heil, D., & Kuerbis, P. M. C. &McInernney,
J.(1989). Science and technology education for the elementary years: Frameworks for
curriculum and instruction. Andover, MA: National Center for Improving Science
Education.
Bybee, R.W., & Fuchs, B. (2006) Preparing the 21
st
century workforce: A new reform in science
and technology education. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43(4), 349-352.
California Department of Education (2012). School Accountability Report Card. Retrieved June
1, 2013 from www.cde.ca.gov.
Cantrell, S.C., Burns, L.D., & Callawy, P. (2009). Middle- and high-school content area
teachers’ perceptions about literacy teaching and learning. Literacy Research and
Instruction, 48, 76-94.
Cummins, J. (1991). Interdependence of first-and second-language proficiency in bilingual
children. Language processing in bilingual children, 70-89.
Daniels H., Zemelman, S., & Steineke, N. (2007). Content-area writing: Every teacher’s guide.
Portsmouth, NH: Heinmann.
Donnelly, L. A., & Sadler, T. D. (2009). High school science teachers' views of standards and
accountability. Science Education, 93(6), 1050-1075.
Durón-Flores, M, & Maciel, E. (2006). English language development and the science-literacy
connection. In R. Douglas, M.P. Klentschy, & K. Worth (Eds.), Linking science and
literacy in the K-8 classroom, 321-333. Arlington, VA: NSTA Press.
SCIENCE AND LITERACY INTEGRATION 169
Erickson, F. (1984) What makes school ethnography ‘Ethnographic’?. Anthropology &
Education Quarterly, 15, 51-66.
Fang, Z. & Schleppegrell, M.J. (2008). Reading in secondary content areas: A language-based
pedagogy. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
Fang, Z., & Wie, Y. (2010). Improving middle school students’ science literacy through reading
infusion. The Journal of Educational Research, 103, 262-273.
Fensham, P.J. (2011). Globalization of science education: Comment and a commentary. Journal
of Research in Science Teaching, 48(6), 698-709.
Fleckenstein, K.S. (2003). Embodied literacies: Imageword and a poetics of teaching.
Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.
Freeman, D.E, & Freeman, Y.S. (2001). Between words: Access to second language acquisition,
2
nd
ed. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Garcia, E. E. (1988). Attributes of effective schools for language minority students. Education
and Urban Society, 20(4), 387-398.
Gee, J. P. (1992). The social mind: Language, ideology, and social practice. JF Bergin &
Garvey.
Glaser, BG. & Strauss, AL. (1967). The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for
Qualitative Research. New York: Aldine De Gruyter.
Golafshani, N. (2003). Understanding reliability and validity in qualitative research. The
qualitative report, 8(4), 597-607.
Goldenberg, C. (2008). Teaching English language learners: What the research does-and does
not-say. American Educator, 32(2), 8-44.
SCIENCE AND LITERACY INTEGRATION 170
Green Dot Public Schools (2013). Mission and Model. Retrieved June1, 2013 from,
www.greendot.org.
Guglielmi, R.S. (2012). Math and science achievement in English language learners:
Multivariate latent growth modeling of predictors, mediators, and moderators. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 104(3), 580-602.
Guzzetti, B.J. & Bang, E. (2011). The influence of literacy-based science instruction on
adolescents’ interest, participation, and achievement in science. Literacy Research and
Instruction, 50, 44-67.
Haberman, M. (1991). The pedagogy of poverty versus good teaching. Phi Delta Kappan, 73(4),
290-294.
Hampton, E., & Rodriguez, R. (2001). Inquiry science in bilingual classrooms. Bilingual
Research Journal, 25(4).
Hand, B.M., Alvermann, D.E., Gee, J., Guzzetti, B.J., Norris, S.P., Phillips, L.M., Prain V., &
Yore, L.D. (2003). Message from “The Island Group”: What is literacy in science
literacy? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40(7), 607-615.
Herman, J.L., Wang, J., Rickles, J., Hsu, V., Monroe, S., Leon, S., & Straubhaar, R. (2012).
Evaluation of Green Dot’s Locke Transformation Project: Findings for cohort 1 and 2
students (CRESST Report 815). Los Angeles, CA: University of California, National
Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing (CRESST).
Hidi, S. & Renninger, K. A. (2006). The four-phase model of interest development. Educational
Psychologist, 41(2), 111-127.
Howes, E.V., Lim, M., & Campos, J. (2008). Journeys into inquiry-based elementary science:
literacy practices, questioning, and empirical study. Science Education, 93, 189-217.
SCIENCE AND LITERACY INTEGRATION 171
Huerta, M., & Jackson, J. (2010). Connecting literacy and science to increase achievement for
English language learners. Early Childhood Education Journal, 38, 205-211.
Kinsella, K (2012, September). Disrupting classroom discourse: Preparing diverse learners for
Common Core academic language demands. All Green Dot Day Professional
Development. Lecture conducted from Green Dot Public Schools, Los Angeles, CA.
Kirschner, P. A., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. E. (2006). Why minimal guidance during instruction
does not work: An analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based
experiential and inquiry-based teaching. Educational Psychologist, 41(2), 75-86.
Lee, O. (2005). Science education with English language learners: synthesis and research
agenda. Review of Educational Research, 75(4), 491-530.
Lee, O., & Avalos, M.A. (2002). Promoting science instruction and assessment for English
language learners. Electronic Journal of Science Education, 7(2).
Lee, O., & Fradd, S.H. (1996). Literacy skills in science: learning among linguistically diverse
students. Science Education, 80(6), 651-671.
Lee, O., & Fradd, S. H. (1998). Science for all, including students from non-English-language
backgrounds. Educational Researcher, 27(4), 12-21.
Lee, O., Lewis, S, Adamson, K., Maerten-Rivera, J., & Secada, W.G. (2007). Urban elementary
school teachers’ knowledge and practices in teaching science to English language
learners. Science Education, 92, 733-758.
Leier, R.D., and Fregeau, L.A. (2010). Critical issues in teaching science to Hispanic English
Laguage Learners. In Suanl, D.W., Sunal, C.S., & Wright, E.L. (Eds.), Teaching science
with Hispanic ELLs in K-16 classrooms (151-181). Charlotte, NC: Information Age
Publishing Inc.
SCIENCE AND LITERACY INTEGRATION 172
Mahn, H. (1999). Vygotsky’s methodological contribution to sociocultural theory. Remedial and
Special Education, 20(6), 341-350.
Maxwell, J. A. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (3
rd
ed.).
Los Angeles: Sage Publications.
McCarthy, C. B. (2005). Effects of thematic-based, hands-on science teaching versus a textbook
approach for students with disabilities. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42(3),
245-263.
Merriam, S. B. (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation.
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Menken, K. (2006). Teaching to the test: How no child left behind impacts language policy,
curriculum, and instruction for English language learners. Bilingual Research
Journal, 30(2), 521-546.
Moje, E. B., Collazo, T., Carrillo, R., & Marx, R. W. (2001). “Maestro, what is ‘quality’?”:
Language, literacy, and discourse in project ‐based science. Journal of Research in
Science Teaching, 38(4), 469-498.
National Governors Association Center for Best Practices, Council of Chief State School
Officers (2010). Common Core State Standards. Washington, D.C.: National Governors
Association Center for Best Practices, Council of Chief State School Officers.
National Council of Teachers of English (2008). English language learners: A policy research
brief. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.
National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. Washington, D.C.:
National Academy Press.
SCIENCE AND LITERACY INTEGRATION 173
National Research Council. (2000). Inquiry and the national science education standards: A
guide for teaching and learning. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. (2002). Public law 107-110-January 8, 2002. Washington,
DC: 107
th
Congress.
Obama, B.H. (2013, February). State of the Union Address. Speech presented at Washington,
D.C.
O’Neill, D.K., & Polman, J.L. (2004). Why educate “Little Scientists?” Examining the potential
of practice-based scientific literacy. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(3), 234-
266.
Payán, R. M., & Nettles, M. T. (2008). Current state of English-language learners in the US K-12
student population.
Pearson, P.D., Moje, E., & Greenleaf, C. (2010). Literacy and science: Each in the service of the
other. Science, 328, 459-463.
Rickels, J, Wang, J, & Herman, J. (2013). Evaluation of Green Dot’s Locke Transformation
Project: Supplemental Report on Cohort 2 Student Outcomes (CRESST Report 825). Los
Angeles, CA: University of California, National Center for Research on Evaluation,
Standards, and Student Testing (CRESST).
Santau, A. O., Maerten-Rivera, J. L. and Huggins, A. C. (2011). Science achievement of English
language learners in urban elementary schools: Fourth-grade student achievement results
from a professional development intervention. Science Education 95, 771–793.
Siry, C., Ziegler, G., & Max, C. (2012). “Doing science” through discourse-in-interaction:
Young children’s science investigations at the early childhood level. Science Education,
96(2), 311-336.
SCIENCE AND LITERACY INTEGRATION 174
Smagorinsky, P. (2007). Vygotsky and the social dynamics of classrooms. The English Journal,
97(2), 61-66.
Snow, C.E. (2010). Academic language and the challenge of reading for learning about science.
Science, 328, 450-452.
Spring, J. (2008). Globalization of education: An introduction. New York, NY: Routledge.
Stoddart, T.S., Bravo, M.A., Solis, J.L., Mosqueda, E., & Rodriguez, A. (2011, April). Effective
science teaching for English language learners (ESTELL): Measuring pre-service
teacher practices. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational
Research Association, New Orleans.
Stoddart, T.S., Pinal, A., Latzke, M., & Canaday, D. (2002). Integrating inquiry science and
language development for English language learners. Journal of Research in Science
Teaching, 39(8), 664-687.
Stoddart, T.S., Solis, J, Tolbert, S., & Bravo, M. (2010). A framework for the effective science
teaching of English language learners in elementary schools. In Suanl, D.W., Sunal, C.S.,
& Wright, E.L. (Eds.), Teaching science with Hispanic ELLs in K-16 classrooms (151-
181). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing Inc.
Strauss, A. & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of Qualitative Research: Grounded Theory Procedures
and Techniques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
Taylor, A. R., Jones, M. G., Broadwell, B., & Oppewal, T. (2008). Creativity, inquiry, or
accountability? Scientists' and teachers' perceptions of science education. Science
Education, 92(6), 1058-1075.
Taylor-Powell, E., & Renner, M. (2003). Analyzing Qualitative Data. Program Development &
Evaluation, University of Wisconsin-Extension (G3658-12).
SCIENCE AND LITERACY INTEGRATION 175
Tolman, D. L., & Brydon-Miller, M. E. (2001). From subjects to subjectivities: A handbook of
interpretive and participatory methods. New York University Press.
Tweed, A. (2009). Designing effective science instruction: What works in science classrooms.
Arlington, VA: NSTA Press.
U.S. Department of Education. Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education
Statistics (2013a). International data explorer. Retrieved June 17, 2013 from:
http://nces.ed.gov/timss/idetimss/.
U.S. Department of Education. Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education
Statistics (2013b). International data explorer. Retrieved June 17, 2013 from:
http://nces.ed.gov/surveys/pisa/idepisa/.
U.S. Department of Education. Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education
Statistics (2013c). NAEP data explorer. Retrieved June 17, 2013 from:
http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/NDEHelp/WebHelp/welcome_to_the_naep_data_ex
plorer.htm.
Valdes, G. (2001). Learning and not learning English: Latino students in American
schools. New York: Teachers College Press.
Van Compernolle, R.A., & Williams, L. (2012). Promoting sociolinguistic competence in the
classroom zone of proximal development. Language Teaching Research, 16(1), 39-60.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological
processes. (M. Cole, V. John-Steiner, S. Scribner, & E. Souberman, Eds.). Cambridge,
Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.
Weiss, R. S. (1994). Chapters 4 and 5. Learning from Strangers: The art and method of
qualitative interview studies (pp. 61-81, 141-150). New York: The Free Press.
SCIENCE AND LITERACY INTEGRATION 176
Westby, C., Dezale, J., Fradd, S.H., & Lee, O. (1999). Learning to do science: Influences of
culture and language. Communications Disorder Quarterly, 21(1), 50-64.
Westby, C., & Torres-Velaquez, D. (2000). Developing scientific literacy. Remedial and Special
Education, 21(2), 101-110.
Woolfolk, A. (2001). Educational Psychology, 8
th
ed. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

SCIENCE AND LITERACY INTEGRATION 177
Appendix A
Interview Protocol
Sample Interview Questions (for teachers)
Interviewer: ________________________
Interviewee:________________________ Date:____________
Location:__________________________ Time:___________
Opening Script
Thank you __________ for agreeing to conduct this interview with me. The total interview
should only take between 15-20 minutes. Your contributions to my research study are greatly
appreciated.
As you may or may not know, I am conducting a study on science instruction, with an emphasis
on literacy and supports for English Language Learners. My purpose is to identify promising
practices for other science educators.
I will ask you general questions about science teaching, and then I will ask questions relating to
the themes of literacy and English Language Learners. Are there any questions so far?
If it is ok with you, I will record this interview so I can reference our conversation at a later
point. I will take some notes during the interview, but I want to focus on our conversation. All
transcripts from the interview and any written reports will not include your name. Are you ok
with me recording the interview?
Let’s go ahead and get started with the interview questions.

SCIENCE AND LITERACY INTEGRATION 178
Rapport Building
1. How long have you been teaching? How long at this site?
2. Why did you want to become a science teacher?
3. What is the best part of teaching science?
4. What don’t you like about teaching science?
Theme 1: Science Teaching Pedagogy
5. In your opinion, what is effective science teaching?
6. What are some strategies you use to build student interest in science?
a. Can you provide a specific example?
b. How do you measure their interest? How do you know they are interested?
7. There is literature about the need to build scientific “habits of mind” in students. What
does this expression mean to you?
8. How do you have students build scientific “habits of mind”?
a. Are students participating in class any differently since the start of the school year
in your class?
9. How do you incorporate student background knowledge/experiences into your
curriculum?
a. Why do you try to access student background knowledge in your curriculum?
b. Have you noticed any effects, beneficial or otherwise?
10. What is the role of inquiry in science learning?
a. How often do you incorporate inquiry into your class?
b. What has been the most successful aspect of inquiry?
c. What have been some of the pitfalls, if any, of inquiry in your classroom?
SCIENCE AND LITERACY INTEGRATION 179
Theme 2: Literacy
11. What is your view of literacy instruction?
a. How do you see literacy instruction fitting into your content area?
12. How do you incorporate literacy in your classroom?
a. Can you provide specific examples?
b. What do you see as the benefits? Are there any drawbacks?
13. In what ways do students use texts in your classroom?
a. Could you be specific about the types of texts you use?
b. How often do they engage with texts?
c. Can you describe any ways you assist students to use text that involve literacy
processes, like pre-reading strategies, etc.
Theme 3: Supports for English Language Learners
14. How many English Language Learners do you teach in your caseload?
a. How many are in each period?
b. What training have you had in teaching and assessing ELLs?
c. What information do you think is most important to know about ELLs?
d. How do you gather this data about your ELLs?
e. Have you noticed anything interesting about how they learn science?
15. Do you have a specific approach to teaching science to ELLs?
a. What are the benefits of this approach?
16. Are the ELLs in your class assessed any differently from the other students?
a. What are your views of this type of assessment?
17. How do you know ELLs require additional support in your content class?
SCIENCE AND LITERACY INTEGRATION 180
a. If ELLs require additional support, what are specific strategies you use to make
the content accessible to ELLs?
b. If additional strategies are used, how would you evaluate their effectiveness?
c. What is it like to implement additional strategies for ELLs while teaching the
entire class? How do non-ELL students respond to this instruction?
Closing
18. How has your approach to teaching science changed throughout your career?
19. What advice would you give to a new science teacher entering the profession and at this
school site?

Closing Script
Thank you so much for your time. I truly appreciate your contributions to my study and for
sharing your expertise. Do you have any questions for me?

SCIENCE AND LITERACY INTEGRATION 181
Appendix B
Follow Up Interview Protocol
1. How did you incorporate science literacy and academic literacy in the lesson I observed?
2. What were the benefits of integrating science content, scientific literacy, and academic
literacy?

3. How do you think the ELLs responded to the lesson?
4. Do you feel like their literacy was supported or further developed?
5. Is the lesson I observed a typical lesson?
6. What about this lesson is atypical to your practice?
7. What other pedagogical approaches have you used in teaching science?
8. What would you do differently in follow up lessons?
9. I saw ____________________ during the observation, can you explain what was
happening?

10. Comments from observations:

SCIENCE AND LITERACY INTEGRATION 182
Appendix C: Observation Protocol
Research Goal:
 Observe integration of science literacy and academic literacy teaching
 Identify promising practices that support ELL students learn science
Location:____________________ Teacher Name:__________________ Room #_______
Date:_________________ Time:_____________ Period:_________
Classroom layout:

Lesson Objective:

Lesson Agenda:

Evidence from posted student work samples or posters:
SCIENCE AND LITERACY INTEGRATION 183
Classroom Observation:
Time
(10 minute time markers)
Teacher Actions Student Actions
(note their responses to
literacy instruction and level
of engagement)
Beginning time:

SCIENCE AND LITERACY INTEGRATION 184
Observation Wrap-Up (Reflection Questions)
1. What was the general tone of the classroom?
2. What was the general level of rapport between teacher and students?
3. What was the general level of rapport between students?
4. What evidence was there of instruction related to scientific literacy (inquiry process)?
5. What evidence was there of instruction of academic literacy?
6. What supports were present for English Language Learners?
7. Thoughts for follow up observation(s) and/or interview(s):

SCIENCE AND LITERACY INTEGRATION 185
Appendix D
Charter School District Data for 2011-2012 School Year
School
Name
# Enrolled % Latino % African
American
% Socio-
economically
Disadvantaged
% ELL

School #1

622

78.6%

17.7%

93.7%

14.6%

School #2

621

97.9%

1%

94.9%

18.4%

School #3

588

98.8%

0.2%

98%

24.2%

School #4

617

56.4%

36%

93.4%

10.2%

School #5

549

88.5%

4.4%

88.3%

18.6%

SCIENCE AND LITERACY INTEGRATION 186
Appendix E
Timeline for Data Collection

Time Activity
September, 2013

Proposal Defense
September, 2013

Submitted IRB Proposal
September, 2013

Received IRB Clearance
October, 2013

Collaborated with Ms. Diaz, Mr. Smith, and
school principals to gain access to
participants and select participants for
research study
October-November, 2013 Emailed potential participants requesting
their participation in research study

December, 2013 -Interview #1 (using protocol from Appendix
A)
-Observation #1

-Interview #2 (follow up interview)
January, 2014 -Observation #2

-Interview #3 (follow up interview)
Late January-early February, 2014 -Observation #3

Late February, 2014

Final member checking of data
March, 2014 Data reporting

Ongoing Document and artifact collection

SCIENCE AND LITERACY INTEGRATION 187
Appendix F
Directions on the CATCH reading method taken from a Charter School District professional
development.

The CATCH Method
Good readers always annotate or mark up the text. It is a good way to test yourself to see if you
understood what you’ve just read.

1. Circle any words you don’t know and try to figure out what you’ve just read.
2. Ask questions “Does this mean...?”
3. Talk to the text
a. Make predictions, text to text, text to self, text to world connections, comments,
visualize
4. Capture the main idea
5. Highlight (find evidence)

Photo taken from Minnie’s classroom:

SCIENCE AND LITERACY INTEGRATION 188

Appendix G

Word bank taken from an observation of Esther:

SCIENCE AND LITERACY INTEGRATION 189

Appendix H
Sample AMPed article taken from Minnie’s classroom:

SCIENCE AND LITERACY INTEGRATION 190
Appendix I
Photos taken from Minnie’s classroom as models of her annotoation strategy:

Abstract (if available)

Abstract The recent adoption of the Next Generation Science Standards and the Common Core State Standards called for changes to science education in the United States. The new standards emphasize an integrated approach to teaching science concepts and habits of mind through inquiry and literacy teaching practices. These habits of mind are necessary to meet the demands of college level science courses. However, data from international assessments of science achievement indicate that U.S. students underperform in science and the achievement of English Language Learners (ELLs) is significantly less than their native English speaking peers. This study aimed to identify current teacher perceptions and practices on the integration of science content and literacy in their curriculum in light of the new standards. Furthermore, a goal of this study was to identify promising practices for educating ELLs in secondary science classes. Qualitative methods were used for data collection. Three semi‐structured interviews and three classroom observations were conducted with four secondary biology and/or anatomy‐physiology teachers at two charter high schools located within a large urban city in southern California. Both school sites contained significant populations of ELL students. Constant comparative methods were used for data analysis. The findings for this study were that teachers viewed literacy as an important tool to teach scientific concepts. Teachers were able to integrate literacy through close reading and academic discussion. Furthermore, ELLs were supported through the instructional scaffolds in vocabulary instruction and peer‐based learning activities. An additional finding was that inquiry was viewed as an important tool for teaching science

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Perceptions of grade 4-6 teachers on historic failure of English language learners on standardized assessment

PDF

Support for English learners: an examination of the impact of teacher education and professional development on teacher efficacy and English language instruction

PDF

Effective coaching of teachers to support learning for English language learners

PDF

Equitable learning opportunities for English Language Learners

PDF

Teach them to read: implementing high leverage pedagogical practices to increase English language learner academic achievement

PDF

The beliefs and related practices of effective teacher leaders who support culturally and linguistically diverse learners

PDF

Reflective practice and pre-service language teacher preparation

PDF

Perception of alternative education teachers readiness to instruct English language learners: an evaluation study

PDF

Preservice teacher preparation for engineering integration in K-5

PDF

Teacher perceptions of instructional practices for long-term English learners

PDF

A community cultural capital approach: bilingual teachers' perceptions and impact in their dual language immersion classroom

PDF

Examining the relationship between knowledge, perception and principal leadership for standard English learners (SELs): a case study

PDF

Leadership strategies employed by K-12 urban superintendents to improve the academic achievement of English language learners

PDF

A case study on influences of mainstream teachers' instructional decisions and perceptions of English learners in Hawai'i public secondary education

PDF

Building teacher competency to work with middle school long-term English language learners: an improvement model

PDF

STEM integration: a case study of a 21st century skills professional development program for math and science teachers in an urban school

PDF

How are teachers being prepared to integrate technology into their lessons?

PDF

Arts integration for standard English learners: implications for learning academic language

PDF

Examining teachers' roles in English learners achievement in language arts: a gap analysis

PDF

Leadership strategies employed by K-12 urban superintendents to improve the academic achievement of English language learners

Asset Metadata

Creator McDonnell, Ryan William (author)

Core Title An investigation on the integration of science and literacy for English language learners

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Leadership)

Publication Date 09/10/2014

Defense Date 04/29/2014

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag English learners,Literacy,OAI-PMH Harvest,pedagogy,Science education,teacher perceptions

Format application/pdf (imt)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Carbone, Paula M. (committee chair), Freking, Frederick W. (committee member), Sinatra, Gale M. (committee member)

Creator Email rwmcdonnell@gmail.com

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c3-474709

Unique identifier UC11287105

Identifier etd-McDonnellR-2912.pdf (filename),usctheses-c3-474709 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-McDonnellR-2912.pdf

Dmrecord 474709

Document Type Dissertation

Format application/pdf (imt)

Rights McDonnell, Ryan William

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the a...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA